Hullo, Doug…and Thanks!
I’ll be ver’ grateful if you didn’t remind me of the garage (and other areas) that sorely need clean-out; I’m 75, and may never get a Round Tuit…though I live with a wee bit of guilt on the subject.
First: there are NO holes anywhere on/in the case, so it wasn’t ever bolted down. No flanges, no evidence of welding…nor of having been immersed in concrete. It appears to have been free-standing (or laying), with only weight as a deterrent to a grab & run theft.
I’ve read a .pdf file I found in this forum: Safecracking for the computer scientist, by Matt Blaze
It sums up what appears to be a daunting undertaking, but potentially well worthwhile. I’m no computer scientist, but the instructions are clear enough for this stumbling duo.
I note a couple of things that may be significant: first, there is no secondary index mark on the dial ring. That seems to indicate that this lock wasn’t designed to allow the combination to be reset. Next, if the hinges are on the right (opposite as shown) the stamped numerals on the upper hinge are oriented correctly, and the primary (only) index is at the top…but when zero is aligned with that index, the word Mosler is upside down. My limited understanding of safes tells me that most (all, in my experience) of them open to the right; which makes the way Mosler is marked here somewhat anomalous.
This feeds into the question of what position the door should be in to accommodate gravity (if that was a factor in the design of this lock) in correct manipulation attempt. That is: should the door face be horizontal (as if the safe was meant to be vertically installed, such as in a floor), or vertical? And if vertical, is it probable the index was meant to be above the dial (hinges right) or below…and Mosler orientation ignored?
Warren
