David Cawley dave at
Sat Nov 18 17:43:41 GMT 2006

Re Carl Zimmerman's outpourings on his disappointment that "subsequent comments from others have only muddied the waters". It was not my intention to do so. And I am sorry I did not think to include reference to the excellent GCNA website, which (as Carl himself says) does not specifically answer the questions Chris Pickford asked. Then in his latest posting, Carl asks "may I remind y'all" about how to number carillon bells; and I respected this in line 2 of my original posting - but, mea culpa - identified one of the two bells wrongly. While on the subject, the reason for "our" lists numbering chimes and carillons downwards from the top is purely for convenience in comparative listing by weight e.g. in the Diary or Dove. 

Very interesting to have the dating from the GCNA.

So am I still "muddied" if I assume:

Bass  Taylor 1914  67-2-22  A
2 (48) Eijsbouts 1998          Bb (A#)
3 (47) Taylor 1914  48-2-3    B
4 (46) Eijsbouts 1998          C       

Carl also suggests that the Diary has a "floating" criterion as to  the cut-off figure so far as weights are concerned. If only he read my original posting he will see that it is intentionally so. 2-tons 10-cwt (50-cwt). The last two bells included are indeed approximate figures as the exact weight is not known. It seemed churlish to disregard them;. they were each catalogued by Matthew Byrne at 2 1/2-tons. If they are ever weighed or the precise weight comes to light, they could be revised or deleted as the present publisher sees fit. But Carl is right - I have Bill Viggers's letter which says "remember - it must fit on two pages".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list