[Bell Historians] FW: Listed bells, why are they listed?

Dickon Love dickon at Niv2PZpL851z4YLxWFLTJyeQgY3mDEwpX1dBWQK_-Z9BOFDb7yT-mLVJ33TwUF2v8KLEieM16sTMAQ.yahoo.invalid
Wed May 16 00:12:04 BST 2007

DLC (in response to Rod Bick):
"The frame, like the front 5 bells, is of 1754, and not as Mr Bickerton
says a "typical T Mears 2 shoe-horned in and much cut about frame".
Whether or not it was "subject to more butchery at a later date" I do
not know"

Having done quite a bit of work in the tower, I am not sure where the
significant butchery comes from, apart from the usual practice at the
time of fitting bells into a frame that was never quite the right size
from the outset. The tower has been butchered more than the frame. The
frame is Catlin (well before Mears) and original. Given that we are
trying to formulate a future for this historic ring, I am not sure that
a discussion like this from Mr Bickerton helps at this stage. We are
booking some authoritative reports on the tower, frame and bells, and
suggest we await the results of this before anyone wades in. Personally,
I look forward to seeing the lot tuned and rehung (possibly with recast
tenor - who knows) in a new frame lower in the tower, but that is
something for the church and putative trustees of the appeal. But if
this doesn't prove possible, then sympathetic alternatives will be
sought. Things are sensitive in the City at the moment, so let's not
stir. I concur with everything DLC says.



More information about the Bell-historians mailing list