Radford Semele

[jill.rogers96]

In St James Barton under Needwood, English Heritage have given 
permission to do the same with our 1739 frame (Lift it above a 
lowered new frame that would hang "semi below" in the clock 
chamber).  We consider this option expensive and pointless for the 
reasons you give.  However when we suggested that the frame could be 
removed and stood on stanchions in the unused north aisle, above the 
area where we serve coffee, English Heritage were shocked by the 
intrusiveness of the suggestion on our worship.  
We would like any new frame we have in the place where it was 
designed to be.  We like to hear the clock chime as well as the bells 
ringing and fear that if the frame is in the clock chamber the chimes 
will be rather indistinct.  Has anyone any knowledge of this?

What do you experts think about our idea for the frame?  It would of 
course be burnt if there was a fire similar to that in Radford Semele 
which looks horrific.  However it would be visible for non ringers 
and people who don't climb up precarious ladders.  I have seen 
Haughton's frame or rather I have glimpsed it and that is why I don't 
want to do the same with ours.  I am aware of the size of it but what 
else do we do unless we just record it properly and prop up bits of 
it in the bell chamber around the rather smaller iron frame?

Jill Rogers


--- In bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com, "Chris Pickford" 
<c.j.pickford.t21 at ...> wrote:
>
> The loss (which now seems pretty certain) includes:
> a) A mediaeval bell of c.1350 relocated from Atherstone on Stour 
when Radford bells were restored in 1998
> b) An important early C17th frame hoisted above the ring (and 
suspended on hawsers below the roof) - significant because the older 
part (for three bells) was dated, and a fourth (transverse) pit had 
been added later. It was quite an early dated frame of c.1615, 
probably extended in 1636.
> c) Three quite good early C17th bells - two by Watts 1636 and a 
Bagley of 1641
> d) A recently restored and fully ringable six
> 
> This was, in fact, the frame I referred to in my paper at 
the "Perspectives" conference at Worcester - where the relocation 
preserved the frame but in a position entirely unsuitable for further 
study. I saw it back in the early 1970s (when I knew little about 
frames) and attempted to examine it properly in 2001 but was defeated 
by its position and the lack of any form of anchoring. I believe that 
John Eisel and Christopher Dalton saw it in its original position not 
long before the 1998 restoration - but Chris made few notes and John 
can't find his! The date (c.1615) was found on a concealed member - 
hidden when the extra pit was added - but I've never managed to 
establish for sure what it was!
> 
> This is the third Warwickshire frame supposedly preserved that has 
in fact disappeared after a relatively short time. The others 
(Walsgrave and Offchurch) both rotted in their churchyards. I have 
for some time argued that preservation by record - full 
archaeological recording - is preferable, and more informative to 
future researchers, than retention ex situ. Loss by fire cannot, of 
course be predicted, but the Radford frame was really "lost" to 
historians in 1998.
> 
> All very sad - especially for the parish and for the local ringers: 
but a loss for bell history too
> 
> CJP
>