[Bell Historians] Bell frame for sale (of no practical use)

[Peter Humphreys]

Sorry to come in late on this (just back after a week away).

 

My spectacles frame broke last year and I had it replaced. Should I have
retained the old one?

 

Off-topic? Perhaps. But the sentiment is not.

Peter Humphreys

15 Mount Park, Bebington, Wirral. CH63 5RD

Tel: 0151-608 9434. Mobile: 07896 342 920

Email Address:  <mailto:pfh at S0a0H1F1vaLdaD60DmqYpv0sS67TzbpV_A6DplHQPfILmFBg5mFr1o1bNpVMoJG6bt1qHIoAVB93DxAnPEE0.yahoo.invalid> pfh at S0a0H1F1vaLdaD60DmqYpv0sS67TzbpV_A6DplHQPfILmFBg5mFr1o1bNpVMoJG6bt1qHIoAVB93DxAnPEE0.yahoo.invalid

VOIP (Skype) pfhbdh

 


 

 

  _____  

From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of David Bryant
Sent: 14 March 2008 14:29
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Bell frame for sale (of no practical use)

 

"Actually I found the advert a bit low-key and hardly overselling it (It 
could have been 'Unique example of seventeenth century carpentry').

The real question was whether anyone knew anything about it and if it is 
of any unusual interest. Placing a small ad in the Church Times might 
indicate lack of knowledge or lack of wider interest."
 
Realistically, who is going to want it? If they find someone they will be
very lucky!
 
I really do think that the current 'save everything' approach is getting out
of hand. Yes some, particularly good examples of frames which are
representative of their period of construction should be saved but what is
really achieved by keeping as many as we seem to now? I've seen a few
examples of moderately-interesting but not unique frames put on RSJs at the
top of the tower, where it's pretty much impossible to inspect them properly
and they are removed from their original context being in a different place
in the tower and without the bells. Surely in many cases the need for
historical evidence would be better served by a detailed documentary record
and the preservation of, say, a representative frame truss mounted on the
wall of the ringing chamber?
 
The basic problem seems to be that English Heritage (and DACs in some cases)
seem to consider worn-out bell frames to be of more significance than the
continuation of the tradition of change ringing. In cases such as that at
Romsey Abbey, where the existing frame was repaired at considerable expense
with no guarantee that it would be suitable afterwards, you have to wonder
what the point is. It is highly debatable whether the historical
significance of this frame was such that it was worthwhile spending more on
it than a new frame would have cost, and given how much timber had to be
replaced can it really be considered the original frame in any case?
 
David 
 

 
 
--
This email has been verified as Virus free.
Virus Protection and more available at http://www.plus.net

 

           
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20080319/9bd5585b/attachment.html>