[Bell Historians] Cornhill, was Trafalgar Square old & new

John H Allen john at oOeXN8gG6KySDPaSXYRKwl0QW3P-tyJ96K2kUyr4bmDRRYDhEqcYjr1KdbIXPwm_Va3zHb7yBH8LmS26sU4.yahoo.invalid
Tue Mar 10 12:49:01 GMT 2009

Not all of it is/was 1688.




From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Chris Pickford
Sent: 10 March 2009 12:13
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Cornhill, was Trafalgar Square old & new


Rod Bickerton asks "Any chance of coming back to ideas on Cornhill?"

Mightn't we do best to leave Cornhill until we get a judgment?


But I do feel the need to counter Rod's implication yesterday that they are
old bells - part of the justification for replacement is that even though
they are "old style", half of them (and all the back-end) are C20th bells
(i.e. not old at all)




PS And Lichfield's frame is 1688 (not Tudor)

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.9/1991 - Release Date: 03/09/09

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20090310/9e227ceb/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list