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

Page 21 of 35 FirstFirst ... 111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 346
  1. #201
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,754
    Country: Wales

    Default One of the left-hand SLS Gem's from 1987

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpeg 
Views:	36 
Size:	46.0 KB 
ID:	16586

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    686
    Country: Bulgaria

    Default That SLS Gemsafe

    They were certainly quite substantial.

    I have only ever seen that size. Did they ever, actually, make the range of sizes quoted? I suppose one of the reasons they never sold was that the big users- the banks- were pretty well tied in to Tann and Chubb.

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    184
    Country: Great Britain

    Default

    Looks like the Model 3525 that which, if it is, stands 1200mm / 47inch high and weighs in at 3606kg / 7950lbs. How on earth it tipped the scales at those figures baffles me, did they fill it with Platinum for the weigh in or leave the figures to VW ?.

    The almost mythical Model 6325 was (if it actually ever 'was') 1911mm / 75inch high and broke the weigh bridge at 6925kgs /15260lbs. Little information is available on the Gems but hopefully one day a 6325 will turn up needing a new home :-)

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    686
    Country: Bulgaria

    Default

    It makes base anchoring a joke at those figures!

    There was a guy I knew in the trade who would always recommend base fixing or some other method of anchoring- and he had some amazing ideas. He worked from the premise that if he could get a safe in, somebody else could always get it out.

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    1,318
    Country: Australia

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubby View Post
    It makes base anchoring a joke at those figures!

    There was a guy I knew in the trade who would always recommend base fixing or some other method of anchoring- and he had some amazing ideas. He worked from the premise that if he could get a safe in, somebody else could always get it out.
    I would agree with that. When I was young and stupid I used to pull out really big, heavy safes single handed with bits of wood, rollers and bars. Sometimes they were bolted down and sometimes the bolts only slowed things down (and sometimes they did not).

    To secure the safe properly it would need to be connected to anchor points that were tied into the rebar in the slab. I saw a Chubb Bankers Treasury installed that way that was attacked with a skip truck. The skip truck was found with it's front wheels 8 feet off the floor and the safe did not even have the dust shaken off it.

  6. #206
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    686
    Country: Bulgaria

    Default

    That was exactly what he used to do if he could. Once the safe is tied to the rebar in the slab any effort upwards was communicated to the safe as a downward force. A bit like standing inside a big bucket and trying to lift the bucket by the handle!

    A very effective way is to weld some big RSJ or similar on the bottom of the safe and cast the floor around it.

    I saw a big Chubb, once, that had been attacked. I am not sure which model it was but it had the coffee and cream paintscheme and the isolator bolt work. Anyway I suspect there wasn't much to choose amoungst the bells used in the entire series. This one had been centre base anchored with Chubb's patent base anchor. The bad guys had brought along a piece of equipment used on the railways for heavy lifting. They had applied so much force that the base of the tdr safe was actually convex, but the anchor hadn't slipped. Frankly if someone had told me I doubt if I would have believed it. The floor quality and the fitting of the anchor must have been absolutely perfect.

    The worst job I ever saw was where a customer had paid for base anchoring. Inside the safe I could see the big bolt, with a big nut and washer. In fact that was all there was. The installer had just dropped a piece of threaded bar, complete with nut, into the fixing hole. It was not attached to anything!

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    697
    Country: Great Britain

    Default Gem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubby View Post
    They were certainly quite substantial.

    I have only ever seen that size. Did they ever, actually, make the range of sizes quoted? I suppose one of the reasons they never sold was that the big users- the banks- were pretty well tied in to Tann and Chubb.
    Chubby, I had thought that the GEM subject had passed on, but no.

    In marketing, a new product is recognised as filling a gap in the market, designed, and produced and if found desirable, purchased. This safe filled none of these criteria in this country.

    A reason that the British Banks were not interested in such as the Gem was that as most of them were self-insuring to a degree and preferred to split the risk. Having four standard British Cash Safes, with as many as 8 different key holders, was a much better risk than having the vulnerability of only 2 keyholders when it comes to the real major threats such as collusion or duress. This same principal applied to Strongrooms.

    Secondly it was not that the Banks were tied to the likes of Chubb and Tann from a sourcing point of view, but they depended totally on the ability of both companies to provide a national 24 hour service in the event of lockouts and replacements.

    Lastly, when it comes to UL testing, it can be seen as quite unrealistic for application in Europe which is why it is excluded from the AiS listings.

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,754
    Country: Wales

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redoubt View Post
    I think a John Tann Diamond would do me just fine.

    Some other safes to consider from down this way would be the Wormald 8000 out of Australia. This is a full 6 sided Anti Arc Safe,with curved glass protecting the locks, plus complete Manganese shroud completely covering the entire locking area from all sides. I believe there were only 8 x Wormald 8000's made.

    Ratner is another manufacturer who were based in Melbourne, Australia and made some very high spec custom made safes, and depending on the situation, had there safes inspected by a Lloyds representative during manufacture. I was lucky enough to visit the Ratner Factory on a number of occasions and witnessed some very out of control safes being manufactured. I believe Ratner was sold a few years back, and now no longer manufacture safes although I am not sure of this.

    The Kingdom KZ Anti Arc series of safes out of New Zealand were also very well made, and the ones made in the late 1980's were very well engineered, and are an absolute nightmare to drill, even with modern drilling equipment.

    These safes had to stand and defend for a long time, as there are some very remote locations in Australia and New Zealand that would not get a quick security response.
    Brilliant Thanks Redoubt for posting these- more superb examples of ultimate safes I'd hoped we'd get to hear about.

    Hopefully Brian can at some point move it over to the Ultimate & One-off Freestanding safes thread.

  9. #209
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    697
    Country: Great Britain

    Default Before this gets unanchored ....

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVaultage View Post
    Brilliant Thanks Redoubt for posting these- more superb examples of ultimate safes I'd hoped we'd get to hear about.

    Hopefully Brian can at some point move it over to the Ultimate & One-off Freestanding safes thread.
    "stand and defend" Here's an example of such from Australia's Tann Agent in 1965.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tann Bankers attempt AU (2)Johns & Waygood 1965 Sandringham - Copy.jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	87.0 KB 
ID:	16770 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tann Bankers attempt AU (3)Johns & Waygood 1965 Sandringham - Copy.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	89.9 KB 
ID:	16771 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tann Bankers attempt AU (5)Johns & Waygood 1965 Sandringham - Copy.jpg 
Views:	44 
Size:	97.7 KB 
ID:	16772 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tann Bankers attempt AU (4)Johns & Waygood 1965 Sandringham - Copy.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	65.0 KB 
ID:	16773

    Tann Bankers - you name it - they tried it. penetration, delamination.

    Photographs by Johns & Waygood, Melbourne.

    Certainly belongs in Ultimate. The Proof of the Pudding.

  10. #210
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    1,754
    Country: Wales

    Default

    Thanks Brian for moving these over here and safeman for more Tann annihilation!
    thanks to safeone for finding and adding the Wormald 8000 info- deserves to be Here:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Wormold 8000.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	178.3 KB 
ID:	16783

    These are the very sort of safes that I'd hoped our overseas friends would reveal- those made to serve a market for extreme protection over and above their normal ranges. And, with some superb examples so far it just goes to show that there are many out there which would never have seen the shores of the UK or even mainland Europe.

    Redoubt, brilliantly made point regarding the high levels of protection needed in the extremely remote locations of Australia and New Zealand.

    While we have no such comparable extremes on a tiny island nation like Britain, it must be a major concern in those countries that do.
    I've always believed this could've been a major influence behind such extreme British developments like the SLS Gem. The lure and sales potential of these small but potentially lucrative overseas markets being an attraction and possible 'safety net' well beyond what our home shores could offer.
    Last edited by Huw Eastwood; 06-05-19 at 11:29 AM. Reason: Link removed

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5330 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5330 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
  •