[Bell Historians] Listing rings etc cast since 1890

[Ken Webb]

On 31/01/2021 08:07, Andrew Aspland via Bell-historians wrote:

> And I very much agree with Chris!! "They’re all the same opinion. 
> Never knew such unanimity on a point of law in my life!"
>
> We have some very "valuable" peals of bells out there - as in valued 
> by ringers - very many of which are not listed and many of which would 
> be a tragic loss to our art, and to the soundscape of Britain,  if 
> they were to be less valued by the decision makers.
>
> Listing may well help raise the awareness of the importance of 
> harmonic peals of bells.  It is probably not down to the listing of 
> individual bells but to the sets of harmonic bells - the "complete" 
> peals. However, the listing process, as it stands, identifies bells of 
> "historic significance" only.  The single criterion for bells cast 
> after 1851 (that amazingly significant date in history - don't get me 
> started on arbitrary dates used in history) is "Significant examples 
> of technical innovation."   Thus, Norton, Sheffield are listed as the 
> first harmonic peal of bells to leave the Loughborough foundry.  No 
> similar examples are listed for the work of G&J or WBF.
>
> Perhaps the ChurchCare listing system is not the right tool for this 
> job.  Is there a case for formalising some sort of Preservation 
> Society?  And to get such a society recognised by Historic England, 
> Church of England etc.
>
> Specifically regarding the works of Gillett & Johnston (since an 
> example that foundry's work began this thread) I would have thought 
> there was a strong case for a society dedicated to their bells.  It is 
> 65 or so years since the last G&J peal of bells was cast and yet their 
> window of casting harmonic bells lasted for fewer than 50 years.  
>  They produced many distinctive and beautiful peals of bells as well 
> as very many chimes and carillons which rank among the best.  Of their 
> 1683 bells hung for ringing only the six bells at Preschute are listed 
> (and they don't fit any listing criteria).
>
> Anyone out there have a passion for such things?
>
> Attached is something to get us started.


The Code for bells etc covering listing implies that for bells cast in 
the last 300 years only the rare / exceptional  etc. should be listed. 
So no expectation that all good rings are Listed. (Does the same 
approach apply to Organs & Clocks?)

Andrew lists 1,683 G&J bells including whole rings (& back 8's etc.).

A search of Dove re England for  1896 - 2000 & any Founder with a John 
Taylor prefix, about 7,875 bells are displayed including rings (& clock 
bells at York etc.).

I assume most interested ringers etc. would not want to see any of those 
melted down for scrap?

I assume those who are most experienced would prefer to keep all of 
these bells rather than, broadly, any Whitechapel bells from 1800 - 1900?

Should the Listing have a Grade code (like Buildings?). I assume all 
Taylor bells from 1896 to 2000 are not of equally worth keeping? So some 
may be Grade 1 & others Grade 5? Who will judge? Who will decide & List?

Should the Listing have a Reason code (say R for Ring, L for Large, A or 
M for Appearance/Moulding)?

If 100 good rings become available soon & need to be moved where will 
they go?

In terms of transfers, I suggest those rings cast since about 1900 will 
usually be in a good frame with modern fittings & ideally the whole lot 
should be moved (if they can't be retained in use in the existing 
building) to minimise costs - just need some new foundation girders & a 
suitable tower!

Should the bell installation including the frame & fittings have a 
Listing (by Grade & with a Reason) - even if it dates from broadly 1900 
to 2000?

Following this idea would stop nearly all new bell casting, most tuning  
& most rehanging of existing rings.

Ken



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20210131/d5b01501/attachment.html>