[Bell Historians] Balderton

Revd David Cawley davidl.cawley@btinternet.com [bellhistorians] bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Thu Jan 23 19:15:23 GMT 2020

I had some similar cases when assisting with the compilation of the 
"Reduced" section in Dove.

I think that the line we would have taken is that if the Bell taken down 
was kept in the church or another secure place with even a long term 
intention to rehang it for ringing, it would simply be a case of "one or 
more bells taken down". If it was hung 'dead' for chiming or disposed of 
then the remaining bells would be a reduced ring from 6 < 5.


------ Original Message ------
From: "'George Dawson' georgebellringer at gmail.com [bellhistorians]" 
<bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com>
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 23 Jan, 2020 At 10:27
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Balderton


From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 23 January 2020 10:14
To: Bellhistorians
Subject: [Bell Historians] Balderton

I have round a report in the RW about the dedication of Balderton as a 
ring of 8 in 1 962.  In it it says:

"..... A ring of five, cast by John Taylor in 1842, ....... Was 
augmented when a treble bell was added in 1900, but this was hung above 
the others and, becoming unsafe, was taken down in 1930..."

Does this mean that between 1930 and when the bells were rehung as a 6 
in an 8-bell frame in 1951 they were a "reduced ring"?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20200123/fb3e4690/attachment.html>

More information about the Bell-historians mailing list