[Bell Historians] Canon removal and faculties
fartwell2000 at ...
Wed Nov 2 15:55:58 GMT 2005
--- 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?
I can think of a 1960s rehung ring all on canon retainers which are
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
I think the whole preservation thing has worked out not too well
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
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.
More information about the Bell-historians