[Bell Historians] Norton etc.

[Susan Dalton]

>From: "Bill Hibbert" <bill at h...>
>To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Bell Historians] Norton (was Seage's apparatus)
>Date: Fri, Mar 5, 2004, 4:24 pm
>

> Mike Chester:
>
>> I think that Norton, Sheffield, were their first t-h ring.
>
> Don't have the figures with me, but Norton are definitely a little
> experimental, still. The third (from memory) has a distinctly flat
> prime and the tenors, although pretty true-harmonic, have much
> flatter upper partials than later bells, suggesting an experimental
> profile.
>
> Which is actually Taylor's first completely true-harmonic peal I
> don't know - does anyone else?
>
> Bill H

I don't have tuning figures for all Taylors' 1896-97 rings but if they
themselves regard Norton as their first [more or less] true-harmonic ring, I
would go along with that. They SOUND true-harmonic - much more so, indeed,
than Petham which Whitechapel regard as their first t-h ring. I DO have
figures for Brewood bells and, attractive though they may sound, they are
really not very close to the t.h. ideal. But if Norton won't do, what about
Heavitree, or the Todmorden ring now at Towcester? Both 1897 I believe
(along with many other rings). Certainly Werrington (1898), which was the
first t-h ring that the good Prebendary Simpson heard, are authentic. Over
to Chris Pickford...

C D