richard at ...
Fri Nov 4 09:11:28 GMT 2005
--- 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!
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
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!
More information about the Bell-historians