[Bell Historians] Dove inexactitudes

[David Bryant]

As regards place name, there is certainly no logic as far as York is
concerned. Some of the towers within the city boundary are included under
'York', some under their own names. Local towers weren't asked for teir
preference, because after being cited this reason David Potter enquired.
Logically, all towers within the city boundary (all those listed plus
Stockton, Strensall, Naburn and Elvington) should be listed under York.

David


----- Original Message -----
From: "JohnBaldwin" <Dovemaster at c...>
To: "Bellhistorians at Yahoogroups. Com" <bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Ron Johnston" <r.johnston at b...>; "Tim Pett"
<tgpett at l...>
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: [Bell Historians] Dove inexactitudes


> Recently, we have been concerned that there are certain circumstances
where
> "local wish" over what is shown for an entry in Dove (on-line, and
therefore
> in the next printed edition) has actually made that entry become "less
> accurate".
>
> A case in point is Abingdon S Helen, where the previously "exact" weight
of
> 20-1-6 (as per Berks, p4, the weight when canons were still present, and
as
> appeared in Dove, editions 1 to 3) became shown in editions 4 to 9 as the
> "approximate" value of 19½cwt consequent upon their removal. However, Tim
> Pett earlier this year asked for the previous exact figure to be
re-instated
> on the grounds that 19½cwt was nothing more than a "guesstimate" and it
> could equally well be 20cwt, 19¾cwt, or even 19¼cwt, the bell not having
> been reweighed (nor the removed metal weighed) at the time of alteration -
> to anyone's present knowledge.
>
> [I felt I could not (at that stage anyway) refuse the request even though
in
> my view it "decreases" the accuracy of Dove unnecessarily simply because
> that is the one weight it cannot be!. It MAY have been the result of a too
> rigid interpretation (by Tim) of our deference to "local wish" about what
> appears in an entry - and on which petard, I felt myself to be well and
> truly hoisted!
>
> The deference to "local preference" however had been meant primarily in
two
> other instances, namely
>
> (1) whether the placename (ie, that which is used for positioning) should
be
> that of a major conurbation (with the suburb as a "secondary name") or
that
> of the suburb itself (eg, should Whitchurch appear as such, or should it
> appear as "Cardiff,.... Whitchurch") or, indeed any other name (such as St
> Samson becoming Golant, but Dyfrryn not becoming Bryncoch) - something
> about which we had invited submission, see RW2000, p683; and
>
> (2) whether a ring should be shown as "unringable" when strictly that may
> not be the case but requests for ringing were to be discouraged for
entirely
> local, good, and hopefully temporary reason. I do NOT wish, at this
> juncture to be sidetracked by either of those particular issues, please!
>
> To clarify better what we meant about "local preference", the section on
> Accuracy has now been modified (and repositioned) in the on-line
description
> webpage which I suggest you re-visit if you haven't happened to read it in
> the last day or so.]
>
> One way of lessening the inaccuracy, and even possibly thereby "flushing
> out" some real definitive knowledge, is to show such entries as the
> following example:
>
> Abingdon, Oxon, S Helen, 10, <20-1-6 in Eflat. -Tue SU497967
>
> with the following addition to description page at the place where tenor
> weight is described:
>
> "The < symbol is used as a prefix to an exact weight where it is known
that
> subsequent work (eg, the removal of the canons) has reduced the weight of
> the tenor. This is felt to be preferable to showing an approximate weight
> (which may simply be an estimate)."
>
> In my opinion (and that of others I have sounded out) this presentation
> (which I willingly acknowledge had been suggested to us several years ago
> now) recognises that the tenor weight must be less than 20-1-6 (assuming
> that that figure was right in the first place) but also that 20-1-6 is
"the
> best that we currently have at our disposal". In the interests of
providing
> the most accurate possible information within Dove, we are now thinking of
> making this slight presentational change in what I guess will probably be
no
> more than 25 cases out of just over 6000 entries.
>
> We would like to hear (either "on list" or privately, via
> Dovemaster at c...) any opinions that there may be (please, please
> restrict it to this one issue) both on that method of presentation, in the
> short term within the on-line version and in the longer term within the
next
> printed edition, and on the associated explanation. Ron and I will then
> make a decision.
>
> It would further help if you know personally (and without fear of
> contradiction) - and will let us know full details - of other cases where
> previously accurate tenor weights, whether or not now shown approximately,
> would benefit from a modified presentation as indicated above. In this
way,
> even should we decide to make no immediate change in presentation, such
> details will be recorded within the database for future reference.
>
> In advance, thank you for any comments you feel inclined to make.
>
> John Baldwin
> (029) 2055 4457
>
>
>