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

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: Chatwood safe

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    697
    Country: Great Britain

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubby View Post
    How did the letter lock obscure the keyway?
    In a similar manner that Tom describes except that on the Ratner the letter lock is some distance from the keyways and has to operate via the vertical curved bar I illustrated.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    697
    Country: Great Britain

    Default Thank you Tom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Gordon View Post
    Huw! You are a naughty boy! You have the orange which Santa left and you know that you can't play with new toys until after breakfast - so calm down, brush your teeth and get dressed properly!
    Tom, this brought a huge smile to my miserable countenance this morning. Thank you.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Devon UK
    Posts
    3,117
    Country: UK

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by safeman View Post
    In a similar manner that Tom describes except that on the Ratner the letter lock is some distance from the keyways and has to operate via the vertical curved bar I illustrated.
    There can be quite a distance on the Chatwood - typically 8 inch but on the big safes up to 18 inches I think

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wild West Woolwich
    Posts
    103
    Country: UK

    Default

    The purpose of these was usually to allow a container with a less secure lock to be used for confidential material.
    More for the purpose of making surreptitious access more difficult than for foiling a brute force attack.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chubby View Post
    How wonderful. I was thinking of the little hinged units that used to be fitted over the keyway of government safes. There was a CM Manifoil lock which had to be opened and a door hinged open. They provided an effective dual control, but that was not the purpose.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    697
    Country: Great Britain

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parautoptic View Post
    The purpose of these was usually to allow a container with a less secure lock to be used for confidential material.
    More for the purpose of making surreptitious access more difficult than for foiling a brute force attack.
    I'm at differerence with you on this Parautoptic. As I see it the closing of the keyway by a shutter was part of the original specification and solely intended to make the safe resistant to explosive attack, firstly gunpowder then high explosives. The Chatwood Treasury was particularly effective against this latter form of attack.

    On the other hand Dual Control was originally known as Partnership locking which adequately describes the system and which would be incorporated n the original design specification.

    The earliest wrought iron security cupboards as they were know before fire-proofing were
    usually fastened by wheel locks and box-of wards locks which with their large keyways were very vulnerable to gunpowder attack.

    The only defence against this was the lockable escutcheon with a compact Barron lock in a casing with chamfered edges to resist sledging. This by design could also be described as dual locking but not necessary the intention.


    Later in the century brass escutcheon locks were commonly used incorporating very small lever locks. The application was probably as a retro-fit on single lock safes where dual control was later considered desirable against acts of collusion.


    Dual control was also available within a single lock of course.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Barron 1.jpg 
Views:	12 
Size:	96.5 KB 
ID:	19145 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Barron 2.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	95.1 KB 
ID:	19146 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Early escutcheon.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	477.3 KB 
ID:	19147

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    686
    Country: Bulgaria

    Default

    Safeman, I think we are at crossed purposes here. The comment about the container with a less secure lock was referring to the blisters that MOD used to use, and may well still use, over a keyhole.

    The combination blisters absolutely were for that purpose. Obviously the best thing with confidential material is that it is never seen by anyone who is unauthorised. Next best thing is if they have been compromised, you at least know that this has happened.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    697
    Country: Great Britain

    Default

    [QUOTE=Chubby;28417]Safeman, I think we are at crossed purposes here. The comment about the container with a less secure lock was referring to the blisters that MOD used to use, and may well still use, over a keyhole.

    Could be right Chubby. Thought the subject was keyhole shutters.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Bulgaria
    Posts
    686
    Country: Bulgaria

    Default

    My fault for taking things off topic.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wild West Woolwich
    Posts
    103
    Country: UK

    Default

    Yes, this is what I was referring to :)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chubby View Post
    Safeman, I think we are at crossed purposes here. The comment about the container with a less secure lock was referring to the blisters that MOD used to use, and may well still use, over a keyhole.

    The combination blisters absolutely were for that purpose. Obviously the best thing with confidential material is that it is never seen by anyone who is unauthorised. Next best thing is if they have been compromised, you at least know that this has happened.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Devon UK
    Posts
    3,117
    Country: UK

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Parautoptic View Post
    Yes, this is what I was referring to :)
    If the Chatwood is easily drillable it would be to facilitate a lesser level of dual control against sarupticious entry but it it was hardened then it would be anti explosive. Of course if it was hardened it would do both.
    Sometime I will try drilling the sliding obstruction and if it was easy we will know that it wasn't against forced entry.
    interesting line of enquiry!

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
  •