[Bell Historians] Baldersby and Kingweston
djb122 at y...
Tue Feb 12 13:58:56 GMT 2002
I should have added that Taylor's also cast some real crap in the 1850s!
Most of their 1860s stuff, in my experience, is even worse as a result
of the Grimthorpe influence - I haven't rung at Mirfield (1869) but they
are reckoned to be really bad. On the other hand, the 1869 tenor at
Bridgwater has tuned up really well, and is now effectively almost
Simpson. It seems the cae that the really good bells of this era are
usually the larger ones of rings.
It seems difficult to see what Taylor's were up to in these decades.
They could cast good stuff and will certainly have recognised it as
such, and yet they could cast some real junk. I don't think anyone's
really looked into the tonal analysis of Taylor bells from this period
on a wide ranging sample. Bill Hibbert (a member of this list) is
currently looking into the transition to Simpson tuning in the 1880s and
90s and his conclusions show that Taylor's were in advance of Simpson -
hence their refusal to use the term 'Simpson-tuned'. While we're on the
subject, does anybody have details of any complete 1880s or 90s Taylor
rings, preferably 8 or more, which have not been tuned. I'm certainly
interested in any bells from this period, and I know Bill is also.
Mr J Greenhough wrote:
> These sound worth a visit, quite the opposite of Healey (Rochdale): an
> 1850 Taylor 6 sounding rather T.Mears-ish! The 1845 Taylor tenor at
> Marston, Warks, is quite good with a slightly flat octave hum. Better
> still the 1865 four at Stainby, Lincs, (in original frame & fitts)
> where the
> hums are 7th on treble, flattening down the scale to the octave tenor
> which is beautiful. The 1867 17-1-7 in F# at Hope, Gtr.Manch., (also
> still ringable in original inst.) has a very near octave hum and a
> tone. Just what did they aim for, and how much control did they have
> at this
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, David Bryant wrote:
> > > seem risky, a bit like Baldersby!
> > Baldersby - now there's a tower I must visit. I believe the bells
> > tonally very good (1857 Taylor's, in case anyone didn't know).
> > Taylor's were actually casting some really good stuff in the 1850s.
> > Kingweston in Somerset there is a fascinating 1854 installation -
> > shoe-horn job! The frame is 2-tier, cast iron H's below, A's above,
> > oak bearers. I believe it's one of Taylor's ealiest cast iron frames
> > the cross bars each have a recess in them for the bearing brass. The
> > bells themselves, a five with a tenor of 14 cwt in E, are superb.
> > back three are maiden, but are very close to Simpson. The trebles
> > been tuned, and are quite good 'old-style'. I have some pictures -
> > anyone's interested I can stick a few on the 'pictures' section of
> > home page for the list.
> > It seems likely that if it wasn't for Lord Grimthorpe and his
> > ideas about bell profiles Taylor's would have perfected
> > tuning much earlier than they did.
> > David
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > ADVERTISEMENT
> > This message was sent to you via the Bell Historians' Mailing List.
> > unsubscribe from the list send an email to
> > bellhistorians-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> This message was sent to you via the Bell Historians' Mailing List. To
> unsubscribe from the list send an email to
> bellhistorians-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
More information about the Bell-historians