Chubby wroteThey 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.
[unknown]
