[Bell Historians] Baldersby and Kingweston

[Mr J Greenhough]

Mossley - 1880s I think but I haven't been or heard them. Fred Pembleton
rehung them about 18 months ago. I can ring up someone who'll know if
you're really desparate!

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, David Bryant wrote:

> what date are they, and how good?
>
> D
>
> Mr J Greenhough wrote:
> >
> > St.George, Mossley, Gtr.Manch. - rehung recently and not allowed to
> > retune!
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, David Bryant wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > Priors
> > > > 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
> > > > bright
> > > > tone. Just what did they aim for, and how much control did they
> > have
> > > > at this
> > > > time?
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > > > are
> > > > > tonally very good (1857 Taylor's, in case anyone didn't know).
> > > > >
> > > > > Taylor's were actually casting some really good stuff in the
> > 1850s.
> > > > At
> > > > > Kingweston in Somerset there is a fascinating 1854 installation
> > -
> > > > real
> > > > > shoe-horn job! The frame is 2-tier, cast iron H's below, A's
> > above,
> > > > on
> > > > > 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.
> > > > The
> > > > > back three are maiden, but are very close to Simpson. The
> > trebles
> > > > have
> > > > > been tuned, and are quite good 'old-style'. I have some pictures
> > -
> > > > If
> > > > > anyone's interested I can stick a few on the 'pictures' section
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > home page for the list.
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems likely that if it wasn't for Lord Grimthorpe and his
> > > > strange
> > > > > ideas about bell profiles Taylor's would have perfected
> > > > true-harmonic
> > > > > tuning much earlier than they did.
> > > > >
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > > > ADVERTISEMENT
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > >                        ADVERTISEMENT
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > ADVERTISEMENT
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> >                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >                        ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> 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.
>