[Bell Historians] Canon removal and faculties

[davidhird_uk]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Alan J.Birney" 
<fartwell2000 at y...> wrote:
>
> --- 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

Staunton Harold were truly awful in sound and go. A virtually 
useless restoration. I don't think they are rung now.

David