Jump to content

Replica


Recommended Posts

"I will pose to you that the answer to this may be mathematical. Look at what we know about Numrich Thompson sales in the 1950’s, and decide if it adds up." Dave

 

First, thanks for all the photos of the old catalogs and sales brochures. Now, what are we supposed to be adding? Nobody disputes G.N. was in the parts business. Nobody disputes that G.N. sold existing 1921/28 TSMG's for $195 and the M1/M1A1 for $150. Are you suggesting that these advertised complete smg's were of brand new manufacture? Even the prices undermine that notion.

 

Nobody disputes that the French received 3,000 Colt TSMG's on November 1, 1939 for $750,000. The U.S. Army then ordered another 900 Colt TSMG's. That left 800 left of the original 15,000 in AOC's racks. Supposedly, the British ordered the bulk of these. Why any complete Colt TSMG's were left in AOC's possession (as in the ones that G.S. found in the crates along with WWII TSMG's), aside from the prototypes, is a mystery. Unless that by the time Savage got a contract to make 10,000 TSMG's in December of 1939, Maguire forgot about the existing Colt's and concentrated on the WWII Savage 1928 production models for export?

 

How much of G.N.'s business was devoted to TSMG's and how much to Hopkins, Forehand Arms, Standard Arms, military surplus, general surplus and imports? What percentage of the 13 million parts or the 17 million parts (from 1955 to 1959 his parts increased by 4 million) were devoted to TSMG's? If the demand for TSMG parts was so great, one would think that the demand for a complete TSMG would also be great and even cost efficient to the customer compared to buying replacement components piecemeal. I also notice receivers with Lymans priced at $44. Now add the $200 ATF tax and it doesn't seem practical to not just pay an additional $150 for a complete TSMG. He also states in his 1959(?) flyer that "vertical foregrips are no longer produced." That means he ran out of surplus stocks, yes?

 

How long did it take G.N. to sell the existing complete TSMG's found in the crates? The actual number of these is only known to ATF, but it is estimated that there were between 85 and 125(?). Even if there were 200 of them that would have grossed G.S. less than $35K. How much did G.S. gross from existing surplus TSMG's parts and newly made barrels? Other than the barrels, who has a G.S. made actuator, bolt, frame, etc TSMG part? What stamp did he use to make these parts if they exist?

 

Now we come to G.S.'s use of "Successors to: Auto-Ordnance Corporation Thompson Submachine Guns" on his business letterhead. Interesting that this latest and greatest acquisition of G.S. only rates third billing in the small print of "absorbed" firearm companies. Is this a chronological order? Had I bought the crates of Thompson goodies, you better believe I would have stated the same thing on my business correspondence, but I would have given it above the title billing.

 

But in all this paraphernalia, I still do not see a picture of, or an add for, a brand new TSMG? Did I miss some fine print somewhere? But if such a TSMG exists, and G.S. must have had some cracker jack filing system to keep track of those 13 million parts, would there not be a record of such a Thompson? Not to mention not one has shown up in a P.D. or private hands.

 

I do notice that on G.S.'s letterhead he changed his winged camel coat or arms in 1963 to approximate the British lion in shield coat of arms by 1969. I wonder if those were trademarked by him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dave great info i had a few of those sheet's and letterhead year's ago..sold them off in some collection out east..

 

the whole ira trast and george numrich thompson deal. is pure advertising and sale's..and with keeping the thompson history alive.i'm sure neither one did that much research. they both were too busy buying and selling old gun companie's and trying to make a buck. and to hype up anything they could

shade's of "curtis earl"and a few hundred other class three guy's today!

 

it's nice to see the old price's and the worded stuff.notice most just used the same old 1920's pic's and diagram's.and old sale's catalog's reprinted..WHY? because it looked nice. and to keep the cost's down..

 

my take... colt made thompsons;so did a.o. and savage,and so did numrich...is there a colt connection?never was never will be.is there a a.o. connection?something this board will ponder till we are all gone. and maybe will never get answered.ask somebody at a gun show if they care. wink!!

 

thanks for the time and effort spent here....it's more then i put into 35 year's of collectin...he-he!

 

take care,ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dalbert,

Thanks for sharing the paperwork. It's amazing how much stuff is still out there and occasionally turns up, even 85 years after the Colt Tommys were produced. You are to be commended on your efforts to unearth so much valuable material. Whether the recent material you posted answers all of the "succession" questions or not, it still adds to the overall knowledge base that we are all compiling on Colt T-guns.

 

PhilOhio,

 

Congrats on unearthing some more PD Thompsons in your area. Hearing about the PD not knowing how to disassemble the gun makes me cringe. When you go back, maybe you could make up a tag for them to hang on the Colt that says something like: NOTE: ATTEMPTING TO DISASSEMBLE THIS FIREARM MAY PUT SCRATCHES ON THE FINISH THAT CAN REDUCE ITS VALUE BY SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS.

 

Thanks to your efforts in locating some otherwise previously undocumented Colt Tommys. Wouldn't it be something if 50 years from now ALL 15,000 Colts had been located and accounted for. Let's see, Gordon Herigstad, your book would weigh 746 lbs and be sent by 18-wheeler flat bed trucks to the purchasers...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PhilOhio

 

I probably should go re read your first post, but did you say it was transferable? If so, before you make it too famous, why don't you try to acquire it from them so some future idiot chief doesn't give it to Shumer, Kennedy, et al or worse, cut it up!

 

But, if you aren't going for it, then by all means get some pro-Tommy gun notoriety out of it. Good luck on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Williamsport, PA Police Dept has a 21, unfortunately the bolt is a Savage, that a long past armorer had swapped out. The gun is registered but not transferable. They do take it out and shoot it, but unfortunately I'm certain that it does not receive the care it should. It has been years since I've seen it, I wonder if Gordon has it listed in his book?

 

The city allegedly had another 21 but it disappeared some years ago. Hard to say where that one is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

An excellent post. Several of the points you make do need to be addressed (and can be). However, you are still hung up on the corporate succession angle. The continuing lineage of the Thompson after it was sold by Maguire Industries, Inc. is definitely "something." To define this "something," one only has to look at how the Thompson arrived at Numrich Arms, consistent comments made by George Numrich over the years dealing with ownership rights and the lack of any claim from Maguire Industries regarding the Thompson or the use of its old corporate name. Again, the sale of the Thompson by Maguire did not involve a corporate succession, only the sale of a product line from one company to another. This "something" shows a direct linkage to what Maguire sold and George ended up with. This "something" is something that manufacturers like Pearl, Philadelphia Ordnance, Richardson or others will never have. I call this "something" the continuing lineage or succession of the Thompson Submachine Gun.

 

One other point. Your comments involving “defined legal issue" are not specific enough to address. I believe you are trying to say certain legal requirements would have to be met for this succession or lineage to be completed or successful. You may be right - but only if one party is contesting what took place. Again, this is not a corporate succession. Simplistically, this could have simply been a verbal contract of sale and as long as neither party objected, no problems would ever surface. The concept of "Standing" is very applicable to this situation. In essence, who has the legal right to contest George Numrich's continual verbal and published claim of ownership as "Successors to: Auto-Ordnance Corp (Thompson Submachine Guns)." From where I sit, the only parties that fit this bill would be Maguire (now Components) Kilgore and Willis. With no objection from these parties, George must certainly have acquired "something." And lets not just state off hand that this was just a bunch of old crates of gun parts George acquired. These old crates contained everything related to the Thompson Submachine to include the Blish pistol, prototype Thompson’s, the original contract with Colt to produce the first 15,000 Thompson’s, blueprints, drawings - everything needed to manufacture the Thompson Submachine Gun. The entire Thompson product line left Maguire Industries, Inc in 1949...and later found its way to George Numrich. Phil, your right, these events were certainly "something."

 

David,

Excellent post. I agree, more will be written someday on all of this. Mathematical? I see your point.

 

Arthur,

Again, George did not have to manufacture anything for his claim to succession to be valid - but I enjoy addressing this non-event with you. Could you point out something in the posted Numrich advertisements that indicates the buyer of one of these advertised Thompson Submachine Guns will obtain something other than a brand new manufactured Thompson Submachine Gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Could you point out something in the posted Numrich advertisements that indicates the buyer of one of these advertised Thompson Submachine Guns will obtain something other than a brand new manufactured Thompson Submachine Gun?" TD,

 

 

You have already made your position clear that whether G.N. made a new TSMG is irrelevant to whether NAC was the legal successor to the original AOC in your opinion. Yet you still seem to be the victim of G.S.'s creative advertising practices. G.N.'s own ads simultaneously infer and contradict what he is selling as far as complete TSMG's. Dave was very precise in his evidence of G.N. made barrels, which nobody contended did not exist, by stating:

 

"Numrich manufactured Thompson barrels from bar stock from at least 1955 to 1996. This is supported by onsite observations made in 1965 by a Gun World writer, as well as an account from Ira Trast to me stating that barrels remained in production from the time he started at Numrich (1966) to 1996." Dave

 

Why did the "Gun World" writer make so much of manufactured barrels yet no mention of manufactured receivers and frames? The barrels exist today as tangible proof of a G.N. made product. What happened to all these G.N. made from scratch (just like the barrels) TSMG's?

 

As Ronald reminded all of us, the exploded parts view and Colt Thompson paraphernalia used in G.N.'s ads were reprinted from 1920's and 1930's AOC brochures. This makes G.N's 1950's ads really confusing. Dave also states that the photos in Numrichs ads are vintage, but it isn't just the photos as the original ad copy has been lifted from AOC brochures as well.

 

From G.N.'s 1953 ad:

 

"The Thompson Submachine Gun gas always been considered the finest. Police departments and military establishments throughout the word depend on their Thompson's for rugged service and complete dependability.

"Our guns are of solid construction and no effort has been spared to keep them from being "the best."

 

This ad implies G.H. was making TSMG's as new. Of course he was not. Would it not be false advertising to continue to run photos of 1291/28 Colt TSMG's and WWII Savage/AO TSMG's and original AOC copy if he had manufactured his own TSMG? Where is the photo of his brand new Numrich TSMG? Unless he was stamping "COLT PATENT FIREARMS MFG CO" on his receivers, this ad is definitely misleading and might even be considered fraudulent.

 

This ad is determined by Dave to be from 1959:

 

"All Parts Listed Are New

50% Discount On Used

No Frames Or Receivers Available"

 

The above is G.N's own copy. The original AOC TSMG description is no longer included in the ad. Why? That is self evident. If G.N. is making his won TSMG's then he went out of business 6 years after his last ad advertised TSMG's that you think were newly manufactured.

 

Since my motives in this discussion are considered partisan, what could Phil's motives be when he speaks of G.N. only in the most glowing terms? Why does he not see what you and Dave see?

 

If you could give me an example of a product that existed once and was resurrected decades later that broke off the chain of succession I could better understand your thinking.

 

But what do you call the five year gap from when Maguire's AOC stopped making TSMG"s and then absorbed AOC into his own company and then the sale of crated assets to Kilgore? Just define this period for me.

 

Phil,

 

You just don't understand Thompson mythology. He who possesses the Blish pistol is the rightful heir to the legacy. Who needs legal documentation when a King Arthur sword in the stone test is all that is needed for Thompson peerage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

 

I would be intellectually dishonest if I was confronted with a legal document that proved what G.N. was proffering since 1951 and still maintain AOC and Thompson came to an end in 1944. I just do not understand the campaign to insist on an uninterrupted AOC history to today when all available factual evidence proves the contrary.

 

Were G.N's motivations regarding his Numrich Thompson ads devoid of subterfuge? Dick Armitage says he never knew Valerie Plame was "covert" when he leaked her identity to Novak and Woodward. If I had to choose between the two, I would assign more credibility to Armtiage. This was before truth in advertising laws. But looking back on his 1950's ads from the perspective of all the information we now know, G.N. played fast and loose with photos, ad copy and sins of omission and commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

Again, it was not a corporate succession. The corporation went one way; the product went another after being sold off by the corporation. It is really not a difficult concept to follow. No one ever associated with any of these companies or products has ever contested the Thompson succession as I have laid on this thread (and others) many times. No one. There is one lawyer who has posted on this thread and he agrees with everything I have said. I will be glad to discuss my postings with any attorney on this board regarding what happened to the Thompson Submachine Gun after it left Maguire Industries, Inc. in 1949. You have been an RKI on this board a lot longer than I and must know a bunch of the members. Ask one or more of these attorneys to chime in. As everyone knows, I carry on a very civil discussion.

Thanks,

 

Arthur,

QUOTE
But what do you call the five year gap from when Maguire's AOC stopped making TSMG"s and then absorbed AOC into his own company and then the sale of crated assets to Kilgore? Just define this period for me 

I know this won't do any good but Maguire did not absorb AOC into his own company. The Auto-Ordnance Corporation changed its name to Maguire Industries, Inc. and went forth with a business plan that did not include the Thompson Submachine Gun. Maguire fully understood the product that made him and his shareholders millions of dollars was obsolete. Maguire Industries, Inc. crated everything up dealing with this product line, stored it in a warehouse and later sold it to an interested buyer. The years in storage do not in any way negate the succession of this product to that buyer when it was sold in 1949. There is no factual evidence to contradict anything I have posted. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TD,

 

A) Could you give me an example of what you would consider a broken chain succession in any business at any period of American or world history?

 

http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/cool.gif If Roger Cox states that the original AOC is alive and well under Components Corporation of America which it is owned by a Maguire family member (or was at the time of his 1982 book), then why does he not say the original AOC is alive and well under George Numrich or Ira Trast? Hence Cox's replica appellation to the Trast version of the Thompson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

How about the Indian motorcycle? I have not researched this subject, but I have heard that the new Indian motorcycle did not evolve from the old Indian motorcycle. If I am not mistaken, the new Indian motorcycle is now out of business. If anyone has any information to the contrary, please let me know and I will step aside as I have not researched this business.

 

The Auto-Ordnance Corporation changed names two times and is now called Components Corporation of America. As Roger reported, it still exists today. As I have stated all along, the corporation went one way, the product or Thompson went another. Components has no claim in anything related to the Thompson because it (Maguire Industries) sold off the Thompson in 1949. The Thompson later became a part of George Numrich's business, Numrich Arms. In 1974, George Numrich and Ira Trast made a business decision to form a new Auto-Ordnance Corporation, this one headquartered in West Hurley, New York, to market along with the older Thompson Submachine Gun models, a new semi-automatic Thompson Rifle. This new Auto-Ordnance Corporation in West Hurley did not evolve directly from the old Auto-Ordnance Corporation in New York. Aside from a few transfers between Maguire (now Components) and George Numrich, it is as simple as that.

 

I really don't have a problem with the replica moniker as the NAC and West Hurley Thompson’s are not in the same league as the Colt Thompson’s. However, if you are going to use the name replica on the NAC's and West Hurley’s, the same name must be applied to the Savage's and Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport Thompson’s. You can't have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read something interesting in Doug Richardson's "Thompson Technical Vol. 1", page 30 the article titled "Auto-Ordnance Corporation" that has raised a question in my mind.

On page 31 he writes

"In 1949, rights to manufacture the Thompson Gun were licensed to the Kilgore Manufacturing Co. Kilgore also purchased the remaining guns, parts, tools,records, etc."

 

It would seem that Doug believes Kilgore purchased more that just physical assets. I'm not a lawyer but this sounds like a legal term that perhaps could be construed to be the link that TD is looking for. I must also point out that Doug does not cite a source for this information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE
"It would seem that Doug believes Kilgore purchased more that just physical assets."
Lancer

 

I would check that passage in D.R's "Thompson Technical Vol 1." again. D.R. is a vociferous critic of the notion that Maguire sold anything besides crates. He has even posted on this board about this very issue and his sentiments can also be found in his "Thompson Submachine Gun Drum Magazines Type L & C 3rd Edition" where he unequivocally states:

 

"Some confusion has been caused by the Numrich Arms Corp in West Hurley, New York who have called themselves the Auto-Ordnance Corp. and have used Auto-Ordnance "Thompson" trade marks on newly manufactured drums. Cox, in his book "The Thompson Submachine Gun," states that Numrich acquired the physical assets of the Auto-Ordnance Corp but not the name."

 

Obviously, Maguire, in selling the machines that enabled the manufacture of TSMG's to Kilgore, was acknowledging that the buyer was free to go ahead and do so. That is no the same as saying Maguire sold the AOC name, patents and logos. Savage Arms was licensed to make TSMG's for Maguire's AOC but they didn't own the AOC name, logo or patents either. That is why the Savage Utica, New York address never appeared on the TSMG receiver's they made. The Bridgeport, Connecticut address, home of AOC, was stamped on the receiver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Sep 5 2006, 02:26 PM)
QUOTE
"It would seem that Doug believes Kilgore purchased more that just physical assets."
Lancer

 

I would check that passage in D.R's "Thompson Technical Vol 1." again. D.R. is a vociferous critic of the notion that Maguire sold anything besides crates. He has even posted on this board about this very issue and his sentiments can also be found in his "Thompson Submachine Gun Drum Magazines Type L & C 3rd Edition" where he unequivocally states:

 

"Some confusion has been caused by the Numrich Arms Corp in West Hurley, New York who have called themselves the Auto-Ordnance Corp. and have used Auto-Ordnance "Thompson" trade marks on newly manufactured drums. Cox, in his book "The Thompson Submachine Gun," states that Numrich acquired the physical assets of the Auto-Ordnance Corp but not the name."

 

Obviously, Maguire, in selling the machines that enabled the manufacture of TSMG's to Kilgore, was acknowledging that the buyer was free to go ahead and do so. That is no the same as saying Maguire sold the AOC name, patents and logos. Savage Arms was licensed to make TSMG's for Maguire's AOC but they didn't own the AOC name, logo or patents either. That is why the Savage Utica, New York address never appeared on the TSMG receiver's they made. The Bridgeport, Connecticut address, home of AOC, was stamped on the receiver.

Arthur

I copied the quote word for word.

Like Phil, I really don't care one way or the other. I just threw this out for discussion because it would seem to indicate a legal link between the "New" and the "Old" AOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Sep 5 2006, 02:44 PM)
Lancer,

What does D.R. say before and after that passage? But again, D.R. is not saying that Maguire sold the AOC name, patents or logos in that sentence you cited from his "Thompson Technical Vol 1."

You are correct. But he did say what I quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

We have made progress. You now recognize that a product succession can occur in something other than a corporate succession. Let's not waste any more bandwidth on the corporate succession nonsense. That never happened so let's end any reference to that non-event right now.

 

I am still waiting on one of the lawyers to post. I welcome any and all discussion on this matter. Since we both now believe that a product succession is possible (I understand you don't believe that is the case here), let's review in very basic terms the Thompson product succession to Numrich Arms. First off, George Numrich from day one held his company was the successor to the Thompson Submachine Gun from the old Auto-Ordnance Corporation. He certainly acquired everything Thompson related from the previous owners given what he found when he began opening the crated assets. He manufactured Thompson’s and sold Thompson’s in this country and abroad for many years. No one with any legal standing has ever contested his succession of ownership in the Thompson Submachine Gun. He operated openly and freely all the while the Thompson was in Mamaroneck and West Hurley, New York. The Thompson was sold many years later to a major firearms manufacturer that today references the succession of the Thompson from General Thompson all the way to its corporate headquarters. Again, no one of any consequence has ever objected in any forum as to how I describe the succession of the Thompson. No one has ever produced anything that negates what George Numrich did or said concerning his ownership rights regarding the Thompson. In legal terms, we might refer to all of Georges' statements and actions as a presumption that what is being said is true - especially since no one with any former or alleged current ownership rights is objecting in the smallest way.

 

I think we are making progress. However, I would appreciate if you would stop the inferences that George Numrich's selling of obsolete parts from any or all gun manufacturers is an indication he was a successor in interest to any of these present day companies. I believe he stated clearly on his letterhead (See dalbert's post) the companies he was a successor in interest too. Let's produce something documentary or otherwise that negates everything George Numrich and Ira Trast have said and done with the Thompson - including selling the Thompson to Kahr Arms. The ball is in your court to disprove George's claim of succession. In addition, would you please drop the legal stuff as you do not have the license to back it up in even the smallest way.

 

Lancer - Excellent point. Thank-you for taking the time to post. The passage you cited certainly states something business related transpired between Maguire Industries, Inc. and Kilgore. Perhaps Doug will join this post and explain the meaning and the source for this reference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Again, no one of any consequence has ever objected in any forum as to how I describe the succession of the Thompson. No one has ever produced anything that negates what George Numrich did or said concerning his ownership rights regarding the Thompson.†TD

 

I know that in your zeal and frustration to convince the pagans about your unbroken chain theory you wander into the realm of hyperbole, but this latest effort is a real corker. By your estimation Cox, Herigstad, Richardson and Helmer are inconsequential authorities because they don't share yopur opinion? But if you are looking for a legal authority on this issue how about Roger Cox? We all kow where he stands and it isn't with the unbroken chain gang. Yet the only voices espousing the unbroken chain theory that I have ever encountered outside of G.N. and Kahr are you and Dave. I know Numrich and Kahr's motivations, but what's in it for you and Dave?

 

If I can find a Maguire relative who denies anything other than crated assets were sold to Kilgore would that constitute a source of "legal standing?"

 

It is ironic that the very same naysayer guy you have previously disparaged in your post regarding this topic, D.R., you now throw your arms around in a love embrace. Did anyone ever tell you you’re fickle?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, SecondAmend!

 

Watch out what you are calling a replica http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/nutkick.gif

 

"An exact duplicate of the original, using the same materials and manufacturing techniques as were used to produce the original article."

 

BRP is not in the product succession http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur

 

Pagans? Come on now. There are many of us out here, that enjoy reading these posts, and find the exchange of Thompson history and information enjoyable and informative. But to infer that we are pagans because we don't worship Colts or some other facet associated with these weapons is a little over the top. I personally could only afford a West Hurley. Perhaps had I been born 20 or 30 years earlier and in the right state, I might have ended up with a Colt. This topic has been done to death, and people will believe what they want. In the overall though, it does't really matter to most of us. We have our Thompsons, wether they be West Hurleys, Auto Ordances or Savages and we enjoy the shit out of them. It is what it is, so thats what it is.

 

Railroader

Link to comment
Share on other sites

railroader,

 

My reference to "pagans" was not to characterize owners of any particular TSMG. Rather, it was to characterize any individuals who do not follow TD's line of succession conclusions. If my intended point was misconstrued I apologize.

 

We have you to thank for the most prolific thread in Machinegunbooks history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Authur

 

Apology not necessary. I am however beginning to aprreciate everyone's enthusiasm on the subject of the Thompson lineage. Just reading the posts on the subject has become quite educational. Thank you all.

 

Railroader

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (TAS1921AC @ Sep 6 2006, 04:02 PM)
Has anyone checked pages 205-208 of Helmer's TGTMTTR? Don't know that it will clear anything up.

I think once or twice....Acutally, Helmer's book has been dissected on ths topic on this board pretty thoroughly. In fact, G.I. Jive spoke to Helmer on this very issue a few months ago whereupon Helmer stated he never saw any documentation pertaining to what G.N. purchased from Willis back in 1951. Of course, Helmer's book was not at all concerned with this aspect of Numrich's claim to AOC/Thompson legal secession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...