<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=utf-8 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18854"></HEAD>
<BODY
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>"I should have worded my question differently. As a
complete ring by Charles and
<DIV>George Mears, are they in any way remarkable or unique ?"</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Have to say I think this is the sort of view which leads to problems.
Rather than a presumption in favour of replacement (should it be desired),
we seem all too often to actively look for reasons why something is unique or
worthy of preservation - and it's getting worse. Taken to extremes this will
lead to bloated listed bells lists, and being unable to see the wood for the
trees - not to mention being unable to do anything in many cases because
somebody at some point has decided that some bell or other (or more
problematically a frame) should be preserved.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bell history is in many ways an aspect of industrial archaeology, but the
attitude to preservation seems to be fundamentally at odds with much else in
this area. Take trains as just one example. When they have reached the end of
their useful lives, most of them will be scrapped and a few will be acquired by
preservation societies or museums, and some new and shiny ones more suited to
modern requirements will take their place. The same is true of most other
examples of mechanical engineering.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>With bells, though, we seem to be increasingly getting to a point where
many are actively looking for reasons to keep things. Yes, of course some things
are worth keeping, but listing a bell on the basis that it was the last bell of
the month cast by Fred Bloggs in October 1880, or whatever, is not a
positive or useful step. Remember that we only have the variety now because
of a presumption in the past of replacement when required (subject to finance)
rather than trying to make the best of the inadequate. We should not be trying
to preserve in aspic: If something old can be reused sensibly all well and good,
but I see little merit in keeping (for example) a knackered frame because
some conservation body says so, with the result that the bells go like the sides
of houses or a new frame will be installed lower in the tower and the bells will
be inaudible even a short distance away, while the old frame rots abandoned and
unvisited higher in the tower.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bells aren't quite such a problem, but a toneless bell can ruin a
ring. If it's really worth keeping then it perhaps is appropriate to
preserve it out of the ring, otherwise scrap or sell it. Needless listing will
just add to the cost of projects and lead to unwanted bells of questionable
historical merit clogging up churches and museums - and if it's the whole
ring which is listed there is potentially a major problem in this area.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So, to answer your specific question, no I don't think a mid-Victorian ten
by a prolific and not particularly talented founder should be listed for
preservation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>David</DIV></FONT></DIV><!-- end group email --></BODY></HTML>