[Bell Historians] Light rings (was 4-cwt eights)

[David Bryant]

> It could well be that the tenors have been 'tucked up' to much in
> order to make them easier to ring - as Mark Regan says, they may be
> easy to ring, but very difficult to strike. It would be interesting
> to do some comparative experiments.

I've noticed that a number of Taylor-hung tenors of the very early C20 seem
to be tucked up too much, presumably in an attempt to make them easier to
ring but actually making them sluggish and awkward. The worst which springs
to mind is Burstwick (12 cwt six) near Hedon in East Yorkshire, About 1907,
I think. Bishopthorpe (14 cwt six, 1903) is pretty bad, too.

I often find that the front six of a ten (or 3-8 of 12) can be much easier
to ring than a six with a tenor of the equivalent weight. Obviously, being
part of a larger ring the bells are not tucked up to the same extent as a
ring of six would be. I often wonder why rings of six aren't hung like this.
For example, the front six at St Mary's Beverley (11 cwt, 1900), are very
easy to ring, in contrast to the similar-date rings mentioned above whose
tenors are very sluggish.

> Have Taylor's always tuned to equal temperament?

No. Bill Hibbert or Andrew Higson can no doubt comment in detail, but I know
Just temperament was used in the early C20.

David