<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> </head> <body><div class="auto-created-dir-div" dir="auto" style="unicode-bidi: embed;"><style>p{margin:0}</style><div>Could it also have been because the treble was chimed as a service bell, so wouldn't want to fit a silencer?</div><p><br></p><p>Phil Gay<br></p><br><blockquote style="margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 2em; border-left:2px solid #00ADE5; white-space: pre-wrap "><br><br>------ Original Message ------<br>From: "Gareth Davies via Bell-historians" <bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk><br>To: "Bell Historians" <bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk><br>Cc: "Gareth Davies" <charollais@gmail.com><br>Sent: Monday, 29 Jan, 24 At 13:38<br>Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Old frame at great st mary's cambridge<br><br>Perfectly possible. I haven’t come across anything that explains the decision. Boughey’s original request to the church specifically asked if the university ringers could have it installed on 'on the eight highest bells (which are the lightest & the least used)’. There must have been some practical reason for later avoiding the treble. <br>
<br>
Gareth<br>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="3" bgcolor="#888888"></td><td width="3"></td><td width="3"></td><td>On 29 Jan 2024, at 12:44, Richard Smith <<span class="wt_Email">richard@ex-parrot.com</span><span></span>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks, both, for your clarifications on which bells the Seage apparatus used. Happy to accept it was definitely 2 to 9. I wonder whether the decision to put it on these eight bells, rather than the front eight, was related to the fact that the treble seems to have been rather cramped in the corner by the clock weight shaft and raise back bell platform?<br>
<br>
RAS<br>
<br>
<br>
David Bagley wrote:<br>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="3" bgcolor="#888888"></td><td width="3"></td><td width="3"></td><td>In my research into the history of ringing simulators, I have found a reference to the Seage apparatus at GSM in the first volume of Bell news, which clearly states that "Mr Seage of Exeter has lately finished putting up his Dumb Practice Apparatus... The apparatus has been fixed to the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth of the ring of twelve. The ninth weighs about 16cwt."<br>
<br>
In the issue of Bell News of Jan 30th 1897, there is a report of a peal being rung on the dumb apparatus on Wednesday 27th January, giving the tenor as 17cwt. (That's a pretty fast turn around from the peal being rung to it being printed!)<br>
<br>
David<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Bell-historians <<span class="wt_Email">bell-historians-bounces@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</span><span></span>> On Behalf Of Gareth Davies via Bell-historians<br>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 11:53 AM<br>
To: Bell Historians <<span class="wt_Email">bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</span><span></span>><br>
Cc: Gareth Davies <<span class="wt_Email">charollais@gmail.com</span><span></span>><br>
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Old frame at great st mary's cambridge<br>
<br>
Just a minor clarification on RAS’s email. There is little doubt that the Seage’s apparatus was fixed to bells 2-9. Correspondence between Taylor’s and the church in 1911 confirms that they were going to re-fix it to those bells after re-hanging work.<br>
<br>
Gareth<br>
<br>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="3" bgcolor="#888888"></td><td width="3"></td><td width="3"></td><td>On 27 Jan 2024, at 22:57, c.j.pickford--- via Bell-historians <<span class="wt_Email">bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</span><span></span>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Sorry you hadn't seen it before. I dug out the details for Gareth when he was digging in Taylors' archives for stuff on GSM. I imagine it was the ten-bell frame altered - which would explain the siting of the treble, although the others must have been shunted around a bit too to get an extra pit in.<br>
<br>
Chris Pickford<br>
Westray, Bowling Green Lane, Knighton, Powys, LD7 1DS<br>
Tel: 07811-453525<br>
e-mail: <span class="wt_Email">pickford5040@gmail.com</span><span></span><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Bell-historians<br>
<<span class="wt_Email">bell-historians-bounces@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</span><span></span>> On Behalf Of<br>
Richard Smith<br>
Sent: 27 January 2024 22:46<br>
To: Bell Historians Mailing List<br>
<<span class="wt_Email">bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</span><span></span>><br>
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Old frame at great st mary's cambridge<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks for posting this, Chris, as I hadn't seen the details of the old frame layout either.<br>
<br>
It's consistent with what I knew. I'm told by the late Chris Johnson, who rang regularly on them regularly while they were still anticlockwise, that the ringing room used to have a raised platform on the north side from which the back three bells were rung. You can still see signs of where this must have been if you lift the carpet.<br>
<br>
The bells from the old Seage apparatus were mounted high on the north wall behind the tenors. It was only fitted on eight bells – accounts vary whether this was 2-9 or 1-8 – but was not in use by the early '50s.<br>
<br>
Chris also said that the northwest corner around the treble was rather cramped, with the tenor and treble ropes falling quite close together. This frame diagram seems to bear that out, and there must have been a fair amount of rope draw around that corner. It probably also didn't help that the clock weight shaft was in that corner, though I don't know whether it went through the bell frame or stopped below that level. The bell chamber floor was entirely replaced during the work in the 1950s, so there's no evidence left there.<br>
<br>
Also interesting to see that the sanctus bell – we now call it the priest's bell – was in the middle of the north wall, and I wonder whether it was in use at all at this time. So far as I can see, the only rope path down to the church is in the southeast corner of the ringing room. But perhaps it wasn't used during the early twentieth century.<br>
<br>
After the rehang in the '50s, it was hung on a lever for chiming in the middle of the east side of the bell chamber, again between 10 and 11. It's now mounted above the clock bells in the southeast corner. I think I've seen it used once in the 28 years I've been ringing at GSM. A shame, really, as it's not a bad little bell; I suspect the work of Richard Holdfield or possibly the first Tobias Norris.<br>
<br>
RAS<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
c.j.pickford--- via Bell-historians wrote:<br>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="3" bgcolor="#888888"></td><td width="3"></td><td width="3"></td><td><br>
Yes, they were anti-clockwise. Here is Paul Taylor’s sketch plan of<br>
the old frame layout, drawn in 1949<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Chris Pickford<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Bell-historians<br>
<<span class="wt_Email">bell-historians-bounces@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</span><span></span>> On Behalf Of<br>
oliver Lee via Bell-historians<br>
Sent: 27 January 2024 22:11<br>
To: <span class="wt_Email">Bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</span><span></span><br>
Cc: oliver Lee <<span class="wt_Email">oliverbellringer@outlook.com</span><span></span>><br>
Subject: [Bell Historians] Old frame at great st mary’s cambridge<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
According to many old sources there is some suggestion that the pre<br>
1952 frame orginally anti-clockwise and this is also true of the old<br>
ten at Maidstone ( which where of course recast five years later in<br>
1957), I have often wondered what their layouts where and weather<br>
there are any plans of them prior to removal.<br>
<br>
I’d be interested to know more<br>
<br>
Many thanks<br>
<br>
Oliver lees<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</td></tr></tbody></table><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bell-historians mailing list<br>
<span class="wt_Email">Bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</span><span></span><br>
<a target="_blank" href="https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians">https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians</a><br>
</td></tr></tbody></table><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bell-historians mailing list<br>
<span class="wt_Email">Bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</span><span></span><br>
<a target="_blank" href="https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians">https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bell-historians mailing list<br>
<span class="wt_Email">Bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</span><span></span><br>
<a target="_blank" href="https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians">https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians</a><br>
</td></tr></tbody></table>_______________________________________________<br>
Bell-historians mailing list<br>
<span class="wt_Email">Bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</span><span></span><br>
<a target="_blank" href="https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians">https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians</a><br>
</td></tr></tbody></table><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bell-historians mailing list<br>
<span class="wt_Email">Bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</span><span></span><br>
<a target="_blank" href="https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians">https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians</a><br>
</blockquote></div></body></html>