[Bell Historians] Preservation lists

[Chris Pickford]

As a known maverick on these things, I'm not a great believer in listing -
or in the preservation lists. But we're in danger of confusing what the
lists are for. They aren't about quality (sadly) but about historical
significance or (as Stephen Ivin - possibly quoting Paul Taylor) once
expressed it rather well) preserving bells because we happen to know what
the founder had for breakfast on the day they were cast!

I'm not very keen on Wolverhampton either - but as the first true-harmonic
twelve (what a pity Taylors didn't pip Gilletts to it and produce a first
class one between 1896 and 1911) they do have historical significance. But
does this mean we should prevent future improvement?

Chris P


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mr J Greenhough" <j.greenhough at w...>
To: <bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Preservation lists


> my feelings exactly! the front 8 are fine but the back end could pass for
old
> bells.
>
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, David Bryant wrote:
>
> > I've not rung on them (Wolverhampton). I was listing them from rather
> > because they are historically important - the first complete
> > harmonically tuned 12. I've got a friend who knows them and reckons the
> > back 4 are crap and spoil the ring.
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
>
>
> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>