Jump to content

Replica


Recommended Posts

Blueline541, Reconbob and Lancer,

 

I appreciate your thoughts and do respect your opinions. I find this great fun. Listening to Arthur and Phil skate and smoke around this topic is more fun than I could have ever imagined.

 

However, let me really simplify it for those readers who are just tuning in:

 

The Thompson Submachine Gun was a product owned and manufactured by a corporation – Maguire Industries. Maguire Industries changed business plans and sold off this product to another corporation – Kilgore Manufacturing Company, a privately held corporation. This is a routine transaction among companies. A current example recently occurred in Ohio. Proctor and Gamble sold off Folger's coffee; they are currently in the process of selling off Noxzema. Both of these products are brand name, well known products. When the sale of these products is complete, there will be continuous line of succession for these products from Proctor and Gamble to the new owners. It is as simple as that. These new owners are not buying Proctor and Gamble – only a corporate product.

 

Back to the story at hand: Kilgore purchased a corporate product – the Thompson Submachine Gun. There is no doubt the Thompson Submachine Gun was corporate product. There is no doubt the deal happened - high level company officials from Maguire Industries and Kilgore Manufacturing both stated in letters to Mr. Helmer the sale took place. A later IRS investigation documented the sale and the later sales between Kilgore and Willis and George Numrich. These are facts – plain and simple. The part of the story I find fascinating is what these new owners did with this product while they were owners in possession.

 

Remember, this is not one company buying out or taking over another company. This is only the sale of a company product, one that was not currently in production. How this product later evolved with Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms was not the subject of my story.

 

I ask you or anyone to point out any sentence in my post that is false.

 

Thanks,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blueline541, Reconbob and Lancer,

 

I appreciate your thoughts and do respect your opinions. I find this great fun. Listening to Arthur and Phil skate and smoke around this topic is more fun than I could have ever imagined.

 

For a couple of guys skating, smoking and reflecting mirrors, we sure seem to have you spinning to rationalize how Kahr is entitled to claim the pre 1945 AOC, and the history that goes with it, as their own.

 

However, let me really simplify it for those readers who are just tuning in:

 

The Thompson Submachine Gun was a product owned and manufactured by a corporation – Maguire Industries. Maguire Industries changed business plans and sold off this product to another corporation – Kilgore Manufacturing Company, a privately held corporation. This is a routine transaction among companies. A current example recently occurred in Ohio. Proctor and Gamble sold off Folger's coffee; they are currently in the process of selling off Noxzema. Both of these products are brand name, well known products. When the sale of these products is complete, there will be continuous line of succession for these products from Proctor and Gamble to the new owners. It is as simple as that. These new owners are not buying Proctor and Gamble – only a corporate product.

 

The new parent company of AOC- Maguire Industries Incorporated- did not come into being until 1944 after the TSMG ceased production and after the original AOC ceased being involved in TSMG production/sales/advertising. Maguire Industries was not in existence when Savage/AO were in production of new TSMG's . They were into dried foods.[

 

If Proctor & Gamble became Proctologist & Gimbles and stopped making these products for five years before they sold warehoused tins of Folger's and Noxema to whomever, you would argue the same "unbroken chain" theory. However, in this case, the company that made the TSMG was not the one that sold the assets to Kilgore. /b]

 

Back to the story at hand: Kilgore purchased a corporate product – the Thompson Submachine Gun. There is no doubt the Thompson Submachine Gun was corporate product. There is no doubt the deal happened - high level company officials from Maguire Industries and Kilgore Manufacturing both stated in letters to Mr. Helmer the sale took place. A later IRS investigation documented the sale and the later sales between Kilgore and Willis and George Numrich. These are facts – plain and simple. The part of the story I find fascinating is what these new owners did with this product while they were owners in possession.

 

We know the sale took place. Who is charging Kilgore with grand theft?[ Whether anything other than the 3 dimensional product known as the THOMPSON, and the machines to make them, were part of the sale is what is in dispute. But since the patents, trademarks and logos were up for grabs, that part of the deal is not nearly as central to the point at hand as the fact that these letters say nothing about transfer of AOC to Kilgore. Of course they couldn't, since it didn't happen. /b]

 

Remember, this is not one company buying out or taking over another company. This is only the sale of a company product, one that was not currently in production. How this product later evolved with Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms was not the subject of my story.

 

I think you are being coy here. Whether Numrich/Kahr appear in the SAR article is immaterial since you have made your position clear that you beleive Kahr's advertising is not only accurate, but justifed.

 

I ask you or anyone to point out any sentence in my post that is false.

 

Would you mind a legal expert going over your interpretation of what occurred in 1944 and 1949 and see if they reach the same conclusion?

 

Thanks,

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Proctor & Gamble example would fit if they'll stop making Folger's coffee for several years before they sell the remaining Folger's coffee containers and bean roasting equipment to someone, who will then sell it to someone, who will sell it to somebody else who will wait years before putting a completely different type of coffee in the original Folger's brand coffee cans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

As expected, I knew it would be smoke and mirrors again - never any facts.

 

When you do the research, obtain the facts and write the story, you get to make a first hand determination as to what happened. When you purchase the magazine and read the story, you get to have an opinion. What you base it on is entirely up to you.

 

While playing games with your half truths is always fun, I don’t want anyone on the Board to mistakenly believe your posting on this topic. Maguire Industries did have a lot to do with the Thompson after 1944. There are documented sales of the Thompson Submachine Gun from Maguire Industries as late as 1946. When you do your own research, you learn these things.

 

The chain of succession for this corporate product is based on a legal opinion.

 

Thank you.

 

blueline544,

I see your point and respect your opinion. However, irrespective of what the new owner does or doesn’t do with the “coffee,” there is a direct line of succession of the “coffee” from the previous owner to the new owner. What type of “coffee” the product evolves into after the sale is a marketing and production decision. And the consumer market will decide the ultimate success or failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote name='TD.' date='Sep 12 2008, 06:57 AM' post='83168']

Arthur,

As expected, I knew it would be smoke and mirrors again - never any facts.

 

When you do the research, obtain the facts and write the story, you get to make a first hand determination as to what happened. When you purchase the magazine and read the story, you get to have an opinion. What you base it on is entirely up to you.

 

It's been my understanding opinions are like a lower body part ....everyone has one

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil, as usual makes very good points as did Arthur and Bob. I too remain unconvinced about the unbroken chain of succession.

 

I thought it might be interesting to start a poll on the topic but I couldn't think of a way to accurately describe what it is that TD is claiming. I guess, in my mind, this is the problem.

 

Lancer,

 

A couple weeks ago, I thought about doing a poll also. Then I realized that our collective opinions made no difference. The only thing that counts is the paper, the documentary evidence. Only facts make a difference. And the fact is that the documentation is not there. That is a fact, not an opinion. So we do not need a poll to show that no evidence exists to prove there has been an "unbroken succession". There is no need to disprove what is not there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Listening to Arthur and Phil skate and smoke around this topic is more fun than I could have ever imagined...

 

...This is only the sale of a company product, one that was not currently in production. How this product later evolved with Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms was not the subject of my story...

 

...I ask you or anyone to point out any sentence in my post that is false...

 

Thanks,

 

TD,

 

Great. Let me add to the fun.

 

There is no skating and no smoke on the part of either Arthur or myself. It's all clear and simple. In all the words you have written, you have not addressed the only issue relevant to the "unbroken succession" which you insist exists. You have not yet presented one shred of evidence to show that even one piece of intellectual property was ever conveyed from one party, who owned it, to another party in this imaginary unbroken chain.

 

There is nothing there, not even smoke; just a vacuum. "The Thompson" or "the product" consists only of those legally registered intellectual property rights; not something else. Every other unsupported argument is exactly the "smoke and mirrors" to which you yourself refer.

 

You are still consistent in using vague terms which do not apply, as above, when you talk about "a company product" and "this product". Those terms are meaningless in this debate. It's about a registered name, a logo, a trademark, and associated items of intellectual property which were once legally registered to somebody other than those who later illegally usurped them. You simply can't dodge this core issue by repeating things which are not relevant to it.

 

So you want me to show you a statement you made which is false? How about this one?

 

"The chain of succession for this corporate product is based on a legal opinion."

 

Show us. But I guess the key word is "opinion", and if it is the opinion of some lawyer working for Kahr Arms who has not done his due diligence research, you run the risk of having us fall out of our chairs laughing. Several of us here would be underwhelmed and more than happy to take on him and his saber rattling balderdash.

 

TD, it's not going to be the end of the world if you acknowledge that there is no unbroken succession. You've done a great job on all of this research. This single conclusion is the only thing flawed, and that's only because you do not have a very complete understanding of the most simple, elementary business law as it applies here. And that's O.K. But the more you argue a case which everybody recognizes is completely unsupportable, the more of a cloud is cast over the rest of an otherwise good job.

 

I doubt if there is a single educated, knowledgeable, fair minded judge or attorney in the United States who would agree with you. So please share with us this legal "opinion" to the contrary.

 

Having said all that, I would agree if the point of it is that somebody has ruled that Kahr now has a right to use the properties it is using, because Numrich filed for them, long after he began illegally using them, and nobody objected. So Kahr gets the rights by default. But there is no unbroken succession and their claim to the contrary is, in plain and frank terms, a lie; or possibly their honest misunderstanding, although I doubt that.

 

Now. I want to hear exactly what it is that I have been saying that has been "smoke and mirrors", and why you claim I have been skating around the issue rather than going straight, dead center, to the core of it...which you are still dodging?

 

There has to be some point at which you begin including the terms "intellectual property" and "Thompson name" and "trademark" and "bullet logo" and "court filing" and "registered" and "Auto Ordnance Corporation" in your writings. Nothing else counts anymore...and never did. Or am I "skating around" something again? ;) And I don't think we would want to hear that all those terms have no application here, and there has been unbroken succession anyhow, just 'cause there has, and the claim needs no verification, because it is self evident. In fact, I guess that is the argument so far.

 

(You guys wouldn't believe how tough it is to write this with an 11-week-old Maine Coon Cat kitten sitting on my lap trying to edit me on the keyboard. Maybe she votes for "unbroken succession", just 'cause.) :lol:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

As expected, I knew it would be smoke and mirrors again - never any facts.

 

When you do the research, obtain the facts and write the story, you get to make a first hand determination as to what happened. When you purchase the magazine and read the story, you get to have an opinion. What you base it on is entirely up to you.

 

Publishing an article in SAR does not inoculate you from evaluations on your methods, conclusions, or sources used for your facts. On many occasions, letters to the editor from average readers on published articles cause the publication to ammend info claimed by one of their writers.

 

While playing games with your half truths is always fun, I don’t want anyone on the Board to mistakenly believe your posting on this topic. Maguire Industries did have a lot to do with the Thompson after 1944. There are documented sales of the Thompson Submachine Gun from Maguire Industries as late as 1946. When you do your own research, you learn these things.

 

You said Maguire Industries manufactured the TSMG. They did not. In fact, When Marcellus Thompson approached Maguire to purchase AOC in 1939, they formed the short lived Thompson Automatic Arms Corporation for capital raising purposes. There wasn't any Maguire Industries then, nor was there a Maguire Industries in 1940, 41, 42 ,43, or before March, 1944, when the TSMG ceased production.

 

OK. Maguire Industries occasionally sold existing TSMG's during the period between March, 1944 and 1949 when they sold the crated assets and all their inventory TSMG's to Kilgore. The salient point is that Maguire Industries was not in the TSMG manufacturing business after AOC ceased to exist as the company that made the TSMG. Federal Laboratories sold TSMG's in the 1930's. That didn't mean they made them.

 

The chain of succession for this corporate product is based on a legal opinion.

 

Whose legal opinion is this? Could you name the legal authority you contacted to make your determination?

 

 

blueline544,

I see your point and respect your opinion. However, irrespective of what the new owner does or doesn’t do with the “coffee,” there is a direct line of succession of the “coffee” from the previous owner to the new owner. What type of “coffee” the product evolves into after the sale is a marketing and production decision. And the consumer market will decide the ultimate success or failure.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

I appreciate your review of my last post. I knew you would not find anything I posted to be false. I do encourage you to send a letter to SAR (enclosed with a paid subscription). I suggest you cite some facts to support your opinion. The information I used in the story is going to be impossible to refute without a lot facts – something I have yet to see in any of your posts on this topic.

 

For your information, Auto-Ordnance Corporation and Maguire Industries, Incorporated are one in the same. Only a name change occurred. General Thompson’s company continues on today (see below).

 

Phil,

Would you kindly list all this intellectual property you continually harp about? Kilgore ended up with the machinery, tooling, drawings, gages, blueprints, dies, spare parts, records, Blish pistol, the Persuader, most of the other Thompson prototypes, many of the BSA prototypes and everything else related to the Thompson Submachine Gun. If you notice, Kilgore used the Thompson signature bullet logo trademark on their first piece of sales literature. What exactly did Kilgore not obtain in the sale that negates the complete transfer of this corporate product from one company to another? And who with standing has ever raised a legal question about the sale?

 

If you recall during the TATA presentation, I told of my inquiry with the current corporate officials of General Thompson’s company. The corporation did not retain any interest related to the Thompson. None. The Maguire family claims no ownership interest in the Thompson. None. The Thompson Submachine Gun was a product they owned long ago; it was sold off in its entirety when the business plan of the corporation changed.

 

While some may not like Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms because of the quality of workmanship, their place in history with the Thompson gun is undeniable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

 

For your information, Auto-Ordnance Corporation and Maguire Industries, Incorporated are one in the same. Only a name change occurred. General Thompson’s company continues on today (see below).

 

TD,

 

You are the only person to make the claim that AOC and Maguire Industries are the same. If Dave were in agreement with you, he would not have said the following:

 

"We don't argue that "the AOC Thompson made today is manufactured by the same business that ceased operation in 1944."dalbert post #412

 

How can these two things be the same when one didn't exist at the time of the creation of the other? It was not a name change. They were two different businesses. AOC made TSMG's, while Maguire Industries was trying to be Birdseye.

 

Are you ever going to tell us the name of the legal authority(ies) you consulted that backs up your traditional sign off:

 

"While some may not like Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms because of the quality of workmanship, their place in history with the Thompson gun is undeniable."

 

Are you gonna use the journalist shield law to keep from revealing this source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

You really need to bone up on the history of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation. Briefly, this was the corporation founded in 1916 by General Thompson, acquired by Russell Maguire (majority shareholder) in 1939, changed names to Maguire Industries in 1944 and changed names again in 1961 to Components Corporation of America. It is still going strong today. Yes, the same corporation. A Maguire is still the majority shareholder. Changing corporate names is very easy...and the trail is very easy to follow.

 

And no, Components Corporation of America does not have or own any interest in the Thompson Submachine Gun or the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation. The product was sold off many years ago to Kilgore Manufacturing Company and the name was abandoned when the corporate name changed (to Maguire Industries).

 

Maybe this explains all your inaccurate posts on this thread. You really believed these were all separate and different companies....wow.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

You really need to bone up on the history of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation. Briefly, this was the corporation founded in 1916 by General Thompson, acquired by Russell Maguire (majority shareholder) in 1939, changed names to Maguire Industries in 1944 and changed names again in 1961 to Components Corporation of America. It is still going strong today. Yes, the same corporation. A Maguire is still the majority shareholder. Changing corporate names is very easy...and the trail is very easy to follow.

 

And no, Components Corporation of America does not have or own any interest in the Thompson Submachine Gun or the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation. The product was sold off many years ago to Kilgore Manufacturing Company and the name was abandoned when the corporate name changed (to Maguire Industries).

 

Maybe this explains all your inaccurate posts on this thread. You really believed these were all separate and different companies....wow.

 

NYS Department of State

Division of Corporations

Entity Information

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selected Entity Name: AUTO ORDNANCE CORPORATION

 

Selected Entity Status Information Current Entity Name: COMPONENTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

Initial DOS Filing Date: AUGUST 25, 1916

County: QUEENS

Jurisdiction: NEW YORK

Entity Type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION

Current Entity Status: INACTIVE

 

Are you going to continue to duck the request to name your legal sources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

Your research notwithstanding, General Thompson's company is alive and well:

 

Components Corporation of America

2660 KPMG Building

717 N. Harwood St.

Dallas, TX 75201-6510

 

There was another corporate re-organization in 1981, but I am not going to confuse you any further.

 

The attorney's name is listed; you need to read the story again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This isn't my opinion. This is fact. Or really, I should say an absence of fact. I'm only speak as would a juror, having listened to sworn testimony and maybe studied material evidence presented in a courtroom. If I see or hear no evidence that it happened, I cannot conclude that it did happen. Reading 50 articles, the summary of 50 persons' opinions, does not change the existence, or non-existence, of the evidence upon which all those opinions may be based." Quote Phil,

 

 

...Why not present the evidence to uninterested parties who couldn't care less about the famous gun and listen to what they have to say on the subject?...

Exactly. Or submit it to a couple lawyers who specialize in this area of business law. Or submit it to a couple retired judges. ...or historians with respected credentials. ...or just a few people with reasonably high IQs.

 

I have no doubt whatsoever what the result would be. It's only common sense.

 

Hi Phil, well I see that you have moved from a jury to an elitist group of persons. I guess that the "common man's " verdict no longer appeals to you.

Your colors always surface. You my friend are an elitist, this by no means is derogatory, just my statement. The "reasonably high IQ's "does set your tone.

 

My .02

Bill out

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Phil,

Would you kindly list all this intellectual property you continually harp about?

 

That question is a diversionary effort with no basis in fact. In each and every post where I have used the term I have defined it to include the Thompson name, bullet logo, and Auto Ordnance Corporation business name. And I have gone into detail expanding upon this, to say that there is no such thing as your "the Thompson" without referring to these. Whether it had been informally abandoned or just not legally transferred to later entities, they used it without us seeing documentary evidence that this was kosher. Intellectual property is still intellectual property, even if it is lost or abandoned and sitting out in the high grass somewhere. It doesn't look like this property was legally transferred, in several cases for sure, and probably in most cases. So the chain was clearly broken...probably a bunch of times. But even this is unclear, because there is just no evidence of anything happening, except for the transfer of miscellaneous hard property at different times. Even this record is purely anecdotal. There is virtually nothing in your article that is more than anecdote. I'm not saying that in a critical way, but just as an accurate description of a very good, and very interesting article.

 

Kilgore ended up with the machinery, tooling, drawings, gages, blueprints, dies, spare parts, records, Blish pistol, the Persuader, most of the other Thompson prototypes, many of the BSA prototypes and everything else related to the Thompson Submachine Gun.

 

...but none of the intellectual property rights, as far as you, I, or all the people who have studied this question in minute detail have been able to determine. This is not some foggy issue. It is open and shut. Personally, my theory might be that the buyers of this package, at the several times it changed hands, just didn't think it had enough business value to go to the trouble and expense of transferring and re-registering the intellectual rights through attorneys and government agencies, etc. But that, again, is only my vague theory...NOT FACT. I.e., I won't ever write an article for SAR adamantly stating that this happened this way, and now all questions can be "laid to rest", because I have no such facts.

 

If you notice, Kilgore used the Thompson signature bullet logo trademark on their first piece of sales literature. What exactly did Kilgore not obtain in the sale that negates the complete transfer of this corporate product from one company to another?

 

What they did not obtain, as far as any of us have been able to document and prove, was the right to do what you describe above. It is possible that they obtained somebody's oral understanding not to interfere, but we don't know even that. Which gets back to what I've been saying, that you have not produced one piece of evidence to support your claim. My burden of proof is not to answer "What did they not obtain?". It is your burden to prove what they did obtain. You have not.

 

And who with standing has ever raised a legal question about the sale?

 

I give up, who? If nobody, then why not? That one is easy. Nobody had the financial incentive to bother with an issue which is only of interest to a bunch of collectors. But I guess you reserve for yourself the matter of defining who has "standing" to raise the question. If you don't agree with their logic or position on this, they have no "standing". :rolleyes: I believe we can guess who you think has no "standing". ;) My question would be, who has standing to claim that the world must accept, just on faith, the "unbroken succession" theory without one shred of evidence to support that?

 

If you recall during the TATA presentation, I told of my inquiry with the current corporate officials of General Thompson’s company. The corporation did not retain any interest related to the Thompson. None. The Maguire family claims no ownership interest in the Thompson. None. The Thompson Submachine Gun was a product they owned long ago; it was sold off in its entirety when the business plan of the corporation changed.

 

There's something else we need to address here, your circular logic. Throughout this thread, when people raise doubts, you refer them to your own article in SAR and your own lecture at the TATA meeting as implied evidence to prove your "unbroken succession" theory. It doesn't work that way. I attended the lecture and have read the article repeatedly. Both were consistent with what you say now, but neither added any new evidence, or cited old evidence, to support the claim. And when I raised this question of a lack of documentary evidence at the lecture, it was brushed off with a response that things were done in a more casual way then, and there was no need for such formalistic transfers. Baloney. We all know better.

 

You say that neither General Thompson's company nor the Maguire family retained interest in the Thompson rights. That does not tell us whether they abandoned all or some of them, or sold them to a new REGISTERED owner. In the absence of such evidence, your "unbroken succession" theory is disproven by default.

 

While some may not like Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms because of the quality of workmanship, their place in history with the Thompson gun is undeniable.

 

TD, now there's a statement with which I cannot disagree. If you stick to supportable and self evident facts like that one, nobody will dispute you and your research will be respected in Thompson Land; I know I will. We can talk about the PROGRESSION of the Thompson design through various manufactures and dabblers. We can talk about the EVOLUTION of the Thompson and its rich history. We can talk about how various people tried to appropriate the intellectual property rights without buying them, or certainly without us seeing proof that they did. We know virtually for sure that George Numrich usurped the AOC name and freshly registered it as his own. But the first rule of publishing the result of any historical research is to be sure your facts are facts, and that you can footnote them with reference to documentation which will solidly back you up. You have not done that. And since this key unbroken succession "fact" is not a fact, you have painted yourself into an embarrassing corner, one which I tactfully tried to steer you out of early in this debate. When an article is published, it's too late...save for a retraction. Maybe a short followup article, "clarification of some of the terminology used earlier", would help, with a description of what was "intended" to be said, for the sake of historical accuracy. Otherwise, the article stands as a sitting duck target for future writers on the subject. And considering the ever growing interest in the Thompson, you can be sure that there will be some. The best way for a new writer to make his name is to disprove something that has been inaccurately claimed before. Consider the possibility of some new young hot shot taking your article apart with a fine tooth comb and then doing a new round of intensive research over the same ground you covered. It happens all the time. He might well be less charitable than Arthur or me. When you write for publication, you are jumping into a swimming pool filled with sharks. Here, we're all basically friends, I hope, so what you are seeing now is nothing.

 

I really would like to see us all end up on the same page on this issue, eventually. It can be done, but not without abandoning the "unbroken succession" theory unless or until there is hard, documentary evidence to support it. I'm enjoying this candid and open discussion as much as ever. Sure, it is not going to interest everybody. They don't need to read the thread. And as I keep saying, eventually somebody here might stumble across new information and the whole picture would change. Nothing wrong with that. That is just how you get at truth. It's always hiding out there someplace. Finding it used to be my full time business, which keeps any job from becoming boring.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

Your research notwithstanding, General Thompson's company is alive and well:

 

Components Corporation of America

2660 KPMG Building

717 N. Harwood St.

Dallas, TX 75201-6510

 

But General Thompson's AOC is not Kahr's AOC. Ask David for confirmation on this. Not to mention, Roger Cox (whom WJH calls "an historian and original indefatigable researcher) back in 1982, stated on page 3 in his highly collectible book, "the ORIGINAL Auto Ordnance Corporation is still a valid New York chartered corporation." He also mentioned the CCOA in Dallas ,TX.

 

Now, Cox goes on to say on page 25:

 

"Numrich Arms are marked 'AUTO-ORDNANCE CORPORATION WEST HURLEY, NEW YORK' although the ORIGINAL AUTO ORDNANCE CORPORATION still exists and is NOT connected with Numrich Arms."

 

This means not connected with Kahr as well.

 

Now, either by your own claim that AOC and Maguire Industries are one and the same, or the accepted version, that the AOC of pre 1945 and the current AOC are completely different, Maguire would either have had to sell Kilgore Maguire Industries, or AOC, or both in order for Kilgore to legally obtain AOC. Maguire did not do any such thing.

 

You say, and write, that you have conclusive proof that Cox (as well as Herigstad, Richardson, R. L. Sutherland, R. L. Wilson, Thomas B. Nelson) was/is wrong about this very point. Since you challenged Cox's integrity, you had better be able to back it up with documentation, rather than just referring people to attend your lectures, and read your non footnoted SAR articles.

 

You said:

"When you do the research, obtain the facts and write the story, you get to make a first hand determination as to what happened." TD

 

You also, as Phil has noted, are required to produce these "facts" that will substantiate your conclusions. Could you explain how your methods of research are more exacting than Cox, and that your "first hand determination" is more authoritative than Cox?

 

Perhaps you should have road tested your hypothesis here before going to print. Then you would have had all your ducks in a row before you, as Phil said, "... painted yourself into an embarrassing corner."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think now we have about 50 people in the world that care.and a the few that posted on this.

 

look up that old ww2 propoganda picture with the "Great Dane" it says watch yourself pal!

be CAREFUL what you say or write.

 

kinda cute.

 

and the story continues.i want to know who made the first KULACHKY?

polish, german or czech.

 

have fun

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think now we have about 50 people in the world that care.and a the few that posted on this.

 

look up that old ww2 propoganda picture with the "Great Dane" it says watch yourself pal!

be CAREFUL what you say or write.

 

kinda cute.

 

and the story continues.i want to know who made the first KULACHKY?

polish, german or czech.

 

have fun

Ron

 

You can count me in the 50 people in the world that care as estimated by respected Ron.

 

Ross

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

This is too easy. You agree everything Thompson was sold by Maguire Industries to Kilgore Manufacturing except the intellectual property. And your definition of intellectual property is the "Thompson name, bullet logo, and Auto Ordnance Corporation business name." The Thompson name and bullet logo are one in the same. Simply stated (the story contains a lot more detail), when the President of Kilgore tells of purchasing the Thompson from Maguire Industries, I call this documentation. When the Executive Vice-President and Chief Counsel of Maguire Industries tells that everything related to the Thompson was sold to Kilgore Manufacturing in 1949, I call this documentation. When a well-established company like Kilgore Manufacturing uses the Thompson name and bullet logo in a sales brochure with an obvious plan to manufacture and market the Thompson, I call this documentation. When a subsequent owner of the Thompson (George Numrich) claims to have purchased all the assets related to the Thompson and subsequently uses the name and bullet logo for many years, I call this documentation. When I couple all of this with a government investigation that substantiates everyone's version of the events that happened in the 1949 to 1951 time frame regarding the sale and purchase of the Thompson, I call this documentation. I also call it documentation when officials of the corporation that at one time owned the Thompson, tell me this product was sold off many years ago and nothing related to the Thompson is owned by the corporation or the family that has controlling interest in the corporation.

 

Please show me one piece of documentation that counters the statements and actions of the above people. It all happened - just like they said and as I reported. You saw the results first hand when you visited Numrich Arms in the 1960's.

 

As to the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name, I have never claimed Kilgore, Willis or Numrich purchased this name. The name Auto-Ordnance Corporation was simply abandoned when the Auto-Ordnance Corporation changed names to Maguire Industries in 1944.

 

Arthur,

At first I thought you were just using your usual smoke and mirrors when things don't go your way in speaking about the history of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation. I now realize you really don't understand what you are taking about. Your post does not deserve a response. I suggest you go back and re-read some of my posts before you post on a topic you know very little about. I stand by my story and all the documentation that goes with it. While you may not like Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms because of the quality of workmanship, their place in history with the Thompson gun is undeniable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

As to the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name, I have never claimed Kilgore, Willis or Numrich purchased this name. The name Auto-Ordnance Corporation was simply abandoned when the Auto-Ordnance Corporation changed names to Maguire Industries in 1944.

 

I am in good company for not knowing what I am talking about as the premier authors of TSMG history beleive what I do.

 

1) The original AOC name was not "abandoned" as Cox and the NYS Department of State Division of Corporations

Entity Information prove.

 

2) But even using your "abandoned" theory, Kahr is claiming that this "abandoned" company name can be used in connection with their business as if there actually is a bonafide relationship between the pre 1945 AOC and their company. Imagine if all businesses operated on your principal there would be chaos and anarchy.

 

3) When ever there is a hitch in your theory, you dismiss it with the cavalier attitude that "corporations are not important," "names changed," "follow the crates, not the corporations," "hearsay documentation is as good as paper documentation," "quality of workmanship is immaterial," "any dissenting views are merely smoke and mirrors," etc, etc. I have never encountered a true authority on a subject that used this kind of personality driven invective instead of just producing their paper trail evidence to quell their critics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

 

If, in your quote of the Cox book, you are implying that the text is infallible, please note that in at least two locations Mr. Cox incorrectly states that the M1 Thompsons were originally parkerized finished (pages 22 and 23). Mr. Cox also states on page 23 that the 28 Commercial Savages were parkerized which I also believe to be an incorrect statement.

 

With all due respect to the research Mr. Cox may have done regarding the history of the Thompson, there are clearly some mistakes in the book.

 

FWIW, I couldn't care less about the whole line of succession thing. I'm just saying, don't depend on every non-fiction book you read to be 100% accurate.

 

MHO, YMMV, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

This is too easy.

 

You're absolutely right. It is too easy, but in exactly the opposite of the way you are thinking. We have finally gotten to the core of the misunderstanding, which is what it is. You are showing here that you have no concept of what acceptable documentation is, within any legal or business world context.

 

You agree everything Thompson was sold by Maguire Industries to Kilgore Manufacturing except the intellectual property.

 

No, I do not, and did not, so agree. I do not know or believe that necessarily "everything" was sold. Actually, I have no firm opinion on that. Looks like some of it was sold, but we have no inventories or receipts or anything else. There is not even any evidence of what you describe. There are only anecdotal accounts that somebody said something was sold...machinery, parts, blueprints. The only thing we can really pin down are the receivers George Numrich eventually registered. That is adequately documented, but only because he had to register them long after the fact.

 

And your definition of intellectual property is the "Thompson name, bullet logo, and Auto Ordnance Corporation business name." The Thompson name and bullet logo are one in the same.

 

No they are not one and the same. It is becoming more clear what you do not understand; any of it. I'm not defining "intellectual property". Lawyers and the business community did that long ago. I have mentioned several Thompson-related things which are included, but perhaps not all of them.

 

Simply stated (the story contains a lot more detail),...

 

I've read all this "detail", and the factual detail simply is not there.

 

...when the President of Kilgore tells of purchasing the Thompson from Maguire Industries, I call this documentation.

 

Here we have finally arrived at the core of the problem. You are making up your own self serving definition of "documention". By no means is it that. The term I would use would not be very polite, but accurately descriptive. What you "call it" has nothing to do with what the legal and business communities call it. These people will laugh in your face if you try to explain to them your theories on why they must accept your Thompson "unbroken succession" documentation as fact. They would say, what is this guy talking about?

 

When the Executive Vice-President and Chief Counsel of Maguire Industries tells that everything related to the Thompson was sold to Kilgore Manufacturing in 1949, I call this documentation.

 

And again it is not, and you will be laughed at.

 

When a well-established company like Kilgore Manufacturing uses the Thompson name and bullet logo in a sales brochure with an obvious plan to manufacture and market the Thompson, I call this documentation.

 

Ditto to my above comment. the laughter becomes louder.

 

When a subsequent owner of the Thompson (George Numrich) claims to have purchased all the assets related to the Thompson and subsequently uses the name and bullet logo for many years, I call this documentation.

 

The assembled lawyers, judges, and CEO listeners to your lecture begin clutching their abdomens and falling off their folding chairs, laughing hysterically.

 

When I couple all of this with a government investigation that substantiates everyone's version of the events that happened in the 1949 to 1951 time frame regarding the sale and purchase of the Thompson, I call this documentation.

 

Members of your hypothetical audience all stop laughing, because they did some research and know for a fact that there was NO SUCH INVESTIGATION, EVER, BY ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY, TO DETERMINE AND AUTHENTICATE DETAILS OF THE SALE AND SPECIFICS OF ANY THOMPSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; ATF only investigated the improper transfer of a few taxable receivers, and maybe some finished guns, between two parties, human or corporate. They did not investigate or care about the parties' parentage. None of it had a thing to do with sale of the registerable business equities and intellectual properties. When you make some contrary claim, you have crossed a clear line into very bad territory; because what you imply above, that a government (ATF) investigation verified your "unbroken succession" claim at that juncture, is flatly and emphatically false.

 

I also call it documentation when officials of the corporation that at one time owned the Thompson, tell me this product was sold off many years ago and nothing related to the Thompson is owned by the corporation or the family that has controlling interest in the corporation.

 

You continue to "call it documentation" when no other person with even an elementary understanding of legalities in the business world would do so. This is not even a close one to call.

 

Please show me one piece of documentation that counters the statements and actions of the above people.

 

There is no need to present "documentation" to disprove vague baloney, groundless claims, and interesting anecdotes. The burden is upon you to show receipts, inventory documents, notarized records of transfers of hard items, sworn and witnessed records of the transfer of specific intellectual property filed in some court of record, government copyright records, law office records, even just copies of any pertinent documents from one of the companies involved in all this. You have not presented one whit of any of this, not even one page, nor have you pointed us to a respository where any of it might be retained. Why? Most likely because it is not there. But most assuredly I can see it is because you have not even looked for it. And that is because you have not the slightest understanding of what kind of research is necessary to write and publish a credible, unimpeachable, multi-page article of the type you have published in SAR without doing the homework. This is nothing more than an interesting flying-by-the-seat-of-the-pants opinion article. Sorry I have to finally put it that way, but nothing else has worked, in the course of earlier and more tactful efforts to suggest that you slow down, re-think this through, and see if you might need to reconsider all these unverified and maybe unverifiable claims. The deeper this hole gets, the harder it is going to be to climb out gracefully.

 

It all happened - just like they said and as I reported.

 

Maybe some of it happened and maybe not. But nothing that you have written has in any way substantiated the "unbroken succession" which you claim. And a bunch of fragments and anecdotes, all strung together to make an interesting story, does not magically become a set of brand new facts or "documentation", no matter what you decide to "call it". TD, you would not make it 24 hours as even an understudy apprentice junior intelligence officer, required to separate fact from fiction and baloney, and then write it up as unique single-source flash guidance for National Security Council people making life or death immediate action decisions. They don't care what you "call it". They only want to know the truth, which is either known or unknown, or perhaps estimated. You have no facts, only your own guesses and estimates, and far reaching assumptions, based on smoke. But you are adamant in labelling them as facts, which they are not. To be unable to differentiate is to be unqualified to do the kind of research writing you insist that we accept. You have the raw tools, but you need to learn how to use them, and how to be your own critic and editor before you publish.

 

You saw the results first hand when you visited Numrich Arms in the 1960's.

 

What I saw there had nothing to do with verifying anything you are claiming. I have described, several times, what I saw. I have never stated it to mean something other than a simple eye witness description. This is where you drift astray, when you see or hear a couple interesting things, and then gallop, not just jump, to conclusions not warranted by your sketchy facts.

 

As to the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name, I have never claimed Kilgore, Willis or Numrich purchased this name. The name Auto-Ordnance Corporation was simply abandoned when the Auto-Ordnance Corporation changed names to Maguire Industries in 1944.

 

That may be true. Probably it is. And so it was that many years later, George Numrich filed with a court in the State of New York an application for its exclusive use, and his request was granted. This is what "documentation" is. A board member found it. He directed us to where we could find what he found, because it is still there, forever. This was in the '60s, I believe. This one fact, this proven documentation, is all the evidence any court of law needs to show that there is positively no "unbroken succession", and that Kahr's advertising claims to be the original, or successor to the original manufacturer of "the Thompson", are demonstrably FALSE! They even use a picture of General Thompson in some of their advertising. The guy would probably want to hose those Moonies with one of his "trench brooms" if he could see how his picture is being abused.

 

Now, if they want to claim to be successors to the original manufacturer of the SEMI-AUTO Thompson, that would be demonstrably 100% true. But that is not at all what they presently claim.

 

And I guess I have to come to Arthur's defense again, regarding your comments below. He understands exactly what he is talking about. His post does deserve a response, but when your position is solidly founded on quicksand, it is understandably difficult to respond persuasively. TD, you can't keep referring people back to your own writings to try to prove points that have no basis in fact, are undocumented, and cannot be independently verified by any objective observor or researcher. You say you stand behind your story and "all the documentation that goes with it". None accompanied it, not even a footnote leading to such "ducumentation". I'd say you'd better stop standing behind your story, because at this moment the thing is in the process of falling on top of you. But the fact that there's no weight to it should make it much less lethal. None of this has a thing to do with our opinions about Kahr Arms products, or Numrich, or Willis, or the Maguire family, or the Thompson's "undeniable" place in history. It's only about unsubstantiated claims and nonexistent facts being misrepresented as historical certainty. Sadly, that's what it boils down to.

 

Again, I have to close with my sincere reassurance that this is not meant to be personal. It truly is not. You're a very nice guy. I just think you need to take a breather, think about all this, reconsider the conclusions you reached, and be a little bit slower and more self critical before writing another major article for publication in a magazine read by everybody in the Class III world. As a young, new guy in Washington long ago, some people rode very close herd on me, before I was allowed to write important things for important consumers in government. As I've said here before, I thank my lucky stars for that. They taught me to think clearly. It isn't something that comes naturally to most people, I have observed. You have obviously never been exposed to such a learning process. Had you been trained as a young journalist on a large newspaper, you might have gotten the same training. When you don't, it is a big disadvantage, if you plan to write seriously. Doing an article for SAR is writing seriously. Or at least all of us Thompson nuts think so. ;) And keep at it. You can write well. ...just needs a little critical tweeking.

 

Arthur,

At first I thought you were just using your usual smoke and mirrors when things don't go your way in speaking about the history of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation. I now realize you really don't understand what you are taking about. Your post does not deserve a response. I suggest you go back and re-read some of my posts before you post on a topic you know very little about. I stand by my story and all the documentation that goes with it. While you may not like Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms because of the quality of workmanship, their place in history with the Thompson gun is undeniable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

 

If, in your quote of the Cox book, you are implying that the text is infallible, please note that in at least two locations Mr. Cox incorrectly states that the M1 Thompsons were originally parkerized finished (pages 22 and 23). Mr. Cox also states on page 23 that the 28 Commercial Savages were parkerized which I also believe to be an incorrect statement.

 

With all due respect to the research Mr. Cox may have done regarding the history of the Thompson, there are clearly some mistakes in the book.

 

FWIW, I couldn't care less about the whole line of succession thing. I'm just saying, don't depend on every non-fiction book you read to be 100% accurate.

 

MHO, YMMV, etc.

 

Cox said all military TSMG's had "a gray parkerized finish." Of course the 'parkerizing' was not applied until these weapons went through a spa treatment at U.S. arsenals. He used the term "parkerized" to describe what was a Du-Lite Type II Black oxide finish. But he was still accurate that the finish was not blued. He also said that the barrels were blued, which is true. He also said that a military 1928A1 or M1/M1A1 blued TSMG would be a refinished one. True.

Cox did say the Savage Commercial TSMG's had "parkerized' or "dark' finishes. But while this is incorrect for a true "Commercial," collectors are still trying to nail down what actually legitimizes the name "Commercial" for a Savage TSMG.

 

Of course Cox, as well as Hill, Herigstad, Richardson, Iannamico etc, have errors in their publications. The only person claiming 'infallibility' is TD.

 

While Cox's range of Colt TSMG serial numbers that had different markings on them has since been proved inaccurate as well, where Cox is indeed 100% accurate is in his statements about the original AOC name. The NYS Department of State Division of Corporations listings substantiates what he said in 1982. Cox's book was also reviewed by Helmer before it went into publication, and Helmer didn't disabuse Cox about the AOC name retention, a subject Helmer had more than a passing acquaintance of, to say the least. His book "TGTMTTR" actually has footnotes, annotations, the lot.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...