[Bell Historians] Mini rings

matthewhigby at jrpEGlc49Bo1-cRLoP-9mkfu7Jhej-CLxsIPZha-AbZYYPCRtav2jIVYhR2aU3hZYTdjG3Wbd-FHx5pbs2I.yahoo.invalid matthewhigby at jrpEGlc49Bo1-cRLoP-9mkfu7Jhej-CLxsIPZha-AbZYYPCRtav2jIVYhR2aU3hZYTdjG3Wbd-FHx5pbs2I.yahoo.invalid
Fri Jan 29 22:03:26 GMT 2010

Dear List - sorry for this late entry, I've been a bit busy this week.....

Are the Willoughby bells traditionally shaped and profiled bells George? I was under the impression that the back 6 were from Taylors fire bell patterns, along with several other sets, including Warden Hill. They are however, harmonically tuned, which is a plus point - old style bells of this size have a habit of sounding pretty grim!

Bill H will confirm that as bells get smaller (and higher pitched) the ear picks up different things. When bells get smaller than about 20" in diameter the upper partials become less audible and the ear tends to focus more on the hum note. This is why with really small mini ring bells - the thickened handbell patterns give really good results - because they are all hum and minor 3rd. We experimented with traditional shaped bells of the same size, but they don't sound anywhere near as good.

Drawing lines to divide mini-ring peals from "proper peals" and handbell peals will only cause upset in certain camps - and a lot of water has gone under the bridge already.

Does size really matter that much. I was assured that it's what you do with it that counts...

All good fun!


-----Original Message-----
From: George Dawson <george at srm5C87i-_9c7SlVdnWbfBvN9Ot_C7EsIxKyQnOZXrgxuUt4zkAm7pPhzu4ed_UpI9omeF-NVX2KTdA3TT7uAwTU3ySr.yahoo.invalid>
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 29, 2010 9:24 am
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Mini rings


I have always (in my own mind) categorized ‘small’ rings into two categories:
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 patterns
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 19:36:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20100129/a2ac80cc/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list