[Bell Historians] Trebles on higher numbers

Richard Offen richard.offen at o...
Mon Aug 9 22:16:22 BST 2004

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Alan J.Birney" 
<fartwell2000 at y...> wrote:
> --- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Martin Davies" 
<daviesm at g...> 
> wrote:
> > > Also the 9th has been quarter turned
> > > 
> > > But they've only been in just over twenty years - why did it 
> > turning so soon?
> > > 
> > 
> > Apparently some porosity in the casting has resulted in some 
> > clapper wear. 
> Was the fact known (and pointed out to the authorities) that the 
> bell was a poor casting before/during tuning?
> Does the fact that it is a poor casting mean it will need to be 
> turned again in another twenty odd years or is it a case of suck it 
> and see, and has the bell been overclappered in the past?
> Alan

The bell is NOT a poor casting. It has a small amount of porosity 
around the original strike point, which has only become apparent as 
the clapper has worn the surface metal away. Nor has it been over 

When the ring was installed, we went over them carefully and every 
care was taken to ensure that Canterbury Cathedral had the best ring 
possible ...and they have. 


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list