Taylors 'Grimthorpe' bells

[Richard Offen]

--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Mike Chester" <mike at m...> 
wrote:
>
> I have not rung on either of these rings. A question comes to 
mind.  
> What did Grimethorpe rings sound like in comparision to other rings 
> produced at the same time?
> 
> Am I correct in assuming that they had some musical deficiencies, 
based 
> solely on the fact that rings to this design were never that 
common?  
> If this is the case, is it really fair to ask a Parish to retain 
> something that could be made better at the same time as a general 
> restoration? It is a real quandary - retention of something 
historical 
> that might not be the best at the expense of someone else? Should 
not 
> the expense be borne elsewhere?
> 
> Just a thought!
> 
> Mike


We're back on to the old question of whether old bells that sound 
dreadful should be tuned or not? Whether of great historical 
significance or not, why should a parish be expected to put up with 
something inferior for the sake of pleasing a few conservationists?   

Would previous generations have been as concerned? Answer: probably 
not. Did those generations, by their actions, add to the historical 
richness of our present bell heritage? Answer: almost certainly!

A certain amount of devil's advocacy is involved in my answers above 
and I honestly don't think that there is a right or wrong answer, 
whatever anyone may tell you!

By all accounts, most Grimthorpe style rings were pretty dreadful, so 
it's not surprising that most places wanted rid of them! If they 
helped Taylors to reach their significant discoveries at the end of 
the nineteenth century and resulted in the replacement of Grimthorpe 
rings with such glories as the twelve at Worcester Cathedral, then we 
should not mourn their loss but be thankful they were a means to an 
end!

Richard