[Bell Historians] New poll for bellhistorians

[David Bryant]

> Or perhaps the current custodians of Dove would like to reconsider 
> such instruments? I can't believe that Ron Dove could have got it 
so 
> wrong for so long.

When the current printed edition of Dove was in preparation, I was 
asked how I thought such rings should be described. I said that I 
thought the current (i.e. that used in all earlier editions) was 
fine - ring of 12 with flat 6th and extra treble, Yes, technically an 
extra treble does make a ring of 13, but it is only there to 
accompany the flat 6th to make a light ten; there are no rings with 
an extra treble but not a flat 6th. I think that the 'flat 6th and 
extra treble' terminology reflects the usage of the bells.

Alternatively, you could describe the ring as one of 13, in which 
case the semitone is a flat 7th. Ring of 13 with flat 6th is 
technically incorrect. I think that 13 with flat 7th would be 
inadvisable because it does not reflect usage. However, it would be 
technically correct unlike ring of 13 with flat 6th.

>From talking to others, it would seem that most prefer the method 
used by Ron Dove himself - flat 6th and extra treble. I've yet to 
encounter anyone in favour of the present system: clearly my sampling 
criteria must have been biased.

David