[Bell Historians] The crossover

[Susan Dalton]

>>From Chris Pickford:

> 'There's still an issue over subjectivity and opinion, though. I haven't
> been to Norton [Shame on you! CD] so I don't have an impression of them, but
if the overall character of sound is true-harmonic then I can't help feeling
that the laurels should go to this ring (even if one bell has a flat
fundamental / prime) rather than to the ring in which all the partials were
in line.'

[Absolutely agree. C D]

'Some of the first true-harmonic rings claimed by or attributed to other
founders are far less accurately tuned than Norton, I suspect.'

[Indeed so. This is true of (in chronological order) Carrs, Gillett &
Johnston, Llewellins & James, Warners, and Mears & Stainbank]
>
> 'To raise another hare, how many of us are really thinking of a ring of
> eight (rather than a five or six) for the first complete true-harmonic
> ring? I did omit a couple of fives (Bracebridge 1896...)'

[Try BraceBOROUGH.]

C D