[Bell Historians] Riverside Carillon.

[Timothy Hurd]

Dear Alan

I have just returned from a month away (recording historic bells in Denmark) and 
have now caught up with the bellhistorians back-forth on all this G&J Riverside 
Church 'original trebles' business. 


At the risk of boring everybody to tears, and as a final word, the following 
might be of interest:

1. The #7 bell ex-Riverside carillon would have been pitch F#5 (CFJ numbered 
from the top end, of course, with no.1 being C7 - why have it simple when you 
can have it complicated?)

2. At Wellington, we have in storage twenty G&J lathe-cut trebles dating 
from 1929, therefore of nearly identical casting period as RC. Owing to tuning 
damage from extensive salt air corrosion in Wellington, these bells were 
replaced in 1985 (but NOT melted down!)

3. The no.3 bell of the Wellington archived set is also an F#5 (no.1 being G#5), 
which would be virtually identical in size to the original F#5 from New York.

4. The physical measurements of the Wellington F#5 are as follows:

DIAMETER:  178.5mm = 7.03 inches
HEIGHT:   148.0mm = 5.83 inches
SOUNDBOW THICKNESS:  15.1mm = 0.59" (very slightly thicker than the 9/16" = 
0.5625" you mention).

5. So, yes, the G&J treble soundbows really are 'this thin' (basically exact 
clones of larger bells, just shrunk in 3-D). 


6. The 'new' (1999) Whitechapel trebles are considerably larger/thicker/more 
resonant than the G&J originals would have been.

Regards,
Timothy Hurd QSM
National Carillonist of New Zealand
Director, National Carillon - Canberra, Australia




________________________________
From: Alan Buswell <aaj.buswell at AU2jDicfgSjuNp05Dm99ktE5W_vf2iVTCXIwayQ_0IBNPRVWWXkyxs681C-pM80h9DSr_PO8yrlhMuNrrGbgQP8Z.yahoo.invalid>
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 2 November, 2010 11:24:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Riverside Carillon.

  
 
I agree with the last paragraph as no one has come up with an answer I was 
expecting. 

I thank every one who took the trouble to reply.
 
AAJB
----- Original Message ----- 
>From: Chris Pickford 
>To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:49 AM
>Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Riverside Carillon.
>
>  
> 
>I guess I'm probably not alone in finding this thread rather unedifying and 
>hardly worth further public discussion. 
>
> 
>Surely, a bell diameter is a diameter - edge to edge at the mouth. It's possible 
>that some other measurement is recorded, but, if so, then it would not be 
>described as the bell diameter. 
>
> 
>Isn't it more likely that we have some mis-measurement here? It's a pretty 
>common experience for two people to get slightly different measurements of the 
>same bell, although 1.125" is quite a big margin of error.  
> 
>Or is it possible that the 7" bell (if that really is a correct and exact 
>measurement) is other than THE smallest of the Riverside bells - i.e. one of the 
>smaller ones, rather than the smallest. It would be worth checking how the owner 
>knows for sure which bell (s)he has got.
> 
>Posted in the hope of closing the discussion
> 
>CP



                 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20101106/0d0a497c/attachment.html>