<div dir="auto"><div>But the source document states 1338 -  1382 re the bellframe - see 2nd date.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Ken</div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 20 Sept 2026, 22:38 Richard Smith via Bell-historians, <<a href="mailto:bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk">bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
On Sun 20 Sept 2026 22:10, Richard Bimson wrote:<br>
<br>
> For the dating of the belfry timbers see the VAG's dendrochronology database<br>
> <br>
> <a href="https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/vag_dendro/full_record.cfm?id=1153" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/vag_dendro/full_record.cfm?id=1153</a><br>
<br>
Thanks.  So it is the timber tower that was dated to 1365–91, not the <br>
bell frame.<br>
<br>
RAS<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bell-historians mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Bell-historians@lists.ringingworld.co.uk</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>