[Bell Historians] Wolverhampton / G&J

[Susan & Christopher Dalton]

>From: "CHRIS PICKFORD" <c.j.pickford.t21 at b...>

> Wolverhampton are one of G&J's early rings - a major commission at a time
> when their Simpson tuning was still under development. It's a while since I
> rang there too, but I think Andrew is being a bit harsh. They have many
> characteristics of Gilletts' early and evolutionary work - rather blunt
> trebles and wheezy-sounding back bells, even though the overall sound is
> true-harmonic of a sort. We're getting more critical nowadays. I have a
> feeling that Wolverhampton were over-rated in times when folk were less
> good at picking out harmonics. They ain't spot on by any means, but does
> imperfect have to mean bad?
>
> We rang at Coleman's Hatch in Sussex on Saturday - G&J 1913. Pleasant
> overall, but far from perfect tuning and with some very odd sounds. The
> trebles are a bit like meat-plates being smashed on a china stall at the
> village fete, but less "twangy" than some of the period.
>
This is all HIGHLY subjective!

I have to agree, however, that the treble(s) at Coleman's Hatch make funny
noise(s).

But to the best of my recollection Wolverhampton bells ARE true-harmonic, as
are Wimborne Minster (which preceded them) - I have taken the pitches and
when I've got a bit more time I'll dig them out. Both rings were clearly
cast at a time when Cyril Johnston was experimenting with shapes, trying to
get away from exact copies of Taylors' bells and trying also to get
major-third tierces.

C D