Yale Treasury Key

Brian Morland MLA Hon

This one of the non-European items from the collection and was hoping for some insight. It is of course a key from Yale’s treasury bank lock. This key has an overall length of 5 ¾ " and the bit has 8 removable steps. The steps, which are numbered, may be reassembled in any order. Other versions of the key have also been noted, i.e. shorter length, fewer steps on the bit and that are also solid. I know (from “American Genius”) that there were two versions of the lock and wondered if that accounted for the differences. Another point that may also be known by users is are there any known instances where the lock was used by others than the Treasury Dept. I know that it’s a very rare lock and content myself with at least having an example of the key but live in hopes that a lock may turn up one day.

oldbiscuit

Brian, I have a few questions about the key and lock. First, I know you can rearrange the bits to fit the lock but, why? Second, How often would they change the bits? Third, Wouldn’t they have to pretty much dissassemble the lock to change the levers to match the key? Seems like that would be alot of work unless it wasn’t done very often.Or did they just remove the bits from the key and keep them out of order and assembled them in order when they needed to open the lock.🙁think):

Dean Nickel

If I remember the moveable pins were a security item. You remove the key from the lock and change the patern. If someone sees the key or gets there hands on it the key will not work without knowing how to change the bitting on the key to the correct pattern. A little time and they could try all the combos on the key. SO you are correct Mark.

Doug MacQueen

I have no clue as to how many and where the locks were used other than the Treasury, but I looked at the patent and no mention is made of the lock being self adjusting to changes made to the key bitting. There were several other keylocks that did auto reset to the key, but in this case, it sounds like the removable bits were only so extra sets of keys would not be needed on sight if one was lost. Plus the advantage of rearranging them when not in use. The main idea of the patent was the prevention of picking access to the levers. The bits would separate from the key and access would then be blocked. This idea, which was also seen in earlier locks like the Herring “Grasshopper”, was the last major key lock innovation prior to the keyless combination locks taking over in the US. Doug

Syd Waterman

Example of Treasury Key with Fixed Steps.
Possibly this was the more “common” type?

Patent

4xlock

Just a little update. The “Yale Double Treasury” operated with a key for either side. It only needed one side to operate to get open. The lock sets to whatever key was used to lock it. I have seen this in operation and you can see the knife edge go into the sliders. I did not have chance to try a different key to confirm this 100% but you could see the sliders in neutral in the unlocked state and then the knife edge going in in the locked state, setting the sliders. The other side did not work. It looked like it had been apart and put back together incorrectly. But the lock still opened on the one side.

Damp was a major problem for locks of this era (Hobbs tried to select metals and finishes that were resistant when he came to the UK). From newspaper clippings it was not uncommon for safes & vaults to have forced entry due to corrosion problems even within a short space of time. The Parautoptic lock appears to have suffered this problem more than most.

From what I understand the early Treasury locks had 3 defeat methods. Two methods of defeat were closed off but the third could not be overcome. From what I understand on one defeat Yale had to pay the $3000 challenge in installments because he did not have access to a lump sum.

Huw Eastwood

I remember this lock featured in a book I read many years ago and it was referred to as ‘changeable’ in that either lock could be set to different key shapes as required.

There was a part I was always doubtful of though, in that the book described the main purpose of the second lock purely as a fail safe in the event of an attack on the main one- the keyhole of the second lock being covered or hidden, and if I remember rightly it said the position was ‘only known to the maker’. This seemed very odd to me as the elaborate geared mechanism was perfectly symmetrical- the top lock and it’s associated mechanism was a perfect mirror image of the bottom- there was no ‘modular’ aspect or randomness in the way the two were positioned in relation to each other. So, even if the second was covered it would’ve been pretty obvious where it always was on the door!

Plus, reading what Doug has said about the design and patent side blocking access to the levers for picking, this confirms more or less what I was thinking- it seems an unbelievably odd idea unless Mr Yale really did consider it that secure that a secondary ‘fail safe’ mechanism was essential, in the same manner as an emergency door on a vault!

I can’t help thinking the book may have been wrong on that aspect as a Treasury lock of this calibre would seem a bit above hidden keyholes or false escutcheons to me, but I’ll see if I can access the book again and throw some light on it.

4xlock

Lock failure on banks were quite common at this time. There were perpetual bank failures. Excuses that the safe/ vault could not be opened for some reason were quite common. Somewhere I have a paper cutting of a relatively new Parautoptic failing and Day & Newell had to supply emergency opening at their own expense which required cutting into the vault/safe door. This had to be done quickly to maintain confidence in the bank.

I suspect this is why the extra option on the Double Treasury was offered. The same patent of “either or” equally applied to the combination locks.

Although the key bit was taken into the lock there were originally 3 ways to pick it open (in this case build a key bit to fit).

Adrian Weber

Very interesting and helping information there I also do only know this type of key from the “American Genius” book that I have here. Have never seen them anywhere else but here 🙁nerd):

Huw Eastwood

Haven’t had a chance to try and track it down as yet, but from what I recall the book I remember was in some way linked with the Lips factory or museum- it was a beautiful hard-bound book with a sort of fabric covering- very well made. I’ll see what I can do over the weekend 🙁happy):

Adrian Weber

I have that book both in Dutch and in Engl. I haven’t had time to read it yet.

Doug MacQueen

As is too often I didn’t read (understand) the previous posts before speaking. I have done a little research and found that Jr. did in fact patent a redundancy key lock in 1858, so that should give some credence to the double Treasury version being a redundant lock setup. I have a little more I’ll post later. Doug

Doug MacQueen

The 1861 patent I originally checked out is #32,331 which did describe protection against picking. There is an earlier 1860 patent 28,710 for the lock. Both of these patents are the single Treasury. No patent found for a double Treasury model. As I understand it, the bit is removed from the key during unlocking. This would pretty much preclude the lock from being an auto reset. From what I have seen auto reset models require the key to be removed in the unlocked position, to allow a different key to lock it. Anyway I would be more than happy to repair the malfunctioning lock found over there in the UK. More than happy! Doug

Doug MacQueen

And now that I have actually read the second but earlier patent, it appears I was wrong. The key is removable in the unlocked position and will auto reset to a new key. Doug

Huw Eastwood

Success at last- the book is ‘Locks & Keys throughout the Ages’ by Vincent J. M. Eras

Here’s a scan of the small section on the Yale Double Treasury lock- the patent for this one is written as 1852, and Yale Jr’s patent for his double lock as 1857- I’m unsure if Jr worked on a similar lock to the Treasury though- I think the later lock is the ‘Quadruplex’, which is an entirely different design and style of key. I’m assuming it’s okay to scan and post this here(?)

Got fond memories reading this book in the 1980’s and drooling over a 40 ton Lips circular door pictured at the back of the book- I’ve never been the same since….. 🙁inlove):

4xlock

Hi Doug,

The lock in question is in the Mossman collection in New york. A superb collection of one of a kind locks. I suspect you have already seen this collection. I flew over there to see it, a christmas gift from my wife. I am doing some research into the great lock controversies of 1830’s to 1880’s in the US. I have been trying to identify some of the x-patents and think the odd one or two locks, in that collection, may well be examples of them.

Doug MacQueen

Yes, I have been there and have the collection disc as well. There are quite a few unidentified locks in the collection but most would be post X patents. But if I can be of any help don’t hesitate to ask. Regarding the Era book, he has Jr. as the designer of the Quadruplex lock, where it was Sr’s lock. The single was 1844 patent No. 3,630 and the double was 1849 patent No. 6,111. I am quite sure on the Jr’s Treasury patents I listed and his earlier 1851 and 1852 were different locks, but did contribute to his Treasury as well as his earlier Magic Infallible, which is also shown in J. Erroll’s book. As to the picking of the Treasury, I am very curious on that subject. Have you found anything yet? Doug

4xlock

22048 is the patent number (Nov 9 1858) for the either or opening method covering whatever locks are fitted.

“These sets of tumblers may be of similar construction requiring the application of one common key or of entirely different kinds requiring a different key or adjustment, the object being to provide a way to get into a safe at any time without violence, even though one part of the lock may be deranged by accident or otherwise.”

4xlock

Hi Doug,

The chief forman engineer from Yale moved over to work for James Sargent. He had worked out the opening methods of all of Yale’s locks. As he stated, in one article, the Treasury could be defeated by 3 different ways. Of these I believe he blocked 2 systems but he could not block the third. As you alluded to in the last patent, Yale had additional protection not in place in the earlier patents. There was, however, a process that would overcome this. My humble opinion is that Yale worked this method out before his foreman and developed an opening system that would defeat any key lock, including all his own. From 1857 he used this method on the Parautoptic lock. His original method was a refined version of that used by Wm. Hall of Boston, the smoke process, from Oct 1854 if my memory serves me correctly.

My research indicates that Robert Newell may also have had this knowledge as far back as 1841 but never really pushed this process or allowed it to get into anyone else’s hands, including Hobbs’s, in the later years. If, as I suspect, Newell had this knowledge he would realise that all his locks would become vulnerable as well as his competitors.

Conspiracy theory comes to mind. Newell dies August 1854. October 1854 Yale starts opening Parautoptic locks and others. Yale dies 25th December 1868 James Sargent starts picking Yale’s locks the following year. Being cynical, the last thing you would do is to demonstrate picking one of your competitors locks only for your competitor to reciprocate by picking one of yours, by the same method.

I think Sargent’s locks had their vulnerabilities, known to Yale, so there was a stalemate. James Sargent worked for Yale as a salesman at the time that Yale developed his new techniques, so no doubt would have been privileged to them.

If you look at the picture of Yale’s tools on your CD of the Mossman Collection, there also appears to be an impressioned bit for Yale’s Magic Key Lock made out of lead. i.e. Yale was picking his Magic key locks at the same time as the Parautoptics!

Huw Eastwood

Great info- you got me doubting everything else in the Vincent Eras book now Doug!
I’d noticed a couple of minor mistakes elsewhere in the book, but to find out the Yale Treasury and Quadruplex information is that incorrect and mixed up!