[Bell Historians] Canon removal and faculties

Andrew Aspland aaspland at ...
Wed Nov 2 17:20:34 GMT 2005

Whatever our bellhangers are capable of these days it would seem that the
best solution in terms of ringability would be to have all your bells
without canons. Of all the many considerations to be made by the DAC the
retention of canons on 18th century bells may not be high on the list of
priorities and they may be happy to see them removed. Why not speak to your
DAC bell advisor and find out his opinion which should count for a good deal
in the DAC decision making process.


-----Original Message-----
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Alan J.Birney
Sent: 02 November 2005 09:04
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Bell Historians] Canon removal and faculties

Does anyone know what my chances are of getting a DAC to agree to the
romoval of canons from the front two of a 1723 Rudhall three that are
not listed?
Three new Trebles will be cast and two new Tenors giving a ring of
eight with the three Rudhall bells as 4,5,6 of eight.
>From my own personal engineering viewpoint, two middle bells out of an
eight fitted with canon retaining stocks and the other six with normal
stocks is not the most practical option.
There is no ornamentation on the canons and I see little point in
keeping them, especially as there are loads of Rudhall bells in
If all three existing bells retained canons then I would be looking at
getting the new bells cast with canons so we had eight with canons and
canon retaining stocks.
Any advice appreciated- we need to get the faculty application in very
soon as we cannot place an order for work without a faculty.


Yahoo! Groups Links

To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list