[Bell Historians] Re: Lichfield Cathedral

Susan Dalton dalton.family at v...
Mon May 24 19:21:33 BST 2004

> Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Re: Lichfield Cathedral
> Points I would wish to make here are
> 1. Historically, the 1680s ten-bell frame is certainly important.
> 2. Generally, it is a fine, well-designed and well-constructed thing and
> still performs very well.
> By virtue of being regularly attended to - since the steelwork was put in
> JT have done a twice yearly servicing to keep the thing tight.

[Very wise, I am sure. CD]
> 3. But the present ninth and tenor are rather big for their pits and it
> is in this area that the troubles of a few years ago arose.
> As were their predecessors. Mr Rudhall's 9th was 48" in diameter in a pit
> 46 3/4" wide and Mr Mears' tenor 53 5/8" diameter in a pit the same width.
> JT 9th is also 48" although the tenor is now 54"

[I wonder what size Bagley's original ninth and tenor were.]
> Andrew Higson

[I promise I wasn't blaming Taylors at all! When I went pre-Dempster and
saw the mess F**** H****** had made, I seriously felt that the best solution
might be for Lichfield to cut its losses and keep the front eight pits of
the Bagley frame and install properly-designed new pits for the ninth and
tenor. Indeed it seems not outside the realms of possibility that this
might have to be done one day in the future anyway. CD]

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list