[Bell Historians] Mini rings

[John Harrison]

In article <201001290118.o0T1IbaU006017 at mw-7fe_oQzt01iMG0QneckL9KXD5yh7a0GARDhoKpDjDELEzkmsEUZPx6SwKXnKT_qiE4xEy5jOxOg9VTVxUHQfZXoWCwWYl-45y02Dv9L9ByBKO7B1DzFiZ.yahoo.invalid>,
   Robert Lewis <editor at OC7pSM_OTG87Lj2pELuRWg-vIdtXDjjEb5soPOUbiEH5yhu71tap4a0JFk_g1Csb9cxYQEzPTZvihhivQUz-P3wxJxs.yahoo.invalid> wrote:

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

I think that depends on the skill and style of the ringer.  Quite a lot of
ringers find it very hard to adapt to bells of 1 or 2 cwts, whereas some
people (myself included) would consider the required style to be an extreme
variant of 'conventional' handling.  

I think most people would agree that handling bells of a few lbs requires a
different technique.  I am inclined to put the transition within the gap I
mentioned before, ie there are no rings between ~20 lbs and ~60 lbs.  But I
think others would disagree, including some experienced regular ringers of
bells just about this weight.  

> 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.

Quite!  Distinctions made in public records must at least be based on hard
facts, eg the weight, the type of building, or whatever, and even then
there is no guarantee of a consensus that the distinction is useful.

Regards

-- 
John Harrison
http://www.jaharrison.me.uk
Message sent from an Iyonix running RISC-OS 5