<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16705" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Nick queries "relying on G&J notice
boards in towers" when (as he observes) "these often conflict with the tuning
books"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>I'd urge caution here - because for the
most part tower notices <STRONG>ARE</STRONG> reliable (as I'll explain). The
diffculty that Nick refers to is a fairly limited problem, and one that
isn't immediately apparent to people who obtain data from Alan Buswell's mostly
excellent database because calculated figures (explained below) are not
identified separately from those where full information is available from the
records. I'd like to expand on this a little, as I've used the original records,
gratefully received data from Alan, and collected data from tower
notices.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>I say "mostly excellent", because I have
only one real quibble with it and that - as Alan well knows because we've
exchanged many e-mails on the subject - is in respect of the treatment of those
entries (mostly in the period 1907 to 1920) for which the tuning book
entries are incomplete. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>The basics are that tower notices and
tuning book data generally match after around 1920. There are, of course,
occasional irreconcilable difficulties (e.g. Ropley tenor) but these are rare in
the later period and may simply be the result of clerical error. There is an
added complication that the "cast weights" were published in error in the
G&J catalogues for some of the tenors of this period - perhaps reinforcing a
perception that tower notices could be wrong.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>The problem is in the earlier
period, 1907 to 1920, where the tuning book details are incomplete. The
books generally give a cast weight, and there are figures for tunings and
borings. - with another column (often left blank) for tuned or finished
weight. Alan has used an x minus y minus z formula to calculate the tuned
weight in such cases - sensible enough on the face of it, I agree - but it is
<STRONG>these</STRONG> calculated weights that very often differ from those
found on the belfry notices.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>I'm uncomfortable about using these
calculated weights for two reasons. First, because the belfry notice figures for
this period generally do tally (and the calculations don't!!) where there are
fully completed tuning book entries. Second, because the later belfry notices
seem to be "99.5%" okay too. It needs to be borne in mind that we only have
the far copy tuning books - few of the other foundry records survive - and
it's possible that from 1907 to 1920 the finished or tuned weights were
generally recorded elsewhere, i.e. in another record series that no longer
exists (e.g. in the invoice books). The clockmaking firm has some of the
pre-1920 order books, and where weights have been entered in these
(infrequently, alas) they too tally with the tower notices.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>So my view, is that tower notices are
probably the best source for G&J weights where the tuning book details are
left unfinished. I'd personally prefer to see the tower notice details
"reinstated" on Dove for rings like Launton, Wickwar and Carisbrooke
(examples from memory so please excuse me if these are in fact showing tower
notice values) instead of the "calculated" values" that are shown now, but I
don't feel strongly enough about it to make a fuss.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>The answer to resolving discrepancies
must lie in checking all available sources - tuning books, tower notices, the
catalogues (although these need to be used with caution) and (where they
exist) contemporary documents like invoices preserved with the parish records.
Substituting the "calculated values" is not, I feel, the answer at all.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>No disrespect intended to Alan on this.
Indeed, it is a good opportunity to publicly acknowledge the excellent work that
he has done over the years in securing the safe custody of the records (now in
Croydon archives), compiling his admirable database and in patiently answering a
great number of enquiries. Thanks, Alan, on behalf of many grateful
"customers"!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>CP</FONT><!--End group email --></DIV></BODY></HTML>