[Bell Historians] Canon removal and faculties

[Alan J.Birney]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "davidhird_uk" 
<davidhird_uk at y...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> So why is it that on some rehung rings you can tell which are on 
> canon retainers? Bad hanging?
> 
> David
>

exactly.
I can think of a 1960s rehung ring all on canon retainers which are 
sluggish.
A much more recent rehang by the same company was done at a location 
where four of the bells have canon retainers and the others have 
normal stocks and you can still tell the difference.
The Tenor is also difficult to get up right no matter who rings it 
up in peal and it is not a large bell (it is also on a canon 
retainer).
I think the whole preservation thing has worked out not too well 
in general.
By all means preserve, but only when it is practical- If someone 
decided that an 1845 Mears lowside frame was worthy of preservation 
even though it was rotten, I would say they needed thier head looking 
at, after all there are loads of old mears frames knocking about.
If something is unique, preserve it as best as is possible as long 
as it is cost effective and sensible to do so.
Perhaps the Excercise has allowed too much to pass when it comes to 
long lasting, cost effective, practical bell renovation.
Where was that eight where only limited work was allowed to be 
carried out? Staunton Harrold?
>From what I understand, the bells are difficult to ring even in very 
experianced hands even after some renovation work.
I see a case such as this as throwing good money after bad even 
though I am sure the work was proposed and done with the best of 
intentions.
preservation of something is not always the best way forward if the 
thing being preserved is in regular use.
As regards canons, better to have the buggers off and give 
everyone a level playing field (hangers and ringers) I would have 
said- that is of course unless they are on very rare bells or have 
some ornamentation on them.

Alann