[Bell Historians] Re: Whitstable (Seasalter)

[Richard Offen]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "David Cawley" <dcawley at w...> 
wrote:
> On Seasalter, Whitstable (8: t. 24" 3-1-13 in G) yes they 
are 'gutsy' - in fact the tenor is overmuch so compared with the 
others. But it was not long after that Whitechapel wre quoting 
their 'standard' 2' bell as 24" in F#; and a little while later as 24 
1/4" in F. Bill Hughes in the aforementioned conversation (1973) told 
me that they were being rather careful, and that tuning down to F# 
would give a livelier ring with a less noisy tenor. It would also 
make the casting and tuning of the two trebles which I was ordering a 
little easier.
> 
> I've only rung at Rochford of the 8-bell Taylor rings which Richard 
mentions. They are 4-0-19 in D; the other two are both C# and about 
28 lb heavier. All are the same diameter. Rochford are in a big brick 
tower and I like them (the bells, not the small wheels). Scole, 
Norfolk (6: 4-1-2 in Db) are equally pleasant, but in a small stone 
tower. I would describe neither as thin or insipid. The even smaller 
(and earlier - 1958) Taylor ring at Saxthorpe, Norfolk (6: 24 1/2", 2-
3-10 in E) are to me equally pleasant sounding. But I know some 
people dislike them.
> 
> I suppose you pays your money and you takes your choice, and I for 
one am pleased we bought the Whitechapel bells - and I'd still like 
to have them tuned down ! 
> 
> DLC

David is right, it's all a matter of personal preference. We both 
rang at Rochford for the first time on the same day (a Seasalter 
outing) and I remember that Daivd liked them and I didn't (but we 
both agreed that they were extremely difficult to ring compared to 
Seasalter!). Oh dear are we getting off track and spamming 
again ...sorry!

R