[Bell Historians] St Paul's and Chelsea

davidhird_uk davidhird_uk at EPEz487V3pX4mip9XzRougwMFAkh3nCCK6no-AzYUnzAPOtOe8bz2iojeU4Wga-MnQo3iFtWJJ3V9Fs66G0C.yahoo.invalid
Mon Oct 1 09:07:17 BST 2007

What about retuning?


-- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, <alantaylor at ...> wrote:
> Just have a chat with the DAC advisor David. And then the CCC. 
They are
> united in wanting the bells preserved.
> Alan
>   _____  
> From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of David Bryant
> Sent: 30 September 2007 23:09
> To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] St Paul's and Chelsea
> "We have the same problem with the bells of St Luke's Chelsea. 
They sound
> dreadful; they are too heavy for the tower and therefore go badly. 
But we
> are told they should be preserved as they are historically 
interesting as a
> Thomas Mears 2nd peal of ten. I wonder why Thomas Mears 2nd bells 
> getting rare. Although the last report from The Council for the 
Care of
> Churches, said they felt the bells should be preserved as a peal 
of TM2nd
> ten bells. But, as the trebles were so awful, new bells could be 
cast and
> hung in their place. But the old trebles should be hung dead in 
the tower.
> This breathtaking logic seems to miss the point, that with new 
trebles, the
> ring would no longer be a TM2 ten.  And, the bells would still be 
too heavy
> for the tower, and therefore the tower would still sway and this 
> therefore make the bells tricky to ring. St Luke's is to go to the 
> of a consistory court."
> Opinions on St Paul's vary: some like them, some don't.
> So far as I'm aware, opinions on St Luke's, Chelsea, don't vary - 
I've never
> heard anyone say anything in favour of them!
> David


More information about the Bell-historians mailing list