[Bell Historians] Re: Bell weights: was Woodchurch etc
David Cawley
dcawley at w...
Sun Feb 27 20:31:12 GMT 2005
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There were two typos in my previous posting. First the "three weights of St=
Nicholas Leicester" which members probably know off heart by now are (towe=
r record) 20-3-14; (tuning book) 22-0-0; (invoiced out) 22-0-14. Second. w=
hen referring to how interesting it would be "to compare the exactly contem=
porary tower record with the of the bells of almost identical size with the=
tuning weights at Croydon", I meant "It would be interesting to compare th=
e tower record at St Peter's, Tunbridge Wells, which has exactly contempora=
ry bells of almost identical size to the St Luke's chime, with the tuning r=
ecords at Croydon."
Indeed - all credit to Andrew Higson, and indeed to the Company, for their =
generosity in the way Andrew Bull indicated. About ten years ago he kindly =
circulated a list of complete JT 1896-onwards rings, and it was there that =
I first saw the 13-3-22 weight for (ex-Latimer's) Perry Barr tenor.
DLC=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Andrew Bull=20
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com=20
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 6:38 PM
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Re: Woodchurch etc
The discrepancies with some of the Taylor weights are for different reaso=
ns, and it is to Andrew Higson's great credit that he not only generously a=
llows access to Taylor's business archives for serious research, but also b=
ravely permits the correct details to be published. Worcester Cathedral ten=
or is a case in point. Many members of this list might have noticed that, w=
hile some details may be missing from recent bell surveys, concise and corr=
ect details are now invariably given for Taylor jobs, and this reflects muc=
h credit on John Taylor & Co as a company.
=20=20=20
The differences in weights given for Gillett jobs between the tuning book=
s and the tower notice is a well-known phenomenon, and I believe that someo=
ne has compiled a list. I have never seen an explanation for this, however.
=20=20=20
Chris Pickford's point about "exact" weights may be demonstrated in insta=
nces where it is possible to compare "as supplied" weights with "scrapping"=
weights. To give two examples, both weighed by Taylors:
=20=20=20
Worsley, Lancs
=20=20=20
Retuned 1912 Scrapped 1935
=20=20=20
1. 6-1-27 6-1-18
2. 6-3-25 6-3-16
3. 6-1- 4 6-0-18
4. 6-2-21 6-2-10
5. 9-0- 7 8-3-16
6. 11-1- 8 11-0-21
7. 13-3- 4 13-2-17
8. 21-0-14 20-3-11
=20=20=20
Walton-on-the-Hill, Lancs
=20=20=20
Retuned 1900 Scrapped 1953
=20=20=20
1. 4-0-25 4-0-21
2. 4-0-22 4-0-23
3. 4-1- 1 4-1- 1
4. 4-1-21 4-1-21
5. 6-0-21 6-0-16
6. 8-1- 2 8-1-16
=20=20=20
Which would be regarded as "correct" as the weights of the old ring? In m=
y county "lists" that can be found elsewhere on Bell Historians, I try to g=
ive details of the ring which preceded a "modern" ring. Where available, I =
give the scrapping weights, but instances such as the above present somethi=
ng of a dilemma.
=20=20=20
Andrew Bull
=20=20=20
=20=20=20
=20=20=20
-----Original Message-----
From: David Cawley [mailto:dcawley at w...]
Sent: 27 February 2005 17:18
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Re: Woodchurch etc
=20=20=20
I think Chris's 'three points' deserve attention - though it doesn't solv=
e the Woodchurch problem; and Chris Povey's point about undrilled bells goi=
ng through the hands of non-founding bellhangers after supply is a valid on=
e.
=20=20=20
It is when you come to "weights supplied with bells" and here are three e=
xamples.
=20=20=20
WHITSTABLE St Alphege Seasalter. On 1st August 1969 we took delivery from=
Whitechapel of a ring of six bells complete with a tower record showing th=
e tenor as 3-1-13, the weight that has always been published. On August 19t=
h the invoice was rendered (CB/33/69) which included=20
"-From metal provided from Tottington Church bells, casting a peal of six=
with the Tenor 2' 0" in diameter, weighing C 3.3.1 and a total weight of =
C 12.0.11. All accurately and harmonically tuned in the key of 'G'. " =
=20
The total weight of the bells is that with the 3-1-13 tenor - was this a =
typist's error or what? I have not examined the settings or tuning records.=
All the other weights in the invoice - 15-1-17 of bells from Tottington, 1=
2-2-17 for the existing church bell and 7-0-17 for the tubes - are all as w=
eighed in. I did not query it then as the total weight charged for was as s=
et with the 3-1-13 tenor.=20
Two archaic weights - 3-2-25 (1969: 3-2-5) for Tottington treble (JT 1851=
) and 12-2-23 for the existing bell are xplained by more accurate modern sc=
ales.
=20=20=20
Next one is G&J. We have already discussed St Nicholas Leicester (Tower r=
ecord 22.0.14; tuning books 22.0.0.; invoiced weight 22.0.14). But go to Tu=
nbridge Wells, St Luke on http://kent.lovesguide.com and see the significan=
t discrepancies in each bell between what is in the tuning books in Croydon=
library and what is in the framed record in the tower. It would be interes=
ting to compare the exactly contemporary tower record of the bells of almos=
t identical size with the tuning records at Croydon.
=20=20=20
As to JT&Co, Chris Povey pointed out the 'pencilling in' of the Evesham r=
ecord. Other examples have been identified. An interesting one is the ex-Bi=
shop Latimer ring now at Perry Barr. The bells were cast in 1957 (5th in 19=
04) and were received back in 1972. The weights recorded for the front six =
show "Woodchurch" type discrepancies:
=20=20=20
Sent Off Nett=20
1957 1972
=20=20=20
4-0-6 4-0-7
4-0-26 4-0-25
4-2-7 4-2-7
5-0-3 5-0-1
6-0-14 6-0-11
7-1-16 7-1-13
- 10-0-12
- 13-3-22#
=20=20=20=20
# Note says 'given later as 14-0-8'
=20=20=20
CJP and I met at the Johnson on Saturday evening and I suggested that we =
might test the accuracy of WBF/JT scales by sitting on each and seeing whic=
h side went down furthest in each case!
=20=20=20
DLC
=20=20=20
=20=20=20
=20=20=20
=20=20=20
=20=20=20
=20=20=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: CHRIS PICKFORD=20
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com=20
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Re: Woodchurch etc
=20=20=20
Must be brief - I'm supposed to be working to meet a deadline! - but I'd =
like to just add a couple of points (apart from pointing out that Giles has=
mistaken me for Chris Dalton)
=20=20=20
I did take the point made by Giles, even though it may not have been clea=
r in my answer, and I agree with him that this is nothing about history pro=
per (i.e. interpretation, use of evidence to make sense of things). It's si=
mply about documenting or recording what exists and here (to repeat what I =
said) the only significance of a weight is as one element in a range of phy=
sical data about a bell.=20=20
=20=20=20
Others (Mark Regan, for one) have already made the point on this list tha=
t Bell History is a misnomer for what we do when we record and document the=
contents of our belfries. But the fact that it isn't "history" doesn't mak=
e the activity any less valid. We need an accurate record of what exists, a=
nd the Woodchurch debate sits very comfortably in this context as we're try=
ing to establish what is the "correct" weight (not necessarily an accurate =
one - even though this is the ideal)
=20=20=20
Andrew Bull has helpfully stated that the key thing about recorded weight=
s is that they represent an actual weighing on scales - never mind the issu=
e of accuracy for a moment - at a particular point in time. For me, there a=
re a couple of main points:
=B7 If a weight is quoted, I want to know the source=20
=B7 If several weights are quoted at different periods, then I want=
to know which is which (i.e. what weight was "current" at what date)=20
=B7 If a discrepancy is found, then I want to try and establish the=
correct information by checking at source (and in the majority of cases th=
is produced definitive answers, at least with regard to "recorded" weights)
On Woodchurch, it's clear that there are two possible recorded weights - =
both reliable in their way (and if the bell was weighed again, the result w=
ould probably be neither 4-0-3 or 3-3-27, of course). As I've said, I hope =
that Whitechapel can clarify. It may turn out to be a simple error in that =
the wrong weight was entered in the book - but there may be another explana=
tion. Nigel?
=20=20=20
Chris Pickford
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor=20
ADVERTISEMENT
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bellhistorians/
=20=20=20=20=20=20
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bellhistorians-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
=20=20=20=20=20=20
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service=
.=20
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20050227/66f54235/attachment.html>
More information about the Bell-historians
mailing list