<!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 6.00.2900.5803" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Glad to see that a bit of provocation
still causes the old WA dog to bark!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>Of course all the counties listed by CD
have SOME good rings - and I agree that some of the worst Kentish rings have
been improved by tuning or "re-processing" in recent years - but the
exceptions don't necessarily invalidate the judgment. There's still a
predominance of pretty grotty sounding stuff in quite a few areas - and I'm not
quite sure how East Anglia escaped CD's condemnation (or perhaps it didn't and
I'd just forgotten).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>As to the best, I'd nominate Yorkshire -
not only because it has a real wealth of very fine rings, but also for the
potential fun of watching the tykes squabble over which Riding or what modern
administrative area has the best bells. Squabble among themselves, that is,
after the War of the Roses had ended with Lancashire conceding that
although its best rings hold their own in any contest their county still has
more than its share of C18th and C19th rings of indifferent character.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2>CP</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=2></FONT> </DIV><!--End group email --></BODY></HTML>