[Bell Historians] Re: Levels of Bell Production

John H Allen john at owgc0BMNWxbpSfyGQhmPt2nKiJ8NOn6J4AnevSwgzWG8FPXITGmOEqt0s3fPYURss7keGeeSQXRkDlo.yahoo.invalid
Sat Oct 17 13:54:58 BST 2009

And tonnage must mean profitably and viability.


>From memory, and I stand to be corrected, I can think of only 2 'heavy' new
rings over the past 5 years - Cambridge GSM 24cwt and Writtle 31cwt.






From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Chris Pickford
Sent: Saturday 17 October 2009 13:37
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Re: Levels of Bell Production



Forgot to say earlier


Another key thing about this is that available figures are likely to be
numerical - i.e. number of bells cast. More meaningful, yet harder still to
establish, would be the figure for tonnage, i.e. total weight of bells cast
in a given period.


Probably a tendency in recent years for there to be more bells numerically
but smaller ones - so an apparent increase in activity may in fact mask a
decline (or the decline is more serious than it appears)



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.422 / Virus Database: 270.14.20/2440 - Release Date: 10/16/09

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20091017/d111930d/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list