[Bell Historians] Mini rings

George Dawson george at 9BJUq0U4nRxFF20QRc-BsvZAB5RGei1qIs9RmsCKPfd1pdxQ0X1O4onR0pkjXqReCoPWoCwpg1Rll3lGRYpuCbkw3g.yahoo.invalid
Fri Jan 29 09:24:42 GMT 2010

I have always (in my own mind) categorized 'small' rings into two



Those sets which have traditionally shaped & profiled bells.

Such as the Lichfield set

The Willoughby Campanile



Those installations which consist of Matthew Higbys thickened handbell

Non bell metal playthings.


Yes & I don't doubt that there are still grey areas!



From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Robert Lewis
Sent: 29 January 2010 01:17
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Mini rings



At 16:02 28/01/2010, John wrote:

>I specifically didn't mention portability, because while I am pretty sure
>that all portable rings would be accepted as mini rings, the converse isn't
>true - many are permanently installed in buildings. It might be feasible
>to 'detach and carry' some of the lighter ones elsewhere, but it certainly
>wouldn't be for the heavier ones.

Is there a critical size or weight where small bells rung by rope and 
wheel invariably cease to handle like most "conventional" tower bells?

If so, could that be of assistance in a re-categorization? (Not that 
I am advocating this for official purposes, you understand!)

In any event, I suppose there is always going to be a "grey area" 
that would make any ruling for public record-keeping purposes 
controversial and unpopular with some people.


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2650 - Release Date: 01/27/10

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20100129/0386d389/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list