[Bell Historians] Re: Historical differences between long-standing bell foundries?

richard at Ghhvb_eeaIa9HU20kiCKrLtAMTGbus-oxUG_dbIsIG8h9qhltTrBlThe3gOAnALORWmW1HezRde3Gl9kCevg.yahoo.invalid richard at Ghhvb_eeaIa9HU20kiCKrLtAMTGbus-oxUG_dbIsIG8h9qhltTrBlThe3gOAnALORWmW1HezRde3Gl9kCevg.yahoo.invalid
Fri Apr 27 16:33:05 BST 2012

The Southwark bell was not cast using traditional methods or at a bellfoundry.


Sent from my iPhone

On 27 Apr 2012, at 13:23, mike at h8xnXK2SlGqi-662cylded-chJBjIV4TxjqZZAnSADgF2I06o7vkzVEPWuViN1Z9sEMDRSKDGlGq1QdK4fHSKPcu.yahoo.invalid wrote:

> > Taylor's continue to use 
> > traditional methods since amalgamating with Hayward Mills so perhaps the 
> > 'modern' casting approach is not cost-effective.
> > 
> > Hayden Charles
> > 
> I suspect that it might be that case that the marginal cost of producing an individual bell would be less, perhaps significantly so. However, the output of bells these days is so low that the fixed cost component would make the scheme uneconomic. To put it another way, production levels might not be high enough to justify the cost of changing to a more modern way of casting.
> The picture, middle top, on http://www.southwark-bells.org.uk/sharp2.html does suggest that inscriptions in this method are not quite up to the crispness of the old method.
> Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20120427/98677cef/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list