The old bells at Coventry
bill at h...
Thu Apr 29 11:52:13 BST 2004
When I got home last night, I checked the Coventry tuning figures
found by Dickon against Mancroft. They are very comparable, the
Coventry bells are a little better than Mancroft (less flat primes,
some better hums etc.). Based on the similarity of the tuning, and
following a suggestion from Mike Chester, I put together a recording
of 'Coventry' based on recordings I had of Mancroft, tuned to the
Coventry nominals. I didn't need to use Mancroft tenor, which of
course comes from a different stable.
In my view, for an old style peal, the 'Coventry' bells sound very
good indeed. I can now understand why the old fogies at the court
case had such fond memories of them. If they were in a church I
attended, I would be proud to ring on them. It was quite a remarkable
experience listening to the recording while reflecting on the
fascinating history of the bells.
Unfortunately, I cannot access the Internet from home to upload the
recording for all to hear because a thunderstorm took out my phone
line. You'll have to wait until BT sort me out . . .
> How do we know the figures were correct? Were they independantly
There are two reasons I believe the figures posted by Dickon: first,
the nominals agree to 1 Hz with those taken by A. A. Hughes in Nov.
1925 and included in his report. I know Bert Hughes' report is
printed correctly in E. A. Young's book because the figures for
frequency and intervals he gives calculate exactly correct.
Second, the Coventry and Mancroft tuning figures agree very well,
both for inner and outer tuning, except that the 2nd and 9th at
Coventry are somewhat flat - but not enough to spoil the effect in
More information about the Bell-historians