[Bell Historians] Re: Submitting historic peals (was The Botley Youths)

David Sloman dsloman261@gmail.com [bellhistorians] bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Wed Dec 6 09:59:38 GMT 2017

(Great) Clacton has a chime of 6, formerly a ring of 5 and (Little) Clacton
a ring of 3, also a chime of 4 at Clacton on Sea and a number of single
bells so not quite bellless.

David Sloman

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
[bellhistorians] <bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> 'Andrew Bull' a_m_bull at yahoo.co.uk [bellhistorians] wrote:
> > For some reason my post keeps getting removed from my message, so I'll
> > resort to top posting!
> All three got through fine with the content bottom posted on
> the first two.
> > There's another issue about tenor weights for historic peals, of which
> the
> > above case is a good example.
> >
> > Warner's did indeed quote 39-3-10 for their replacement tenor bell at
> Pier
> > Head. However, when it was weighed at Loughborough prior to scrapping, it
> > turned the scales at only 36-0-22, so the "official" weight was much
> > inflated. Which weight should be used for peals 1911-1952? Dobson quoted
> > 41-0-14 for the tenor of the 1814 twelve.
> This is something BellBoard ought to have a policy on, but
> currently we don't.
> My view is that because BellBoard is a database of
> performances rather than a database of tower or bells, we
> should record the performance as the ringers would have
> wished it to have been recorded at the time, so far as we
> can tell. So far as I'm aware, it was widely believed that
> the Warner tenor at Pier Head was 39¾ cwt, and I think I
> recall seeing peal boards there recording the tenor as that
> weight. I think that means BellBoard should show the tenor
> as 39¾ or 39-3-10 or whatever they believed at the time.
> Obviously that doesn't mean copying every typo: if there's a
> record of Pier Head with a 93 cwt tenor, someone has
> doubtless transposed the digits and it should be corrected.
> At some point I hope someone will produce a comprehensive
> database of historical bells and rings; if and when that
> happens, I'd be keen to link BellBoard to it. It's the job
> of that database to record that Warners supplied it at
> 39-3-10 but when Taylors scrapped it, it was only 36-0-22,
> and quite possibly take a view on which is the more accurate
> figure.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20171206/cade6429/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list