<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On 28/01/2022 09:21, c.j.pickford--- via Bell-historians wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:091b01d81428$61716b60$24544220$@talk21.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Lastly, when it comes to clocks and chimes the word "chime" was generally reserved for a chiming mechanism (a "carillon machine" in common parlance) rather than the chimes of a clock (see Beeson's "English Church Clocks 1280-1850". The word more commonly used was "quarten" for the clock chimes. Also, it's quite common for church inventories to refer to "clock & chimes", i.e. as separate mechanisms. These are very broad generalisations, of course, but I suggest (being a turret clock historian as well as a bell man) that it's wise to start from an assumption that these distinctions apply. Of course, if demonstrable instances of other verbal usages arise then they should be accepted.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I can only fully agree; this certainly fits exactly with the few
records I've come across. My error was in a poor turn of phrase. I
would imagine that, at first, clock and chime technology were
complex arts understood by few, plus the latter would have been
developed later than the former; therefore it would have been
'bolted onto' it as a separate mechanism. Only over time did the two
become combined.<br>
<br>
One last thought on the numbers; Could whoever scratched them have
been listening to a ring and tried to note it down, but got it
wrong? Is it <i>almost </i>like a known ring?<br>
<br>
Lawrence<br>
</body>
</html>