[Bell Historians] Peterborough Tenor

[JohnBaldwin]

PETERBOROUGH: The problem is noted, and I WILL pursue it (first of all by
another route). As and when I find an answer, I'll be happy to forward it
to this list.

[If CJP is likely to be visiting WBF personally (which I feel is a way FAR
preferable to mail of resolving such an issue) in the next month, I'd be
grateful to know (off list, please, Chris).]

FYI, as a matter of principle, I do not automatically pick up every query
that is raised on this list about tenor weights as a matter for resolution
(and I do not at this stage keep comprehensive lists of details of ALL bells
in a ring), particularly the first or second time any particular one is
raised. However I WILL do so (for tenors) if / when it becomes clear that
no-one currently actively contributing to the list has definitive primary
info. I'm afraid that I usually only go back to the original person raising
the query rather than to all (and for this I must offer apologies) when I
find what I consider to be a definitive answer. All changes to info in the
9th edn are of course noted on the change list if anything has been
"discovered".

It is not uncommon for threads to go quiet for a period on some topic and I
am assuming that this will now become the case for Peterborough - please
save me time, if anyone reading this has a definitive answer.

John Baldwin
(029) 2055 4457


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Pickford [mailto:c.j.pickford at t...]
Sent: 15 September 2002 17:28
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Tenor Weights


Peterborough: Okay, we know the sources, but they're all secondary ones.
Someone - Ron Dove would have done this in the past - needs to contact
Whitechapel, point out that there is a discrepancy and ask for confirmation
of which is correct. That way it can be resolved once an for all -
especially if the person who makes the enquiry is kind enough to post the
answer to this list.


----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Bowden
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Tenor Weights


As the originator of this thread (which has been most interesting) we
still do not appear to have a definitive answer for Peterborough Cathedral
tenor. The ONLY references I've seen to it weighing 21-2-20 are Dove 9 and
RW 3938. Dove 7 & 8 both have 21-1-20 as do all other references I have
seen. I believe the latter to be the correct weight on the basis that
21-2-20 was a typo in the "Foundry Focus" (a not uncommon feature of an
otherwise excellent, informative and much missed series) and it would fit in
with CP's 21-2-0 at St.John the Divine were he not now doubting the accuracy
of his student notes.
Nick

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Pickford
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Tenor Weights

Michael Lee's book on Peterborough gives as the notice and the archive,
except 4 as 5-2-10 and tenor as 21-0-0. As this was probably taken from the
same notice, I can only assume student (proper spelling this time!) error in
having noted it as 21-2-0, but it does show the treble weights were "given
out" as 4-2-27 and 5-0-17.

But can GAD shed light on what's right for the 4th? 5-2-10 or 5-2-20?

I see RW 3976 gives the weights of 3 and 4 at Peterborough as 4-0-17 and
4-2-18.

The articles in RW 3938 and 3976 (17 Oct.1986 p.913 and 10 July 1987 p.617
for those who prefer full references) are both in the "Foundry Focus"
series. The first only gives the tenor weight - as 21-2-20 in E flat. The
latter gives all the weights, the twelve as 4-1-1, 4-0-17, 4-0-17, 4-2-18,
5-1-12, 5-2-12, 6-3-8, 7-3-10, 9-1-18, 10-2-6, 14-1-12 and 21-1-20 in E
flat. Sharp second 4-0-11, and old tenor 27-0-9 in C (was 29-3-9 before
tuning)

Comparison seems to indicate that the bells were weighed - but not retuned -
in 1986. Hence minor variations - though minor is debatable for 1-2/10!

CP