Patent 31278

This lock represents Linus Yale Junior’s first foray into improving on his father’s quadruplex and slide locks (Patent 18169). This lock is of particular historical importance to the evolution of the modern day tumbler lock. It represents a pivotal step between Yale Sr.’s slide lock and the current pin tumbler mechanism based on Yale Jr.’s patent 48475 in 1865. This lock introduced a revolving motion. The key maintains the same shape as Yale Sr.’s slide key, but instead of simply sliding it in, it is first inserted and then turned 90 degrees to unlock. This is similar to the modern day lock that probably adorns your house, just with a round key

This particular patent states it was made for a “post-office door lock” or “drawers, closets, cupboards, &c.” and this particular one shown above looks like a standard lower security mortise lock. I have, however, seen a similar lock utilized on a small personal sized safe, and since the mechanism is applicable to safe locks, I have included it in the history of safe locks.

This particular example is unusual in that all the sides are open like a padlock cutaway so the mechanism is visible without removing the front plate. It is likely a factory demonstration model. The lock is numbered 2 on the bolt, only visible with the plate removed. Each piece is also marked with an identifier, for ex. A5, A6. It is quite possible it was made for use in the factory to illustrate to the employees the construction of the lock. Perhaps it was even made by Yale himself, though there is no way to attribute it to him.

Provenance: Ex. Yale employee who purchased the lock when Yale was bought by ABBA

The post Linus Yale – 1861 appeared first on Historical Safe Locks and Keys.

GB13595 -Newell’s original patent in Great Britain
Patent 15031 – Yale’s American patent for the wiper band
Patent GB13985 – Hobb’s anti-pressure device

Although not an American lock, it is based off of Newell’s Parautoptic lock, so it will be included here. Read this article on the picking of Newell’s Parautoptic lock for more information and backstory. This lock operates in a similar fashion, and the videos linked in the Newell article and below will further help explain the mechanism behind it. The main added feature of this lock is the wiper band in the keyway that serves to wipe the tumbers after each turn of the key. This removes any marking material that might have been present, effectively rendering Yale’s picking method inadequate.

This particular example is a rarer 7 lever model and the key features the hard-to-find detachable and changeable bit. This would allow the bit to be carried separate from the handle, either as a simple convenience (smaller object to carry in a pocket) or to split the key and handle for a slight increase in security.

See these three videos (not published by the curator of this website) for a more in-depth look at the lock’s function.

Video One by evva3ks
Video Two by Paul Prescott
Video Three by Paul Prescott

The post Hobbs Parautoptic Lock appeared first on Historical Safe Locks and Keys.

What follows is the narrative of the picking of Newell’s Parautoptic Lock. It is rooted in history with a mixture of facts and inferences and weaves the tale of three great lockmakers, Newell, Yale Jr., and Hobbs. While this article does not intend to be a comprehensive evaluation of these lockmakers’ biographies and of the mechanics of Newell’s lock, it does strive to tell the story of a pivotal moment in bank lock history.

We’ll begin with a brief introduction to Robert Newell and his invention, the Parautoptic Lock. Robert Newell was a man of great strength and character, drive and ambition. He was resolute in his decisions and possessed a great deal of confidence in his choices. Although great in mind and body, his tactic was one of physical force and domineering leadership. He was skilled in convincing people to believe in him and his team’s work.(1) Employed by him was a key salesman, Alfred Charles Hobbs, who helped by adding charisma and personal charm. An introduction to Hobbs will follow later in the story.

Newell formed a partnership with Mr. Day in 1833 to begin the Day and Newell firm(1), specializing in secure bank locks. Newell went through several iterations of locks, all suffering from either his own admission of pickability or as a result of challenge. In 1838, Newell invented a changeable bit key lock, much like Solomon Andrews’ similar creation, that was capable of accepting various configurations of the same key (Patent 944). The lock featured two sets of tumblers on which a key with changeable bits acted. However, within a few years Newell demonstrated that both Solomon Andrews’ lock and his own were both pickable, revealing the method to the public in an effort to prevent embarrassment at the hands of another.(2) Newell then improved his lock in 1843 (Patent 3135). This improved lock featured a similar design but with the addition of notches on the bordering ends of the first and second tumblers. If pressure were applied to the bolt while picking the lock, the tumblers would bind on the false notches and prevent picking. Newell’s improved changeable bit key lock invention was soon defeated by Mr. Pettit, an American machinist costing his company 500 dollars and their reputation.(2)

Needing a solution to this problem, Newell went back to the drawing board, and in 1844 patented his famous Parautoptic Lock. The name being devised from the Greek for “concealed from view.”(3) (Patent 3747. Later improved in 1851, Patent 8145. Additionally, patented in Great Britain dated April 15, 1851, Patent GB13595). This lock added a third intermediate tumbler to the construction, leaving only the first tumbler accessible from the keyhole. This effectively eliminates the ability to pick the lock utilizing pressure on the tumblers as the tumblers acting on the bolt are hidden from view. An attempt at preventing traditional methods of smoking the lock is also accomplished through the use of a rotating tumbler on the outside of the lock that revolves around the keyhole whenever the key is turned into contact with the first tumbler. There is more to the lock’s complex construction than that, but the exact details of the locks evolution and construction are best kept to another article. One more item of note though, this lock added another important feature. The lock could now be re-keyed simply by changing the order of the bits of the key with no need to change any internal components.(2)

This lock went on to achieve great fame and fortune for Newell, being installed in hundreds of locations. Newell even wrote a book called Important to Bankers. Bank Robberies Prevented by Newell’s Patent Parautoptic Bank Lock in 1850. Newell raves about the many awards, accolades, tests, and references his lock has achieved. Newell’s head salesman for the lock was a guy by the name of Alfred Charles Hobbs. Hobbs had a widely varied career before he went to work for Day and Newell. He studied woodcarving before the age of 16 when he then went to work cutting glass for the Sandwich Glass Company. After 8 years, he then opened his own glass cutting business before tiring of this and going to work as a salesman for Edwards & Holman, a safe and lock manufacturer, where he gained knowledge of the inner workings and construction of locks. He then jumped ship to work for Day & Newell, and this is where our story continues.(4)

Hobbs traveled all through the United States, from New Orleans to New York, picking existing bank locks and selling Newell’s as a more secure replacement.(5) After proving its success in the United States and cementing his lock-picking skills, Hobbs took Newell’s lock to the 1851 International Exhibition in London where he displayed a specially made 15 lever lock.

Hobbs spent his time in London exhibiting his superb lock picking skills and caused the Great Lock Controversy, a topic on which pages could be written. In short, however, Hobbs succeeded in picking two of the great English locks manufactured by Chubbs and Bramah which were in use in the majority of secure installations throughout England. This gave him instant fame. It would only be fair if Hobbs allowed challenges against his Newell lock, and so he did. A telling of one such challenge by a Mr. Garbutt is found in Construction of Locks and Safes. After 30 days, and with access to the internals of a similar lock, Mr. Garbutt was unsuccessful in picking Newell’s lock. These actions garnered a reputation for Newell’s locks throughout England. Newell’s business and reputation boomed, with seemingly no ceiling in sight. After Hobbs’ successes in London, he created a lock manufacturing factory there, initially distributing Newell’s lock.

Though it soon all came crashing down for Newell. Day & Newell’s booming business took a blow in 1855 that would eventually be the end for them when Linus Yale Jr. challenged Newell’s lock. Yale Jr. (born April 4, 1821) is a man who needs little introduction, so it will presently be kept very brief. Yale Jr. is the son of Linus Yale Sr., inventor of the Yale Quadruplex lock which is thought by many to be the first commercialized modern pin-tumbler lock. Yale Jr. joined his father’s lock business around 1849 and soon became a consultant for other lock and safe manufacturers of the day.(7) Throughout his travels, he would have experienced all sorts of locks and people, and in 1855 he accepted Newell’s challenge to pick the famous Parautoptic Bank Lock.

How did Yale Jr. pick this “unpickable” lock? It is the intent of the remainder of this article to detail the possible mechanism for picking this lock and hypothesize that another famous lock-picker of the time might have had some influence.

Yale Jr’s method was very ingenious, defeating the lock with only the simplest of materials. In the lock-picking challenge, the banker would likely unlock the lock using his key as proof the lock worked. While distracted and with the lock unlocked, Yale could simply insert a stick or other device coated in some sort of black marking material, such as grease or printing ink, through the keyhole thus coating the tumblers with the marking material. The owner would then turn his key to re-lock the lock in preparation for the lock-picking attempt, leaving an impression on the tumblers. All would appear fair and square to those observing with just a little misdirection on Yale’s part. At this point, the stage is set, and it is up to Yale to display his magic (coincidentally, the name of one of his famous lock inventions). The markings on the tumblers would need to be read. A small mirror or reflective object could be utilized to determine the length of each bit. While this might have been an earlier way the lock was picked in developing the final method, a much simpler approach exists. Instead of a mirror, a “pine stick”(7) cut to the proper shape and size of a legitimate Newell key could then be turned in the lock, retrieving the markings thusly made on the tumblers. With the correct bit lengths known, the wooden key could be carved down to the mimic the correct bits and turned to unlock the lock. Making this even simpler, the same wooden key carved to unlock the lock could have even been the device used for marking the tumblers by simply applying the marking material on the flat exterior of the wooden bit.

Linus Yale Jr.’s own Dissertation on Locks and Lockpicking and the Principles of Burglarproofing published in 1856 corroborates this method, stating that “his method is so exceedingly simple that any smart lad of sixteen can in short time make a wooden key…which will open these locks…in an incredibly short space of time.” As a side note, the Dissertation even presents an interesting point. Once the lock has been unlocked using the wooden key, another key cut to any other combination could then be used to re-lock the vault leaving the owners with no recourse but to break open the vault with force instead. The Dissertation continues to provide letters from bank representatives who witnessed his picking prowess. The lock has been defeated, Day and Newell’s reputation destroyed, and Yale Jr. now has a leading opportunity in America to take over Day and Newell’s customers. The tale could end here, a fitting end for sure to this great tale of Newell’s rise to prominence and Yale’s crushing blow. But, was Yale Jr. the first to discover how to pick this lock? Or, was it first discovered by Hobbs who allowed Yale Jr. to utilize his method?

Although merely conjecture, the facts do help lend some credence to this theory. Hobbs was well known for lock picking and had considerable time and exposure to Newell’s locks. As a salesman, he also witnessed failed attempts against said locks. Being the best in his field of lockpicking, he would have desired to hone his skills by picking the previously “unpickable” lock. Hobbs also had experience in glassworks and woodcarving, both possibly methods utilized to study and eventually pick Newell’s lock. Yale and Hobbs would have crossed paths at some point, both traveling the countries in the same line of work. Hobbs had his business in Great Britain; Yale had his in the United States. It is not impossible to fathom that a monetary agreement could have been reached, on which Yale would expose Newell’s locks, and in exchange Yale would not pursue the British markets where Hobbs had his business.

At first glance, it would seem there is one critical flaw in this thought. Wouldn’t this agreement hurt Hobbs’ business? He was, after all, selling Newell’s locks. Well, in 1855, just prior to Yale’s defeat, Hobbs partnered with Mr. Ashely, likely providing a financial influx to the business. Additionally, Hobbs’ had his other locks, such as the Hobbs’ Protector, lock to help support his business as well. If he could withstand the hit from the damaged reputation of Newell’s locks, perhaps he could take over all of Newell’s business in Great Britain and go from minor dealer to leading manufacturer. In fact, it does appear his business took a hit after Yale Jr. picked Newell’s lock(4), but he resumed production of Newell’s lock with one key improvement.

This improvement was a simple wiper system that would wipe the tumblers down after the key was turned, removing any potential marking material from them and rendering Yale Jr.’s method obsolete. In another interesting twist, Yale patented this improvement in the United States in June 1856 (Patent 15031). This patent effectively prevented Newell from fixing their locks, but no record can be found of Yale pursuing action against Hobbs for using this improvement in Great Britain. It is believed that this was part of the agreement and a creative means of enforcing it. Yale owned the patent in the United States so Hobbs couldn’t sell his improved lock there without infringing, and Yale didn’t patent it in Great Britain thus allowing Hobbs to continue production. According to the The Encyclopædia Britannica published in 1857, Hobbs was already making the locks with the improved “revolving curtain” to wipe the marking off.(8) Hobbs further improved the lock adding his patented anti-pressure device (Patent GB13985). The agreement would prove beneficial to both companies, with the Yale lockmaking company becoming one of the most successful in the United States and the Hobbs company going through a series of acquisitions as one of the more successful operations in Great Britain. Both former companies continue to operate to this day, albeit under different names.
Perhaps, the Great Lock Controversy of 1851 wasn’t the only great controversy involving Hobbs.

References:
1 The American Phrenological Journal and Repository of Science, Literature and General Intelligence: Volumes 13-14. January 1, 1851. Pages 98-100
2 The Engineer and the Machinist: A Journal of Mechanical and Manipulative Art: No. 1. March 1850. Pages 188-189
3 Locks and Safes. The construction of locks. A. C. Hobbs. 1868. Page 88
4 Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers: Volume XIII. 1892. Pages 263-274
5 Important to Bankers. Bank Robberies Prevented by Newell’s Patent Parautoptic Bank Lock. Day & Newell Properties. 1850
6 London News: Vol 19. July to Dec. 1851
7 Yale Genealogy and History of Wales. 1908
8 Dissertation on Locks and Lockpicking and the Principles of Burglarproofing. Linus Yale Jr. 1856
9 The Encyclopædia Britannica, or Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and General Literature: Eighth Edition. Adam and Charles Black. 1857. Pages 543-545

The post Picking Newell’s Parautoptic Lock – The Second Great Lock Controversy? appeared first on Historical Safe Locks and Keys.

Patent 8145
GB13595

Robert Newell had a few patents, 944 in 1838, 3,135 in 1843, and 3,747 in 1844, before inventing this iconic lock in 1851. Arguably one of the most famous American safe locks of it’s time, this lock introduced the concept of re-keying without needing to re-order the levers. The lock is capable of adjusting its setting to match the key. Simply re-arrange the key bits however you would like prior to locking, then lock. It really is as simple as that to change the key. Then the owner of the key could re-scramble the key to their heart’s content and render it almost impossible for a would-be thief to break in (Well, until Linus Yale picked it. Read that story here.).

This lock was termed the New American Permutating lock, better known as the Parautoptic lock today. Parautoptic comes from Greek meaning “concealed from view.” When the key is turned, the front brass plate turns as well hiding the internal levers from view. This added feature further complicates picking.

This particular lock example is dated 1857 and utilizes a key with 8 bits (corresponding to the 8 changeable levers. The key for this lock is the left-most example in the below image). Examples are known to have been made with as few as 6 (the most common) and as many as 15 (for exhibitions) changeable bits, though the largest known surviving non-exhibition lock utilizes 10 bits. Some keys were made with less than 6 bits as seen below, but those still use at least 6 levers. These key examples illustrate a common practice at the time. In exchange for a reduction in security, keys could be made with less or no changeability at a reduced price. Fixed keys could also be created for lower tier employees to utilize on a day to day operation with the lock set to a different combination with the master changeable key overnight.

The internal mechanism is complex in its craftsmanship and function. See these three videos (not published by the curator of this website) for a more in-depth look at the lock’s function. These videos are of the British version made by Hobbs, which functions in virtually an identical fashion.

Video One by evva3ks
Video Two by Paul Prescott
Video Three by Paul Prescott

The left key goes to the lock seen above. The one to the right of it is an example where some of the bits are changeable and some are fixed. Originally, each key came with 2 extra bits of different length for added variability. An example with the original extra bits is seen third from the left. This key us labeled US. The example on the right is one of the 10 bit versions. As can be seen from the photos, not all of the keys were made to the same size, highlighting their handmade nature.

The post Newell Parautoptic Lock – 1851 appeared first on Historical Safe Locks and Keys.

Unknown maker, year, and patent (if any)

This lock is fairly simple in both its construction and operation. To unlock the lock, the key is inserted and turned clockwise 90 degrees. The 90 degree turn helps block access to the levers to make picking harder. The levers then fall into a cutout on the keyway where they impact the key bitting. With the proper key in place, the slit in the bottom of the levers lines up with the vertical bar. The knob is then turned which lifts the vertical bar and draws the bolt back to unlock. In this state, the vertical bar does not drop back below the levers, leaving the key trapped in the lock. When locked, the vertical bar falls below the levers, allowing the keyway to turn 90 degrees counterclockwise to extract the key.

The lock does have a unique flower or star shaped knob, so hopefully someone will recognize it and be able to identify its maker or what company might have used it on their safes. The only marking on the lock is the number 2 on one of the internal pieces. Any information you might have would be greatly appreciated.

The post Unknown Safe Lock 1 appeared first on Historical Safe Locks and Keys.

Patent 3543
Patent 3546

A similar article to this was first published in the WCLCA Journal The Antique Lock Collector in the July-September 2018 edition.

This lock comprises two patents, both by Marcus Stephenson and Oliver Edwards of Boston. Both patents date to April 17, 1844. It was manufactured by Edwards, Holman, and Fernald (commonly known as Edwards and Holman). Patent 3543 describes the locking mechanism while patent 3546 describes the detector mechanism. Leading with a fantastic summary of the lock from a published testimony:

“It embraces the celebrated Combination and Permutation principles, with the wonderful Detector Safeguard, which is so constructed, that should a burglar introduce an instrument to remove the bolt, he would redouble its security, or in other words, it would require two keys, each susceptible of a vast number of changes, to unlock it, thus putting it entirely out of his power to open it, were the keys in his possession. We have never known a lock of this kind to be forced or picked, and we believe it an impossibility for even the most adroit picklock to overcome it.” — Willis & Co. February 9, 1844¹

¹Edwards, Fernald & Co. Catalog, Trade Literature Collection, National Museum of American History Library, Smithsonian Libraries, Washington D.C., 21-5-2018

The image below is of the original key. It features a style very similar to the more common Solomon Andrews changeable bit keys. In this key, the end piece that unscrews is just the small endcap, while in the Solomon Andrews key it is the entire piece in front of the main bolt-acting bit. Each of the bits comes off of the key once the endcap is unscrewed and can be re-organized to be re-keyed to the lock if desired by changing the levers’ order inside the lock. Each of the bits is individually numbered. On this particular key, they are numbered from one to twelve, from shortest to longest, although they are not always numbered in length order as will be seen later. The shaft is square with a threaded hollow end for the endcap to be screwed on to.

The outer case of the lock can be seen in the first image above. Once the screw in each corner and the one in the center are removed, the face plate can be taken off to reveal the internals. Another plate blocks the view of the individual levers, but some of the unique workings can be seen. As the key is turned to lock the lock, the levers shift and the bolt is thrown. Now, the unique detector mechanism comes into play. When someone tries to gain access to the lock either through the use of a false key or maliciously attempting to pick it, a mechanism is tripped. Once tripped, the lock will no longer unlock, even with the correct key. Either a second key has to be used (as designed) or the bits on the key have to be re-arranged until they are in alignment with the reset combination which allows the detector mechanism to reset, thus re-activating the lock. With the bits in the correct position to reset it, the key is turned as if locking it, and the bolt shifts all the way back into the locked position and is reset. Note: the detector mechanism is not shown in these photos.

The left image above shows the lock in its locked state from the left side. Note the little openings in each of the levers. In order to reset the lock after a malicious attempt, the key needs to be re-arranged to allow the bar seen in the photo to pass through them and reset the mechanism. This right image shows the lock in motion while being reset. Note the bar passing through the levers.

Once the middle plate is unscrewed, each of the levers can be seen. They are held in place left to right by the two vertical plates on either side and are held in back to front by the plate hence removed. Assisting in applying vertical pressure is a spring on each lever that is placed around a rod near the top of the lock. Each spring is separated by a small washer. The lock is shown here in its unlocked state. As the lock is locked, the key acts on the bottom portion which lifts the levers in their entirety and when lifted to the right height allows the passage of the metal bar through the gap seen in each lever. You can see the metal bar in the middle of the image in the left opening of the levers.

Each of the levers is individually numbered, corresponding to the numbers on the bit for the locking code. This unique lock was built with the utmost degree of care and craftsmanship. The detector mechanism is ingenious, and the lock itself represents an engineering marvel. It weighs in at about 27 pounds and measures approximately 12.25 x 9 x 2.25 inches.

Bolt markings showing
O. Edwards
E. Holman
Patent
Boston

Here is another example of an Edwards and Holman key. The T-handle on the top unscrews, but it has an indention in the threads like it was intended to be affixed. I believe the T-handle is either original to the key or an in-faith old replacement as I have seen another T-handle example (with a slightly different appearance), and their later patent from 1852, patent 9126, shows a T-handle key. This particular key is very similar to the previously shown one, except it has 14 bits, a slightly larger end screw, and different materials of construction. In this particular example, the bits are not numbered in length order.

The post Stephenson and Edwards – 1844 appeared first on Historical Safe Locks and Keys.

Patent 4236
Patent 6252

Patented by Henry Ritchie, assignor to Henry Jones, on April 3, 1849. This lock represents the fourth and final iteration of William Hall’s 1843 patent. It also includes the improvements patented by William Hall on October 16, 1845 (Patent 4236); these improvements being the third iteration of this lock, of which improvements will be discussed below.

The third patent (Patent 4236) did away with the swing levers in favor of the style of levers seen in the internals images above and below. In lieu of the swing levers, this patent features 2 sets of vertical tumblers (plates), each set having the same number of tumblers as the other. The left (front) set has cutout on left side to pass a solid stud bar that is attached to the bolt. The right (rear) set of levers has springs on top to depress the tumblers when not impacted by the key. The right (rear) set of plates has a small tooth on the upper left (front) side while the left (front) set of plates has a set of notches on the upper right (rear) side. A horizontal “vibrating” plate sits behind the bolt and right (rear) tumblers. The plate “vibrates” the right (rear) tumblers forward when the key is turned to lock the lock, pivoting at the upper stud seen in the internals photo with a threaded brass cap to hold the levers down. The height of the levers corresponds to the bitting of the key, with each bit set to a proper height to lock the teeth into the notches. The bolt is now thrown through the cutout in the left (front) set of plates. Once the bolt is fully thrown, the springs drop the now conjoined levers blocking the cutout so the bolt cannot be freely withdrawn. Only by unlocking with the same key configuration as was used to lock the lock will the conjoined tumblers raise to the proper height to align the cutout and allow for the lock to be unlocked. This feature allows for the bits to be re-arranged and the lock to automatically adapt to the new bit configuration without re-arranging the tumblers. This moves this lock from the Solomon Andrews style re-keying to the style popularized by Robert Newell’s Parautoptic lock, but with a much simpler method of accomplishing the re-keying.

Moving to the discussion of the fourth patent, Ritchie’s patented lock does away with the second improvement described on patent 4011 here, and implements an improved version of this change. In this lock, an additional sliding vertical tumbler is added underneath the bolt. This tumbler only moves in the vertical direction and can be seen in the back of each of the internal photos above. It is connected to the brass semi-circle at the bottom and runs vertically to the top. Zooming in with the aid of the patent photo (Figure 4) will provide a good sketch of what this plate looks like.

Ritchie refers to this as a “pressure tumbler” in his patent. As is often the case, the production model lock does differ slightly from here from the patent (namely in the way this vertical tumbler is moved). The description that follows is of the production model seen above, in alignment with the patent where appropriate.

The “pressure tumbler” is raised vertically using a couple different methods. Each of the other vertical tumblers is connected via a spring to the rod seen at the top right of the internal photo. This rod projects up from the “pressure tumbler.” As the tumblers are lifted, so is the “pressure tumbler.” The “pressure tumbler” is also lifted by the pin of the key which impacts the “pressure tumbler” at spot b seen in Figure 4 from the patent drawing. This fully lifts the “pressure tumbler” up and out of the way. As a note, the piece missing from the patent version is a pair of cams which would assist in this lifting motion. The cams would also partially block the keyhole to make picking more difficult. It can be presumed that this method was determined inefficient (in function or cost) when compared to the final production model. If interested, click here for the patent which shows the cams and describes them in detail. With the “pressure tumbler” fully lifted, the horizontal lever can be lifted freely (seen hooked into a cut-out on the bolt in the internal photo above).

Another improvement in this patent is an additional horizontal tumbler. This tumbler is on top of the top brass plate as seen in the internal photo above. Occasionally locks such as this were used as “check locks,” as termed in the patent. A “check lock” is one used behind another lock on a vault/safe. If the lock in the forefront is picked open, this lock would be the next one to be picked. After picking the first one, a burglar could attempt to put pressure on the bolt of Ritchie’s patent lock to determine it’s impact on the standard vertical tumblers. In order to prevent the pressure on the bolt from providing the burglar with useful information, the horizontal tumbler in the photo above was added. A stud/pin (triangle shape in above photo) is attached to the bolt sticking up towards the upper side of the lock. A tiny cutout notch in the revolving escutcheon also holds the tumbler in place. This tumbler, in turn, holds the bolt in place, such that any pressure applied to the bolt has zero impact to the standard tumblers. As the revolving escutcheon turns when unlocking the lock, it contacts the lower right portion of this horizontal tumbler. With the proper key in place, the large opening in the revolving escutcheon allows the horizontal tumbler to fall and the triangular stud to enter the track (racking) of the tumbler cutout, thus allowing the bolt to be retracted. The final purpose of the horizontal tumbler is to prevent access to the lock internals when locking the lock. This is accomplished by the same small notch in the revolving escutcheon. A small cutout is present on the far right side of the track (racking) that holds the bolt in place except for when the revolving escutcheon is moved and thus the horizontal lever is released from the small notch in the escutcheon. Releasing the lever allows it to clear the right side of the track (racking) and enable the lock to be locked.

This lock is also gunpowder proof. Holes can be seen in the bottom of the lock casing and in the brass piece encircling the keyhole. These are here to make the lock gunpowder proof and prevent forced entry through the destruction of the lock.

The 8 lever changeable bit key for this lock is seen in the left photo above. The right photo highlights the markings on the bolt of this lock. It is labeled HC Jones Patent, Newark N.J. and dated 1850. The bolt also features the Masonic Square and Compasses symbol. Henry Jones was a Master Freemason of the Newark Lodge, No. 7 (meeting at the Mechanics Bank Building, No. 277 Broad St.).¹ It is possible the lock was utilized at a building run or owned by a Freemason, or that Mr. Jones used this symbol as a his own mark on this lock symbolizing his status as a Master Freemason.

¹Proceedings of the Eightieth Annual Communication of the M.W. Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Freemasons New Jersey Grand Lodge. Hough & Gillespy, 1867. Google Books, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=O08uAAAAYAAJ&hl=en.

The post Henry Ritchie – 1849 appeared first on Historical Safe Locks and Keys.

Images above graciously used with permission from Doug MacQueen who also crafted the skillful re-creation of the working key.

Patent 4011

This patent by Henry Jones on April 26, 1845 introduced two main improvements to Hall’s 1843 Patent lock. The first is evident in the photos of the lock above. A revolving escutcheon was added at the keyhole to obstruct picking instruments and the viewing of the levers via mirrors and reflected light. The lock above only features one of the two improvements made by Jones in 1845.

The second of the improvements will be described using the patent images above. A vertical steel plate (C) was added at the center of the lock which moves with the guidance of a cam (G). A horizontal lever (K), which is latched into a cutout on the bolt, was added as well. The revolving escutcheon previously described (D) moves the vertical plate (C) upwards and in doing so rotates the cam (G) out of the way. With the cam out of the way, a pin, or projection, added onto the key (N) lifts the added horizontal lever (K) through its connection with a vertical plate (M and M’).

Other than these two improvements, the lock functions the same as Hall’s patent. A third set of improvements was patented by William Hall in 1845, and a fourth set of improvements was made by Henry Ritchie, an associate of Jones, in 1849. These two improvements can be viewed in the lock here.

The post Henry Jones – 1845 appeared first on Historical Safe Locks and Keys.

Patent 3221
Patented August 17, 1843 by William Hall of Massachusetts, this lock represents the first in a series of 4 patents, with the latter 3 building on and improving this one.

This lock is unique in it’s lever design, utilizing a “swing lever” mechanism. Each key would have come with two sets of bits, one for locked position X and one for position Y.

The key above is a skillful re-creation of the original by Lynn Collins. It features both sets of bits (referred to as set X and set Y below), each marked with a number and one set marked with a dot to distinguish the two sets. The smaller image above shows a comparison of the two bit sizes. The bits are held in place by a screw. The immovable bit on the far end of the key is sturdier to throw the bolt, while the changeable bits interact with the levers.

Between each lever are two plates, labeled A in the reference photo to the left, of different material of construction to keep the levers from contacting each other to allow for smoother operation. The upper plate is also attached to a spring to assist in vertical operation of each lever. Each lever has two sets of slots cut in them, D and E. Two studs (stumps/fences), B and C, are present. Stud B is fixed to the lock case and is used for the slots in the levers set in the “swing” position (left photo below). Stud C is fixed to the bolt F and is used for the slots in the levers that remain in the vertical position (right photo below). When the key is turned to the lock position, levers associated with (for ex.) bit set X move vertically so that the slot D is aligned with stud B. Stud C moves the levers to the right while the key lifts the levers in alignment with the slot D resulting in the lever being locked in the “swing” position. Levers associated with bit set Y move only vertically while the bolt moves through slot E in them. The reverse occurs in the unlocking process. Each bit can be switched from set X to Y or vice versa individually to provide a new locking combination.

If a key is impressioned with a set of bits, one could simply change out a few bits from the other set of bits and create an entirely new key quite unlike the one previously impressioned and thus rendering the impression obsolete. Thus, this lock builds on the Solomon Andrews style re-keying by adding a second position to each lever for added security.

The photo on the left shows the markings on the bolt. A keen observer will note the name is not William Hall like the patentee, but rather H.C. Jones. Henry Jones is the pantentee on record for the second evolution of this lock which was patented in 1845. The date on this lock, 1844, places this patent in the hands of Henry Jones prior to the second iteration. While the exact relationship between Mr. Hall and Mr. Jones is unknown, this lock helps document the duration of their relationship.

Click here for a discussion of the second iteration of this lock, patented by Henry Jones on April 26, 1845.

The post William Hall – 1843 appeared first on Historical Safe Locks and Keys.

Patent X9310 Patented January 11, 1836 by Solomon Andrews of Perth Amboy, New Jersey. Fortunately, a copy of this X patent (destroyed in the patent fire of 1836) was recently located, so those interested in reading all the details can do so at the link above.

Markings on Bolt of Lock

Solomon Andrews was a doctor, man of many talents, and a lifelong inventor. He has his own Wiki page here for more information about his life and other inventions like his Aereon flying ship.

Image on the left is of a Catalog from his Aereon flying-ship. The catalog was sold in 2003, with additional information on Solomon Andrews and his Aereon in the auction listing here.

The lock shown above is a 9 lever version, 10 inches in length. It would have been utilized as a secondary lock on a bank where a larger lock already was installed. It was originally priced at $100 (~$1,500 in 2019 terms) and featured 510 changes and came with 2 keys in its standard offering. While this lock was not the first to feature re-keying as commonly thought (see article on James Kyle), this lock was the first safe lock to be originally patented in the United States that achieved market success and paved the way for future success stories for American safe lock manufacturers. The lock featured a more convenient method for re-keying. The bits on the key could be changed out with spacers to allow for re-keying without needing to take the lock apart, something James Kyle’s lock lacked. This lock could also be re-keyed by taking apart and re-arranging the levers and bits similar to James Kyle. The simpler method of re-keying allowed for more frequent key changes and easier to remember bit configurations.

Originally, this lock came without a detector mechanism (to detect picking attempts), but this feature was later added on. It can be seen at the top of the lock in the photos above. Unlike a Chubb style detector (seen in the Gaylor lock here), it does not use the original key to reset. Once the safe is opened with the correct key, the tripped detector is visible from the inside of the safe. Another later addition to the lock is a set of underbelly levers (not shown in the lock above). These levers allow the key to act on a secondary set of levers which interact with the main set of levers. They would reside around the keyhole area in the photo above pressing upwards on the main levers. The example shown above is a hybrid of the two, with the detector, but without the underbelly levers dating it likely to around 1840.

The images above show two examples of keys for Solomon Andrews locks (for a much larger lock than shown above). The bits of the key can be removed from the central shaft to be re-arranged or replaced with a spacer. Several examples of the spacers are visible. The material of construction is both brass and steel.

The post Solomon Andrews – 1836 appeared first on Historical Safe Locks and Keys.