[Bell Historians] Hunslet

[Chris Pickford]

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Michael Childs wrote "Hunslet, ... are ... not exactly rewarding!"

I'd just like to enter a mild plea for slightly more sympathetic treatment =
of the existing eight at Hunslet (Warner 1863 - tenor 18-1-19 - retuned by =
Taylors in 1939). I have a slight fondness for Warner rings of this weight =
and period which I generally find more rewarding than Taylor or Whitechapel=
rings of the 1870s and 1880s. I rather enjoyed Hunslet when I rang in a pe=
al there a few years back.=20

I'm not under any illusions as to their tonal quality by modern standards, =
but I think they deserve better than being swept away for a lighter peal. V=
ariety is important, and Hunslet are a better-than-average example of a mid=
-Victorian ring of their type - and by no means difficult to ring.=20=20

A mild plea, as I say, for taking stock of the merits of the existing bells=
- and a challenge to the view that newer and lighter automatically equals =
better.

CP=20



=20

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20031209/015e3aa5/attachment.html>