stephane Hi guys, i bought a old chubb safe and wonder, in comparison with the milners, what’s the best one for the thief resisting side, for “common” brigand obviously, both look same size and weight. i was perplex on the high location of the lock but after inspection the original was in the same place, long time ago change for a fichet one. so the retrofit to the original lock is it better in your opinion ? and what’s the lock fit/matching for this model ? the condition is too bad too keep in this state so need to paint job. probably original maroon tone but i don’t found same model photos with the high lock and bottom plaque location (the 2 hole of the plaque are present under the lever handle) details on the date manufacturing and originals photos are welcome ! attached a photo of curious marking on the chubb (bottom inside the door) milners : upper left : 1504 right J5636 chubb : lock : 22182 UPPER SLICE DOOR : 4/2/16 JR and 6 OR 9 ? thanks in advance
safeman stephane wroteHi guys, i bought a old chubb safe and wonder, in comparison with the milners, what’s the best one for the thief resisting side, for “common” brigand obviously, both look same size and weight. milners : upper left : 1504 right J5636 chubb : lock : 22182 UPPER SLICE DOOR : 4/2/16 JR and 6 OR 9 ? thanks in advance Bonne Année Stephane. These safes were made at almost the same time - the Chubb approximately 1883 and the Milner List 3 Quality in 1898. There is not much to choose between them as regards basic thief resistance. The Milner body plate will almost certainly be ¼" (6.35mm) seamlessly bent on the 4 edges and joined by a rivetted plate centrally on the underside. This will give a greater resistance to bodily attack than the Chubb which will most likely be of the same thickness but with joints on every edge. The Milner having the thick external banding will also give greater protection against wedge and lever attack than the Chubb and also makes the safe more likely to withstand falling debris in a fire which after all is usually the primary purpose of a ‘SAFE’. The Milner will also have anti-wedging blocks around the door. The Chubb having a two-way boltwork has good protection against the door being wedged open at the hinge side (not as difficult as commonly believed), but Milner’s hinges are much stronger than the pivots used by other makers and would give at least equivalent security. [unknown]
safeman safeman wroteBonne Année Stephane. These safes were made at almost the same time - the Chubb approximately 1883 and the Milner List 3 Quality in 1898. Stephane, I could have added that the Milner construction will give better resistance to the French speciality Le Pont than the Chubb. [unknown]
stephane Thanks safeman for details. Much appreciate. Do you think i need to place the original lock on the chubb or let the fichet ? Full english or english/french baby love ?
safeman stephane wroteThanks safeman for details. Much appreciate. Do you think i need to place the original lock on the chubb or let the fichet ? Full english or english/french baby love ? That one’s up to you Stephane as it’s not really a heavy security issue as you requested. Sorry, but could you re-phrase the last line - I don’t get it. [unknown]
stephane hard to translate but mean if 2 things was able to have a baby. so is it a shame to keep the fichet lock or better to find an original chubb ? not on the security level, just on the collector aspect. does this chubb worth this work ? the location of the lock above the handle is it common ? thanks
Cepasaccus In my opinion the Fichet is part of the history of this safe. So I would keep it as it is.
