Welcome to our world exploring the Historical, Political and Technological aspects of Locks, Keys and Safes

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Posts
    1,433
    Country: United States

    Default

    Almost done struggling through the Sala book. So now I have looked online for this 1868 "Tribunal of the First Instance" where Chatwood is declared the winner. Surprisingly I am finding nothing. You would think it would have been heavily mentioned in the English papers, since it overturns the claim of Herring winning the challenge. What gives here? Doug

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Posts
    1,433
    Country: United States

    Default

    At this point, I have come to conclusion that Silas Herring probably wished he had never met Samuel Chatwood. Not because the strength or relative merits of Chatwood's safe but rather the man himself. From the first communications between the two, it is quite obvious, at least to me, Herring was offering a simple challenge, a simulated burglary. Chatwood would have none of that. English pride was at stake and he is reported to have said as much. One of his requirements was having a committee of 5 judges, two English, two Americans and one Frenchman, all to be engineers, should have tipped Herring off. To assume bias would not affect their respective decisions is assuming too much. And the Frenchman could neither read nor write English. What fun!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Devon UK
    Posts
    3,117
    Country: UK

    Default

    It is hard for me to understand how having a balance of expert but likely biassed judges, with an independent member as a deciding judge, is somehow a character defect. They had difficulty finding any French volunteer, but the concept was to have balanced expert technical input and an independent engineers deciding voice.
    Personally I think that having so many aspects of the safes being judged rather than a straight opening challenge, made for a difficult and complicated likely outcome but that doesn't seem to be your grief.

    "Herring was offering a simple challenge, a simulated burglary. Chatwood would have none of that"

    What IS clear is that unlike Chatwoods men, Herrings men did not simulate a burglary but instead came with tools that needed to be carried on a cart because they were so heavy.
    Herring even tried using American officialdom as an excuse to try to swap safes after being taken up on his own challenge.

    They were both good safes of their time, but over here we tend to agree that Hobbs made the best locks and Chatwoods made the best safes.
    That Herring brought the best picker and safebreaker that he could from America, teamed them up with an expert from Germany and made not the slightest impression simulating the most skilled burglars attack possible is a great testament to Chatwood.
    The deciding Frenchmans lack of English was not a problem for Herring because the committee were only allowed to have a very partial American translate everything to and from him!!!!!!

    I have tried to discuss the challenge independent of my clearly stated interest in Chatwood but with the best will in the world, your conclusions seem to be unrelated to what we know.
    cheers
    Tom

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Posts
    1,433
    Country: United States

    Default

    It does appear you have more info than I have been able to find so far, especially regarding the workmen. But my statement about a "simple challenge" is based solely on the original correspondence between the two men and it (their original desires) seem quite clear. As to a "character defect", I didn't say that but was pointing out exactly as you put it, it "made for a difficult and complicated likely outcome". There is no grief here but I will admit to "spicing" my words a bit. Personally I have no great love for Herring, but I am intrigued by the whole nasty affair. What eventually transpired shows that 5 did not do all that great of a job. Much has been said about the type, the amount and weight of tools that were brought in. Leaving that decision up to the two individual parties obviously resulted in differing opinions of what was needed. The fact the judges approved of differing amounts was on the judges and should have been rectified immediately. It was not and the challenge carried on. What ended up being successfully used were the wedges, hammers and crowbars. Both safes carried similar types of cast manganese iron, Speigeleisen and Franklinite. Most burglars, at the time, would have had access to only high carbon steel drills, which are not efficient on the hard manganese iron, so bringing and allowing in the drilling rig and frame was wasted effort. But it should have been made to both parties or neither. Specifics on how a particular safe is designed and built is information seldom available to the burglar, yet Chatwood pushed hard for it, being contrary to the common burglary. Whether Herring knowingly left out important facts in his drawings supplied to Chatwood is unknown. What is known, is that Herring stated right up front, early in their communications that it was not within his power to supply accurate working drawings.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Devon UK
    Posts
    3,117
    Country: UK

    Default

    Something that IS quite clear to me is that Herring knowingly broke the agreement initially sent on June 5 1867 to supply full detailed drawings although chatwood complied fully. Firstly he tried saying that they weren't needed, then that he hadn't got any and couldn't produce them before, at the last minute, producing feeble drawings that turned out to be wrong and misleading. At what point does that constitute an inability to decide on balance whether he deliberately left out important details, given that he WAS able to bring two experts (not employees) at short notice from America but not a piece of paper from his own factory not to mention that the destruction of his safe was slowed down by the subsequently clearly visible "mistakes"?
    the details of this simple challenge were initially set out by Chatwood and it was herring who twisted and turned.
    the septuple in the challenge did not have the ferromanganese spiegeleisen - that was patented in 1868 and used when octuples were manufactured.
    the German was intact the Foreman of an Austrian safe company who was well acquainted with Chatwood safes
    there are numerous things which the committee should not have allowed - but did. All of them favoured herring.
    an interesting point is that whereas Chubb and Hobbs had silver medals in the exhibition, for whatever reason Chatwood only had bronze - any idea what herring had?
    1851 had seen a Great Leap Forward in security mechanisms and this exhibition seems to have been just before Things advanced greatly again.
    both safes were proof against ordinary burglars of the day, but the challenge as stated went far beyond getting the block of wood out and would have been in Chatwoods favour if fairly contested under a panel of judges that was workable and who controlled the tests properly.
    i think that the time constraints and a reluctance from all to pull the plug were this challenges main reasons for such a poor outcome.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Posts
    1,433
    Country: United States

    Default

    Where are you getting this information about the two men Herring brought over? According to Sala, they were all Germans. And why does nothing show up about the final judgement going for Chatwood at a French court?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Devon UK
    Posts
    3,117
    Country: UK

    Default

    Try looking in The Scientific American for further reporting of the challenge.
    i do not have a transcript of French court records, but no one ever seems to have challenged that Chatwood won and herring had to pay Chatwoods costs. They would have been in French of course mais étant donné les limites de mon français, je dois m'en remettre à plus linguistes dans cette recherche

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Posts
    1,433
    Country: United States

    Default

    I have found only one Scientific American article so far. It does mention the two coming from the U.S. That does tend to support your claim that Herring could have also supplied proper drawings. It also mentions that the Chatwood safe did have cast Spiegeleisen plates in it, which were easily broken up after the outer safe layer was removed. Since Herring did use a similar cast fill, he was fully aware of its drill protection. That tends to lessen the claim the German was well acquainted with the design of the Chatwood. And for that matter the completeness of Chatwoods drawings. I have also found that Sala published a very abridged French version of his book in 1878. It contains info regarding the French court that had been published in a newspaper. As my French hasn't been used for over 40 years, it will take me a little time to decipher.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    697
    Country: Great Britain

    Default Chatwoods Paris Exhibition safe.

    A bit late and not directly relevant but this purports to be the body and door construction or the Paris display safe.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Chatwood Paris Exhib..jpg  

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Posts
    1,433
    Country: United States

    Default

    Not too late and definitely relevant. Here is Floyd's (Herring and Floyd) patent for Franklinite use in safes. Note one witness was John Farrel. Franklinite ore had a higher manganese content than the Spiegeleisen ores found in Europe, which may have made the inner plates even harder but they still suffered from brittleness. Doug
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails FLOYD PATENT.jpg  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •