Taylors - Eayre & Smith merger

Richard Offen richard at ...
Tue May 17 11:18:26 BST 2005

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Mike Chester" <mike at m...> wrote:
> When push comes to shove, we have no real influence on what happens 
> with the merger. It has seemed likely to me for a while that there 
> were too many companies bidding for the available work and therefore 
> there may well be many positives from this merger.
> As with any company, if you are placing an order of the magnitude of 
> major rehang/augmentation you should research what you want, find out 
> which of the companies will supply you with exactly that and make a 
> decision based upon their replies. From the article in The Ringing 
> World, this seems to be what Wokingham did and, perhaps, this is an 
> example it would be worth following.
> Mike

I entirely agree. I has seemed to me for quite some time that the 
proliferation of bell hanging firms in recent years was not sustainable.

In addition to careful research before engaging a company, far too few 
churches actually call the bell hangers back to put right niggling 
little faults after a ring has been installed. 

The classic example of this, only a few years ago, was the place where 
a ring had been rehung with a new frame and fittings. The then 
Diocesan Advisor (he'll know to whom I'm referring!) was invited to 
ring the fourth in the dedicatory rounds and found it to go like the 
side of a house. After the service, he mentioned this to the Tower 
Captain who replied, "Oh, it always used to go badly before we had `em 
done!" Most people wouldn't dream of accepting good from a high 
street retailer that were defective, so why do they consider that a 
newly restored ring of bells is any different?

In my experience most of the bell hanging firms are pretty good at 
coming to rectify faults (some you have to battle with on occasions!), 
as it is in their interests to ensure that a job is as good as possible.



More information about the Bell-historians mailing list