Yale Lock Manufacturing Co., Stamford, Connecticut - Model No. 1, Double Pin Dial with Sunday dial attachment

Back Up Next

 

Yale had a confusing numbering system for the single and double pin dial models. The Double pin dial with the Sunday Attachment as well as the single pin dial with the Sunday Attachment are designated as No. 1 and No. 2 even though the No. 1 was introduced in 1875 and the number 2 was not produced until 1883. A catalog from 1883 supports this information also notice the retail pricing. $450 in 1883 is about $9000 in 2016, see reproduction below.
Double Pin Dial, with Sunday Attachment, No. 1
Single Pin Dial, with Sunday Attachment, No. 2
Double Pin Dial, w/o Sunday Attachment, No. 3
Single Pin Dial, w/o Sunday Attachment, No. 4

 

 

Yale 2 mvt pindial w-Sun dial (2).JPG (987866 bytes) Yale 2 mvt pindial w-Sun dial (3).JPG (1108088 bytes) A.

A. Yale Model No: 1 c.1887. Double Pin-Dial Time lock with optional Sunday dial attachment. (1). This was Yale's first time lock, and is probably one of the finest, complex  and more beautiful ever made. Available with either 56 hour or,  as in this example after 1885, 72 hour movements. An extremely expensive item the standard version was $400. This example has the optional day of the week attachment, commonly known as the 'Sunday dial' (2), and was available for an extra $50 evidenced by the ring indicating the day of the week around each pin dial. This lock is prior to the advent of the 'modular design' where individual movements were interchangeable. The movements were made by E. Howard & Co., Boston, one of the finest watchmakers of the period. Howard continued to supply Yale as well as other companies (Consolidated, Diebold) with movements for many years. Although a complex and expensive lock, it was popular and Yale made over 2100, therefore this lock for it's age is fairly common with over 400 known survivors of which 50 have the Sunday Attachment option. Movement #1710, case #968. file 51

B. Yale Model No. 1, c. 1878. The same version as 'A' but a bit older as this one is equipped with 56 hour duration timers. The case and movement are in beautiful condition in this example. Movement #1005, case#780, file 162

A feature unique to this type of time lock (pin dial) is that as well as being ' off guard ' it can go ' on guard ' in accordance with the settings of the pins. As such it is designed to run continuously, unlike the majority of time locks which go off guard when they run down. However, if the movements are allowed to stop completely they will take the lock off guard, despite the settings of the pins. Compare this model to the Yale single pin dial (a rarer version).

Back Up Next

(1) The pin dial is clearly a far more complicated design than Sargent & Greenleaf's Model 2, offered a number of innovations, the most obvious being the two front dials, each with series of twenty-four pins. Every pin, embossed with an hour of the day, could be pushed in, locking it, making the Pin Dial the first time lock capable of both unlocking and locking a safe at a predetermined time. Further the Pin Dial was the only mechanical time lock ever to be able to lock, unlock, and re-lock a safe for various one-hour periods throughout the day.  American Genius Nineteenth Century Bank Locks and Time Locks, David Erroll & John Erroll, pp 164.

(2) In 1876 Yale added the Sunday Attachment, which allowed the lock to skip the opening periods each Sunday. The mechanism is identified by two curved nickel runners next to the inner top third of the pin dials  embossed with "Thursday Friday Saturday" and a small shield on each dial that is geared to rotate at one-seventh the rate of the dial. These shields move over the the names of the days, allowing the user to check to make sure it is accurate, and then, during the twelve hours Sunday day, will be interposed between the drop wheel and the pins, guarding the opening of the pulled pins and keeping the lock shut. This option was available after 1885. American Genius Nineteenth Century Bank Locks and Time Locks, David Erroll & John Erroll, pp 164.