[Bell Historians] Tetbury, Gloucestershire

Tue Feb 22 16:52:13 GMT 2022

If I zoom in on Tetbury 2 photo from Andrew B, the bell on the left 
seems to have a shallow but distinct regular band, about 2 to 3 inches 
wide on the waist side of the clapper indentation - which looks like 
machine tuning? Could the same appearance be from the mould or fettling 
or some other source?? (I think the photo from Bill is of the same bell 
& both photos of that bell do imply machine tuning of that bell but I 
have limited knowledge.)

Ken

On 22/02/2022 12:50, Andrew Bull via Bell-historians wrote:
>
> I inspected these bells in April 2017.
>
> The frame, Pickford type 6.A, layout 8.3, is indeed by Gillett & Co. 
> 1891. It has tie rods. The fittings are also mostly by Gillett, and 
> consist of elm headstocks, plate gudgeons, and traditional type wheels 
> and stays. The bells have ball-bearings and modern-type clappers, 
> presumably supplied and fitted by Taylors in 1965.
>
> There are no tuning marks on the back seven. The recast treble has 
> been skirted, which is rather strange as the nominal of this bell is 
> 50 cents sharp of the ideal. According to my figures – and perhaps 
> Bill can confirm or refute – the back four all have sharp primes as 
> well as sharp hums.
>
> Hopefully the attached photos will help.
>
> Andrew Bull
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Bell-historians 
> [mailto:bell-historians-bounces at lists.ringingworld.co.uk] *On Behalf 
> Of *MATTHEW HIGBY via Bell-historians
> *Sent:* 22 February 2022 11:23
> *To:* Bell Historians Mailing List
> *Cc:* MATTHEW HIGBY
> *Subject:* Re: [Bell Historians] Tetbury, Gloucestershire
>
> Surely they have been rehung since then…. That’s pre-ball bearings. M
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On 22 Feb 2022, at 10:32, Phil Watts via Bell-historians 
> <bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 
>>
>> Highgrove, Doughton (pronounced “Dufton” by some locally), mentioned 
>> in the text as the home of the Yatman family who commissioned the new 
>> tower in 1890-91, is of course Highgrove House, now the country home 
>> of the Prince of Wales.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> *From:*Bell-historians 
>> <bell-historians-bounces at lists.ringingworld.co.uk> *On Behalf Of 
>> *c.j.pickford.t21--- via Bell-historians
>> *Sent:* 22 February 2022 10:07
>> *To:* Bell Historians Mailing List 
>> <bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk>
>> *Cc:* c.j.pickford.t21 at btinternet.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [Bell Historians] Tetbury, Gloucestershire
>>
>> Thanks Ken. I hadn't ventured beyond the photo page. Clearly a 
>> Gillett installation, completed in 1893. No, they wouldn't have taken 
>> the bells away for tuning at that date (not until about 1907).
>>
>> I did find that the work done in 1965 was authorised by Archdeacon's 
>> Certificate (not a full faculty) so must have been fairly limited
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Huawei phone
>>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Tetbury, Gloucestershire
>> From: Ken Webb
>> To: bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk
>> CC:
>>
>>         The link from the photo provided by Bill states G&J were paid
>>         £200 for the bell work in the 1890's (& carried out work re
>>         the clock etc.)
>>
>>         Have-you-heard-the-bells.pdf (tetburychurch.co.uk)
>>         <https://tetburychurch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Have-you-heard-the-bells.pdf>
>>
>>         Were they machine tuning bells then?
>>
>>         Ken
>>
>>         On 22/02/2022 07:25, bill at hibberts.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>             These bells are described in Church Bells of
>>             Gloucestershire as ‘seven largest bells maiden bells,
>>             treble with skirting’, and the back 7 (Rudhall 1722) are
>>             marked as historically important, presumably because they
>>             are maiden. I was looking at the nominal figures of these
>>             bells as part of a project I am doing, and wonder whether
>>             in fact the back 7 have been tuned.
>>
>>             Arguments in favour of tuning are:
>>
>>               * The back 7 nominal frequencies are correct to within
>>                 3.5 cents of a temperament favoured by Taylors from
>>                 the 1890s on
>>               * The bells hang in a frame which is probably Taylors 1891
>>               * The bell in this photograph
>>                 https://tetburychurch.co.uk/have-you-heard-the-church-bells-yet-this-year-or-the-church-clock-striking-out-the-passing-of-time/
>>                 may have a band of tuning just below the clapper scar
>>
>>             Arguments against tuning are:
>>
>>               * The treble is stretched by 35 cents (but perhaps
>>                 wasn’t tuned if it had previously been skirted?)
>>               * The information in CBOG, arising from a visit on
>>                 20/8/1979 by Mary Bliss and AJC (Tony Cox?).
>>
>>             I think the bells weren’t tuned when worked on by Taylors
>>             in 1965, as the tuning marks would have been relatively
>>             fresh in 1979.
>>
>>             Does anyone have any better knowledge of this?
>>
>>             Regards,
>>
>>             Bill H
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>
>>             Bell-historians mailing list
>>
>>             Bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk
>>
>>             https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bell-historians mailing list
>> Bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk
>> https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bell-historians mailing list
> Bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk
> https://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/bell-historians
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/pipermail/bell-historians/attachments/20220222/c66cf2f3/attachment-0001.htm>