[Bell Historians] Number of ringers

[John Harrison]

In article <69F5E934.11275.AB4B7D05 at johnstonrh.rhj.org.uk>,
   Richard Johnston via Bell-historians
<bell-historians at lists.ringingworld.co.uk> wrote:
> Clearly, including people who chime, rather than ring, is going to be
> an issue in the 1930 returns for all dioceses.  

Agreed.

> I don't see any special reason for assuming *this* issue applies more
> in Exeter diocese than elsewhere.

I didn't.  I merely thought that different information gathered via a
different route might explain an unexpected result.

> John's original comparison was between Exeter and Oxford & Bath &
> Wells.  My core point is that that the Guild of Devonshire Ringers
> memberships don't represent a good estimate of the numbers of ringers
> either in 1930 nor now.  Those other Guilds' figures did and do.

Agreed, which is why I added the GDR and DA figures to get an equivalent
modern comparator.  Or does Devon have more (full circle) ringers who
aren't a member of a ringing society?  

I realise the DA affiliation makes that a difficult question to answer but
is there reason to believe the nominal 600 is not a fair estimate of the
number of ringers in DA towers?

> The 1930 diocese figures from everywhere make a better comparator if
> you want to compare Devon with elsewhere than using Guild figures. 

I assumed that Coleridge's figure was based entirely on diocesan
information, not that he was comparing ODG membership with church data
from elsewhere.  Had he been one of us he might have compared ODG
membership to the diocesan figure and tried to explain any difference, but
was he that sort of person?

> That's the point.  There are no comparable figures for 2026 available
> that can compare Devon with elsewhere.

I would put it the other way round.  There are no 1930 figures to compare
with the present day figures we have (for ringers not chimers, etc) 

> ===============

> *Today* for towers with 5+ bells, tenor >2cwt (no minirings etc)

> Exeter 371
> Bath & Wells 340
> Oxford 361

> Devon is ahead in tower numbers, 

That's interesting.  But tower numbers are a poor proxy for ringer
numbers.  All my analysis has been based on towers with ringers.  ; 

> and may have been relatively rather more so in 1930, as I suspect 

> > Is Richard claiming that Exeter Diocese really did have more ringers
> > (in the sense we mean it) than Oxford Diocese in 1930?

> Yes.  I think that is entirely possible, indeed more than probable,

That's interesting.  But what about today?

> provided "we" mean people ringing full-circle, rather than more
> specifically method ringers 

Yes, which is why I added GDR and DA figures together.  Lots of ODG &
other members don't ring methods anyway.

> towers that are less ambitious, in terms of only wanting to ring
> rounds and call changes tend to manage to train and retain (at least
> part time) more people (to their required standards) than method
> towers.

I wonder whether that's because the skip the 'difficult stuff' or because
their primary focus and expectations are about on performance, 

> Guilds that emphasised methods would be expected, other things being
> qual, to have fewer ringers per tower

I've done a lot of analysis of numbers of ringers per tower, in ODG and
many other societies at different times over the last century, using
member lists in annual reports as source data, but that didn't include
Devon (because I didn't have ready access).  It would be interesting to
add.

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk
Using 4té2 and ARMX6, both running RISC OS

Do what will produce the desired effect, not what you think ought to produce the desired effect.