[Bell Historians] Baldersby and Kingweston

[Mr J Greenhough]

A ringer with a good musical ear told me they sound a bit rough! Not
unlike
St.Silas, Blackburn, also 1880s, which have been retuned. As for Harrison,
there's all you could want to know in Bells of Lincs (Ketteringham).

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.
>