[Bell Historians] Some Irish questions

Andrew Bull a_m_bull at v2VE5zrIHOwQ6XvLj2QBWZkEjfWkOPqQz3hLYfsJCngIEm_6rjTr2wA8sRA7ojSnQihOdPeLpA4Uc2a-U0MG.yahoo.invalid
Fri Jul 14 13:52:30 BST 2006

The correct figure is 33.25", which I myself checked in JT's records thanks to the kindness of Andrew Higson.
  I've been through and checked all the Taylor stuff for Ireland, John - I'll submit corrections as the details appear.
  Andrew Bull

John Baldwin <Dovemaster at xQazKCZC3AyLTRzbAjatqG5s2pig1RipPS-9n9shZSABbmoEgNQLheSWOQ8eVkeDJ5cn3i7BpmNzMqTm4LC-.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
          I'm posting this query in case any contributor to this list can help,
primarily, with a weight discrepancy.

Dove seems to have shown the tenor at Londonderry (G&J, 1929) as
32-0-6 ever since Edn2.

However, Fred Dukes's Campanology in Ireland shows it as 32-0-5
(p162). Is this simply a typo on the part of Fred (indeed, has any
corrigenda for that book been published?), or can someone please shed
some light on this (admittedly small) conflict of quoted tenor weight.
I find myself wondering whether G&J actually have it as ... 5 and a
half pounds and Fred and others have chosen to round it differently.

And while we are on the subject of Ireland's rings (you'll see that
Mike Chester has been diligent in transcribing the IACR website info
into submissions for the proto-NBR - which just occasionally I have
chosen to modify to show Fred's apparently more likely data), can
anyone please help with the diameter of the 4th at Rostrevor
(Kilbroney)? Fred (p214) shows 43.25" which is clearly wrong insofar
that that makes it noticeably larger than the tenor. The question is,
is this a typo of 34.25" (a typo which I can easily empathise with),
or should it be the 33.25" (a figure which the IACR website seems to


 All New Yahoo! Mail – Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you.           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20060714/6a1a0719/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list