Talk:Knightsbridge Security Deposit robbery

This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misuse of 'Irony'[edit]

I've removed the editorial comment asserting that Viccei's post-incarceration friendship with Leach is ironic. It might be classified "interesting", or "coincidental" (which again is meaningless editorializing) but it's about as ironic as rain on your wedding day or ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife.

Anyone disagree? If you disagree you're obviously free to revert, but I'd like to hear your reasons. Thanks! Dubious Irony (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical exchange rates[edit]

There is probably a standard for this sort of thing, but it seems appropriate to quote the value of the robbery using the exchange rate that applied at the time. Unfortunately, Table of historical exchange rates isn't very complete right now. Using the historical data from forecasts.org it looks like the US-UK exchange rate varied strongly throughout 1987.

The mean exchange rate for 1987 would be UK£1 = US$1.639, giving a value of $66m. An alternative would be to use the exchange rate in July 1987 which would be UK£1 = US$1.609, giving a value of $64m.

It probably doesn't matter much, so I will go with the mean for the year. -- Solipsist 16:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How did you arrive at that figure? If the value of the stolen goods was £125 million and the exchange rate was £1 = US$1.639, then that gives a value of US$204,875,000 (approximately US$205 million) Using the July 1987 rate gives a value of US$201,125,000 (approximately US$200 million.)

I am going to change the figures- based on the median exchange rate for 1987 and a revised value of the haul of £60 million (as on the BBC's archive- sourced from Guinness World records- in the "World's biggest robberies" box.) If there is some reason this is inaccurate then by all means change it back. IrishPete 18:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation Adjusted Form[edit]

I think more important is to state the numbers in an inflation adjusted form. This way exchange rate will not be as important (as it depends from inflation) Otherwise largest robberies will be skewed toward more recent dates.--Cigor 17:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing, but didn't know how to do it. Do we have an economist in the house? I think it is a simple look-up in a table, once you know what table you should be talking about. The same would apply to any other figures in List of famous bank robbers and robberies. -- Solipsist 17:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this site computes inflation-adjusted values based on historical data. $66 million in 1987 = $111 million in 2005. --

“Said to be” is very vague and also contradicts the Wikipedia list of heists in the UK.[edit]

This should be changed or sourced. 222Boarbot78 (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]