FW: Light Front Bells

[Andrew Aspland]

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Aspland [mailto:aaspland at s...]
Sent: 19 February 2002 19:09
To: Bellhistorians
Subject: FW: Light Front Bells



-----Original Message-----
From: aaspland [mailto:aaspland at s...]
Sent: 17 February 2002 19:16
To: Bellhistorians
Subject: Light Front Bells


Can anyone suggest an alternative bit of nomenclature? A bell profile would
be the shape of the bell but what about the relative sizes of the bells in a
peal - is that the profile of the ring of bells or do we have an alternative
name? Gets confusing when we talk about about the profiles of a front end -
are we talking shape or thickness?

On the subject of Taylors casting lighter bells for the front end of a chime
in the 1910s/1920s what about the changes in the front end of ringing peals?

When G&J augmented St Woolos to twelve they recast the front three of the
1913 Taylor ten (and caused a certain amount of debate!). I remember seeing
the weights of the original front end published in the RW and at the time
compared them to the weights of the bells at St Giles Pontefract (Taylor
1919). I found that proportionally the front end at Pontefract was even
lighter than that at St Woolos.
Pontefract, St Giles
1 3-0-26
2 3-1-10
3 3-3-18 - this would be very light for the treble of an 18cwt eight!
4 4-0-25
5 5-0-26
6 6-1-27
7 8-0-14
8 10-0- 1
9 13-1-17
10 18-0-19

Infact the front two have flange tops so the above weights are several
pounds in excess of their 'true' weights! And yet these are a first class
ten with a really beautiful tone - probably the best ten in E in the world
(any better offers?). Does anyone have any more evidence along these lines
and for how long did this fashion last?

I have misplaced my copy of Thow but I think it is Waltham Abbey which have
a noticeably light front end.

Andrew

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20020221/6c5c01d5/attachment.html>