Staunton Harold

[Richard Offen]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Chris Pickford" 
<c.j.pickford.t21 at b...> wrote:
>
> RCO "the Trust's architect (who thought he knew all about bells 
because his uncle was a `famous' ringer!)"
> 
> The uncle being a well-known clerical ringer with a penchant for 
tower grabbing, and many years secretary of the UA. The architect 
nephew being noted for having famously observed that "ringers are to 
be taken no more seriously than train spotters"
> 
> Apart from the go of the bells, limited improvement 
through "restoration" etc, the thing that also struck me about 
Staunton Harold was the inadequate and inappropriate metalwork added 
to "strengthen" the frame. It looks totally out of place in what was 
supposed to be a pucka "conservation job". Here the culprit was 
another of the Trusts's advisers, a structural engineer (now 
deceased) who became quite a thorn in the side of bell restorers. The 
alarming thing is that much of his credibility with conservationists 
seems to have stemmed from the Staunton Harold job!
> 
> Time for a turn of tide on the conservation front - still!
> 
> CP

Sorry, I'd forgotten about all the additional metalwork, which made 
even more of a nonsense of the whole thing.

What can we do to improve ringer's credibility amongst the 
conservation lobby?

It is interesting to compare what organ builders can get away with 
under the label of 'conservation', compared to what bell founders 
can! Changing the pitch or adjusting the voicing of old organ pipes 
is often perfectly acceptable, whereas tuning a badly out of tune 
bell is not ...the world has gone completely mad!

Richard