Thanks for the instructive comments folks. No there was no lecturn, there couldn't have been because I make a point of taking close-ups of the lecturn eagle when I visit churches / cathedrals. It didn't occur to me that I hadn't done that until jennyann mentioned it. Looking back now, I didn't see much of any period metalwork surviving apart from the odd bit of victorian arch (see photo).
Fire being a strange beast, it was purely artibrary was was saved, and what wasn't.
I think the temperature of the fire that destroyed a lot of the Church is underestimated. With a through breeze going on it would have been a furnace in there. It certainly got hot enough to melt the glass, destroy supporting stonework utterly, and to require 15 fire engines to put it out. These are impresive facts in a perverse way.
The extreme temperatures also changed some of the stones chemically, so that any water hitting them would cause rapid degeneration (far quicker than stone exposed to normal weathering). I'm afraid to say that the Stone selected by Victorians could also be pretty low-grade, as they were bunging up a church every five minutes in the early 1800s, so economy was a factor.
This is one of reasons that the new glass section of the church had to be built; the surviving stained glass window is under serious threat of being undermined by the friable stonework should it not be protected in this way. In the protected glass section there is also evidence of very recent shedding of the stone dressing, and in-roads being made into the stone blocks themselves.
I hope the nay-sayers give the place a chance. I'm sure they'll never win everybody over (nobody can be forced to like something), but these folks will come and they will go. I think that everyone involved in the rebuild has done a very impressive job considering what they had to work with.
![13.jpg 13.jpg](https://birminghamhistory.co.uk/forum/data/attachments/9/9090-cbb840502fa63f56f7ae137567672de9.jpg?hash=y7hAUC-mP1)