[Bell Historians] Thatcham tenor

Mon Sep 18 11:19:28 BST 2017

I'm sure this is simply a case (as many others) of a greatly exaggerated
approximate weight. Besides, Sharpe's Berkshire (p.363) shows that the 1624
bell replaced by the present tenor in 1821 was originally 14-1-21 (as
recorded in 1624) - so the present bell was most likely of about the same
weight when originally supplied (and as we know 13-2-21 when delivered at
Loughborough in 1929, and now 13-0-23).

So the 18 cwt in Thatcham's case is, surely, just an approximate value (not
an exact weight). If you look at tenor weights (where the bells then and now
are the same) in old editions of Dove, you'll quickly see how approximate
weights were seldom other than greatly in excess of the subsequently
discovered actual weight (a striking instance is Church Honeybourne, reputed
19.75cwt, actual 12-1-0). Edington priory was one exception (estimated 23
cwt, and actually heavier at 25-0-6 before tuning etc - now 24-0-24). 

There's a lot of mythology about fraudulent founders inflating weights by
including clappers, headstocks, old boots (no, not really!) etc. Customers
weren't that dim (and the holders of purse strings were always pretty
vigilant about not being overcharged) and I think it's fair to say that few
such instances can be proved. I do agree that clappers were sometimes
included, although I'm not sure I'd accept that it was common practice.

It is true that headstocks and clappers are often included in carriage
weights - and occasionally these have been wrongly taken to be the nett
weights of the bells. But that's an interpretation issue - not one of
fraudulent or exaggerated weighing.

As to the short (100lbs) and long cwt (112lbs) issue, I've made quite a
study of metal prices based on checking the maths of bellfounders' bills -
and the number of instances of bells being weighed in short cwts is very
small indeed (only one in fact, although the list of qualifying samples -
where the documentation provides concrete evidence - isn't very large). The
other day, incidentally, I did some checking of weights recorded for the old
bells of Hailes Abbey in 1556 - and the maths showed that they were in long
cwts.

The final point to make, of course, is about the accuracy and reliability of
weighing equipment. Some discrepancies are accountable for on this basis.
I've seen accounts of bells being weighed by all sorts of methods - the most
interesting case I can think of being a bell at Clifford (Herefs) in the
early C18 weighed using a balance, with stones, anvils etc being piled on
the other end, the bell weight being calculated by adding up the weights of
those items (e.g. one large flat stone 134lbs).

Even from the main foundries, there are plenty of instances of bells being
charged out at one weight and weighed back at something rather different
(e.g. Offenham tenor supplied by John Rudhall in 1830 at 11-1-16, in to
Taylors in 1897 at 11-1-6 and out at 11-0-20 after tuning, back again in
1925 at 11-0-12, and out at 10-3-2 after canon removal). It's rare to have
quite so many recorded weights for one bell, but this nicely illustrates the
point that differences of 8-10 lbs occur when there should have been no
change between weighings.

Just some reflections on rather too much time spent investigating such
things!!

Chris Pickford

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20170918/40661070/attachment.html>