[Bell Historians] St Paul's and Chelsea

[alantaylor at mPkoAU9C2PNQiy2KLXQVddCrOf3E-rRgXWkOK8K5tsCLSO28GuabK9mekERJBTXDkzcr1klaYY_NfVP9bV-vdJJIjQ.yahoo.invalid]

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 are
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 would
therefore make the bells tricky to ring. St Luke’s is to go to the expense
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 

 

           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20070930/c11b8422/attachment.html>