Chubb@Son padlock

Richard Rutland · 2025-08-21T08:37:04+00:00

I have a Chubb @ Son padlock. 6X4×2. Inches Weighs 2230 . Have seen a couple same size but not many. Still shines like gold as had protected red vynal cover. So looks very new. I have seen locks saying chubb@Son makers to her majesty.This lock has a full stop after MAKERS . I have had it since 1980. It’s Number is 232 350. Have anyone seen another with full stop after Makers. Plus Date. Thankyou.

Richard Rutland

I do need a member who has great knowledge of early chubb@son locks. From Melbourne if possible. To take a look at lock and confirm what l now know about lock.once confirmed then l will share with you all. You need lock in your hand to understand photos won’t help. I know very little about locks. Probably explains mark after MAKERS. But so much more important to lovers of padlocks.let me know if any member can help.

Paul Prescott

I and many others here know about these, what else do you want to know ?

It’s a typical heavy 6″ padlock of it’s type. Made in large numbers and they tend to survive quite well.

Sometimes they have a hard life others turn up in better condition.

Richard Rutland

Paul. You don’t even know how to date Chubb locks. As you date was 1848. Just go to Chubb website. Lock 220 364. Date is 1850. So lock 232 250. Must be 1850 or after. As for big numbers. That’s how they should look. Small numbers probably made in India. Science museum has a lock donated to them. Date is 1859. Look at the number’s. I found all this out by googling chubb@son Lock’s. Guess you will have to wait to find out why this lock is so different.Will simply take it to a locksmith. I don’t need a member. All l have said is simply fact.

Paul Prescott

Oh. Dear.

OK. I will not try and assist you any further.

Good luck with whatever quest you are on.

Brian - might be an idea to block this guy for when he runs of out tinfoil ….

Richard Rutland

everyone is entitled to there own opinion. So all l say is never judge a book by it’s cover. Now there’s a hint. Can’t say more until l hear back from certain people. Don’t care who thinks lm full of rubbish.

Daniel John

Hello Richard

I have a vast Chubb lock collection, including padlocks, of all description, from the Victorian era. Your padlock is, as stated by another collecter, the large 6″ closed shackle variant. They were are very good quality padlock and no doubt cost a fortune to buy. Examples in fine order still attract large sums, in excess of USD$1000 at times.
As you would probably agree, your example has been a workhorse. As most have. They were not bought to be put on display. Yours has clearly been opened. The pins securing the cap (top cover) indicate this. Probably to repair the lever comb spring, or cut keys if they’d been lost. And the sliding key cover is missing. They often are. As to age, you’ve essentially deduced it’s age as correctly as anyone can without visiting the Chubb records in person. As a collecter I must come to the defense of other colldcters - Paul started this website and has, at various times, had in his collection some of the rarest Victorian era locks known, including very
early Chubb. Whilst knowledge is always developing, he and several others know most of what there presently is to know regarding Chubb. I say this as someone who also has rare locks snd keys, and whom has consulted this community frequently, with success.
All this said, it’s a nice lock and something to enjoy.

Paul Prescott

A point to note is the vast majority of dates from s/n are interpreted. The original Chubb records for the period 1848 - 1854 do not exist and as such are interpreted from previous and later books. Richards lock is within a few hundred numbers of the last entry in the 1847 ledger hence the date of 1848.

I am hoping to view some of the actual Chubb records in London mid next year.

Richard Rutland

Thank you guys for your honest opinion. I do appreciate it. Love you have such great knowledge of Chubb Lock’s. Will tell you tomorrow why lock is so different. Stop any confusion. You all deserve to know now .

Richard Rutland

If you can view the Chubb records. It will tell you why it is different. Would love someone to find records of lock 232 250. Chubb@son.

Paul Prescott

As I said, maybe I need to write this bigger.

THE RECORDS DO NOT EXIST FOR THAT PERIOD

the last entry in ledger 4, in 1847 is s/n 222510

the next entry in ledger 5, is 1854 is s/n 260376

with the missing records being destroyed in the Blitz along with Chubbs London offices.

Having looked again at your posts and pictures I (with my mere 30+ years of collecting and knowledge of Chubb) am quite confident that your lock is an entirely ordinary lock of it’s type. Which has almost certainly been taken apart.

There is a slim (very slim) chance it does have one slight (but by no means unique) technical difference but I’m not doing to bother to try and explain it.

« Previous Page