FW: Listed bells, why are they listed?
richard.offen at JeBnfLB9nsT7eZtynln-z8obSYD5lmd18QMvx06DS5YMUxOvP-FfKzYON9ZD9Gz6XOgNj3-TKDf6ATPdOADFjIJKSIBq.yahoo.invalid
Tue May 15 17:22:20 BST 2007
--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Bickerton, Roderic K
\(SELEX\) \(UK\)" <roderic.bickerton at ...> wrote:
> why are they listed?
> I asked this of George, and am now throwing it open. I am not
> criticizing George, he is probably to busy to answer me more fully.
> Perhaps I need to provide more information. They are in a typical T
> Mears 2 shoe horned in and much cut about frame, subject to more
> butchery at a later date.
> I hope this can go!
> I was a bit surprised to see them listed. Not a complete ring.
> 3 is a real brute and would have to be retired if it could not, or
> be allowed to be tuned. The others would not need to much doing.
> I have been advised the T Mears 2 tenor would probably tune down
> well, it is nearly a semi sharp.
Where on earth are we talking about? ...or have I missed something
More information about the Bell-historians