Facsimile inscriptions

[David Bryant]

I have recently been having an off-list exchange of emails with Nigel Taylor
about reproducing inscriptions. It seems to be the case that the practice of
reproducing inscriptions in facsimile on replacement bells is dying out - no
inscriptions at all have been or are being reproduced and Kidderminster,
Kettering or Credition. Certainly, this is not the fault of the founders who
will do what they are asked to do, or of the local churches and ringers who
can only be commended for tackling such extensive and worthwhile projects.
The responsibility must fall back on the advisers.

So why has this happened? Facsimile reproduction of inscriptions has been
common since the 1920s at least, and was often carried out although not so
commonly before then. I would suggest that the reason is the increasing
reuse of redundant bells, and certainly in two of the cases cited above the
ring was seen as being replaced rather than recast, and a number of the old
bells were in fact sold for reuse elsewhere.

The code of practice states that "Where a bell is to be recast, it is normal
practice to reproduce all inscriptions and marks in facsimile, with the date
of recasting and the founder's name or mark added." It would appear that we
are entering the grey area of what actually constitutes a recast bell? I
would suggest it is a misnomer - there is no such thing. I would go on to
suggest that, broadly, where bells are being scrapped rather than reused the
inscriptions should be reproduced in facsimile. This will of course require
a decision to be made on whether or not the bell will be reused before the
moulds are prepared, but this is going to be a relatively short time time in
the lifespan of extensive bell projects.

I would not argue strongly for the reproduction of inscriptions on modernish
bells of no note - e.g. 'Thomas Mears Founder London 1815". However, I think
early (say pre-1700) inscriptions, and later ones if they are of note,
should be reproduced. In line with this, the inscriptions on the 9th and
10th at Kidderminster and that on at least the 9th at Kettering should have
been reproduced. That on the tenor at Kettering should also have been
perhaps, and possibly that on the 10th if it was a facsimile of the earlier
Eayre bell (was it? Anyone know?). There are plenty of cases from a few
decades ago where the policy of reproduction has not been rigidly applied to
all bells as some were of little interest, but where those which were of
interest were reproduced. E.g. at Tewkesbury the inscriptions from the two
oldest bells not retained as clock bells (5th and 10th) were reproduced on
the new bells, and the inscription bands were also cut out and are preserved
in the tower.

While on the subject of Kettering, I understand that the 9th of 1630 has
been scrapped. This clearly goes against the code pf practice, so how was it
allowed? Again, no blame can be attached to either the foundry or the
church; it is the advisers who granted a faculty allowing this who are at
fault.

How can we as bell historians fight agaist the excesses of English Heritage
when what must surely be seen as clear contraventions of the code of
practice are going unchallenged by us?

David