[Bell Historians] L&J bells

[David Cawley]

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

There is clearly a lot more work to be done on Llewellins & James. When I =
was in Bristol, 1983-95 I saw a lot of their bells. Most of you will know =
the X-Y-Z book on Bells & Bellfounding which John Llewellin published c1875=
; but few of their bells follow the precepts laid down therein - mercifully=
!

My own experience is that their bad bells get worse (and fewer) and that th=
eir good bells get better. It will be interesting to have readers' opinion=
s of the restored ring at Cheddar, once a truly bad eight (augmented and ol=
d treble and 4th recast in 1914 by L&J. Taylor's have done the work. Of t=
he four L&J bells, before restoration, Jed Flatters (quoting Andrew Higson=
) wrote:

"If one were to base a tuning analysis on the Nominal or dominant partial t=
ones of each of the bells, there would be no justification for further tuni=
ng. Llewellins & James amazingly appear to have had the technology to put =
the bells into a decent scale, and have even managed to stretch the frequen=
cies of the trebles slightlyto give an impression of greater tone in tenor =
bell. However, tonally there is a complete spectrum of tones and that is j=
ust within the Llewellins & James bells!

"The second bell (1914) is more in keeping with bells of a Victorian influe=
nce than a good 19th Century casting and bears little in its tonal quality =
that relates it to the other bells in the peal.

Our best advice with the Llewellins & James bells is that they must be reca=
st".

Well, they weren't, and underwent some pretty heavy treatment at the foundr=
y.=20=20

The ring had a complete set of Llewellins & James' box-section cast iron he=
adstocks ("effectively a copy of our own pattern headstocks") which were re=
tained with new gudgeons fitted. I don't know when L&J first started fitti=
ng "Taylor type" headstocks, but it cannot be long before then.

The firm has so much in common with Warners - they were a very large genera=
l engineering firm, and bells were increasingly a sideline. They effective=
ly packed up after failing to get the contract for a new ten at St Paul, Br=
istol in 1926, and there are only five bells of theirs existing dated 1930-=
1940, The last for All Hallows, Easton, Bristol was cast in September only=
a month before the destruction of their works. Warners cast no bells of t=
heir own after 1922 and their Spitalfields Foundry (and I believe their off=
ices in Jewin Crescent, Cripplegate) were destroyed in 1940 or 1941; and li=
ke L&J they are so frequently derided for their bad bells when they cast fa=
r, far more good ones.

They did rehang an 1881 bell of their ex St Lawrence, Bristol in the new ch=
urch at Hatcliffe, Bristol in 1956. It has since been rehung again by Whit=
echapel.

It is a fact that many of L&J's rings have tuned up remarkably well - cf Ta=
ylors' retuning of East Ardsley recently. Likewise in 1971 when JT & Co ha=
d in their hands the old six ex St Luke, Bedminster, Llewellins & James fir=
st ring of their own. They took away the tenor ('a foul bell') tuned the f=
ront five into a back five and added a treble to make the pleasant little s=
ix at St Paul, Southville. And yes, their tenor at St Thomas, Bristol, is =
a superb bell. Even if Mr Barwell had to rehang it a few months after - bu=
t that's another story.

We shall look forward in due course to seeing the fruits of Richard and Ni=
ck Bowdens' research into their buildings and their bells.

DLC=20=20=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Chris Povey=20
To: bellhistorians=20
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 11:11 PM
Subject: [Bell Historians] L&J bells


Re: recent mails on L&J bells:
=20=20=20
Castlemorton, Worcs, have three L&J bells in the ring of 6: the treble, 4=
th and tenor. All were cast in 1896, the 4th and the tenor being recastings=
and the treble to augment to 6. HMA undertook a tonal analysis on their in=
spection to provide a price for a rehang of the ring on new fittings. This =
has now happened (but by another contractor). I am sure HMA will not mind i=
f the analysis figures are repeated, as, because of retuning, these old not=
es are now history. The notes of all the bells are given, to show how L&J f=
itted in with the others.
=20=20=20
Nom =
Quint Tierce Fund Hum
Treble L&J 1896 +40 +40 =
-4 -129 -32
2 Rudhall 1695 -5 +2 =
-3 -157 +66
3 Rudhall 1695 +14 +15 =
+36 +79 -10=20=20
4 L&J 1896 +48 +154 =
+65 +147 +56
5 Rudhall 1795 +31 +108 =
+25 +5 +80
Tenor L&J 1896 Datum +62 =
+3 +83 +9
=20=20=20
I'm not sure whether this shows that L&J were clever to fit in fairly con=
sistently with (in this case) the wayward Rudhall tuning, or that their tun=
ing was just as wayward and that it was just lucky that it seemed to reflec=
t the Rudhall trend. I suspect it might have been the latter. It would be i=
nteresting to know how L&J's tuning of that period compared with the other =
founders. I don't have the weights before and after tuning, but David Bagle=
y has at least the retuned weights. I think there was a big reduction in we=
ight.
=20=20=20
HMA noted in their report that although the treble had no signs of tuning=
, the 4th and tenor exhibited light tuning on their soundbows, even though =
L&J prided themselves on being able to cast 'maiden' bells which did not re=
quire any tuning. L&J probably retuned the 3rd and the 5th, as the 3rd was =
heavily lipped and the 5th lightly edged. They may have retuned the Rudhall=
bells to fit in better with their bells.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20
ADVERTISEMENT
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

This message was sent to you via the Bell Historians' Mailing List. To un=
subscribe from the list send an email to bellhistorians-unsubscribe at yahoogr=
oups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.=20

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20030117/27d32f08/attachment.html>