Posted 26 August 2006 - 02:04 PM
I have addressed your question before in this thread. The answer to "this particular isolated segment of the argument" is "no." I have not yet found an example thus marked. That does not mean that the succession of the Thompson is broken.
Posted 26 August 2006 - 02:41 PM
Posted 26 August 2006 - 07:28 PM
I agree with David. What you ask for is not necessay to establish sucession.
However, let me see if I understand you correctly. All you need to satisfy your doubts of Thompson lineage and succession is one example of a NAC Thompson Submachine Gun in which the receiver was not manufactured by Colt, Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport or Savage, i.e., it was manufactured completely from bar stock by NAC between 1951 and 1974.
Posted 26 August 2006 - 08:08 PM
Not by "NAC," but by "AOC." A production, not prototype, with the new address. That would sustain your contention that Numrich actually manufactured TSMG's under the same 1916 "Auto Ordnance-Corporation." Of course you and Dave do not agree on any of the traditional barometers of succession. It is not in your interests. You won't even accept this challenge since it isn't the stacked deck you are used to playing with on this issue.
By that logic, who wouldn't want to call their firearms business the famous "Auto-Ordnance Corporation? How many people knew what "NAC" was or for that matter that the "N" stood for Numrich? And surely Ira Trast had as much vanity as his boss Numrich. Why didn't he stamp the West Hurley receivers from 1975 on with "ITC?"
Posted 26 August 2006 - 08:46 PM
The corporate entity is not the question. That entity evolved on to something else in 1944. As you know, it sold off all rights and interest in the Thompson in 1949. The Thompson ended up at Numrich Arms Company in 1951. This is old news and a non-starter - don't waste your time posting on this.
Again, is all you need to satisfy your doubts of Thompson lineage and succession is one example of a NAC production (not prototype) Thompson Submachine Gun in which the receiver was not manufactured by Colt, Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport or Savage, i.e., it was manufactured completely from bar stock by NAC between 1951 and 1974. All Thompson’s commonly referred to as West Hurley Thompson’s, prototype, production or otherwise are excluded. A simple yes or no will suffice.
Posted 26 August 2006 - 08:59 PM
Please stop with the "corporate entity" is not relevant dodge. Your drum beat has always been that Numrich bought more than crates. That Numrich was operating "NAC" as if it were the exact same "AOC" business that ceased to exist in 1944. Your unbroken chain theory has way too many caveats to last from 1944 to 1949, never mind from 1951 to 1975.
Posted 26 August 2006 - 10:13 PM
Posted 27 August 2006 - 12:32 PM
|QUOTE (TD. @ Aug 26 2006, 10:13 PM)|
| Why does it matter what the stampings are? I thought what was important was a receiver manufactured from scratch or bar stock into a production Thompson Submachine Gun. |
Now you are being deliberately obtuse. Why would Numrich, the supposed owner of AOC, build a TSMG from scratch and then not apply the stampings I illustrated? What does it say on the receiver that you found that you believe Numrich built? What is with all the cloak and dagger?
My challenge has nothing to do with what many authors/experts on Thompson Submachine Guns have maintained all along; that Numrich only purchased crates and the orignal AOC company never made another TSMG after 1944. Of course Numrich had the capability to make a brand new Thompson receiver from scratch, and then out of existing parts, make a complete weapon, since he had the machines, the spare parts, and the stamping equipment.
Just like my pizza restaurant example, I want to see Numrich's fresh baked product in a new box that uses the same name he said he bought. All Numruch did was use frozen pizzas made by the original baker and put them in old boxes with his initials scrawled in the corner.
Posted 27 August 2006 - 08:03 PM
Arthur - obtuse? Drop the crap please.
|Of course Numrich had the capability to make a brand new Thompson receiver from scratch, and then out of existing parts, make a complete weapon, since he had the machines, the spare parts, and the stamping equipment.|
I think you got it too. George did and he did.
Wow - can you believe this thread. It appears this subject is more than a passing interest to most. I have a feeling this will all be settled someday.
Posted 27 August 2006 - 08:52 PM
So you got zilch for an example? You were smart not to take the challenge.
Posted 27 August 2006 - 10:06 PM
Posted 27 August 2006 - 10:28 PM
But if you ever do uncover, or even invent, some tangible evidence please bring it to class.
Posted 27 August 2006 - 10:43 PM
Posted 27 August 2006 - 11:07 PM
|QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Aug 26 2006, 01:39 PM)|
The essence of this particular isolated segment of the argument is:
Did AOC, i.e. Numrich, make a Thompson Submachine Gun using a newly made receiver from 1951 to 1974 with these newly made markings stamped on the receiver:
Mamaroneck, N.Y. U.S.A." on the right side
"Thompson Submachine Gun" on the left side
West Hurely, New York U.S.A." on the left side
"Thompson Submachine Gun" on the right side
between 1951 and 1974.
It's time to take a Howard Hughes Spruce Goose stand. You show me a new production registered serial numbered Thompson Submachine Gun with these markings made between 1951 and 1974 and I will forefeet any claim that Numrich never made TSMG's using the AOC name during that period. That would mean that he, and only he, could rightfully be the AOC successor.
My challenge could not be more explicit. I enclose the original post from August 27 that stipulated what the receiver would look like if one existed. Does the one you imagine you have seen meet these simple standards? If so, then yes If not, then no.
Posted 28 August 2006 - 05:35 AM
That's right - it was your challenge, not mine. Those of us who understand the history of the Thompson do not have to issue challenges. I find your insistence on specific markings applied to Thompson’s by George Numrich in the 1950's, 1960's very puzzling. Generally speaking, I thought the owner of a business, or perhaps the customer, had a big say in the specific markings applied to firearms. Of course, there probably would have been a few federal regulations back then, but I suspect this mainly applied to the serial number data. Have you seen a Thompson(s) marked as you described? George certainly could have used the Auto-Ordnance name, but I have found during this time period he was making a big effort to establish his company's name, Numrich Arms.
Posted 28 August 2006 - 11:33 AM
I've been watching you guys debate this for years and have found two facts to be undeniable. The first being that the corporation J.T.T. founded in 1916 is today called Components Corporation of America, the second is that neither side is ever going to convince the other that they are wrong on this issue.
My view is that the "new" Auto Ordnance is the bastard child of the "old". It may not be legitimate but it's better than no child at all.
Posted 28 August 2006 - 11:59 AM
|My view is that the "new" Auto Ordnance is the bastard child of the "old". It may not be legitimate but it's better than no child at all.|
The legitimacy is the big question.
Even though I agree with AF on this, no one can deny a "link" of some sort. After all one of the big arguments is over the copyrights.
If the AOC company as a whole was not bought at some point (verses just buying some crates full of parts), then the company ceased to exist. If someone started a new company with the same name as the old company and the same product as the old company, they are still a different company even though they are carrying on with the old company's legacy.
If someone can show me (and everyone else) proof that the entire company was purchased at the time in question then I will gladly accept it. Just buying crates doesn't seem to be enough proof.
I think that if a complete company were sold (even back in the 1950s), there would be plenty of official documentation to support it.
If someone out there has this info, please post with it's history.
I am an open minded person and have no problem admitting that I am wrong, I just need some evidence to support my change of mind.
TD, there is no denying that the spirit of J. Thompson lives on even into the modern 27A1s. I just wish the quality and workmanship was there also.
I think that this question will never 100% answered. At least we can all agree that our Thompsons are great guns.
Posted 28 August 2006 - 04:16 PM
It will be intresting to see the documents that you speak of. If someone found them in just the past few years, then I am sure that they will eventually surface. Afterall, this thread seems to have as much longevity as the original AOC!
If the company never ceased to exisist, but only sold the crates of parts, then that would still make WH and Kahr not blood related to the original AOC.
I look forward to seeing any documents that surface.
Dalbert is a big Thompson document collector. Maybe he knows where they might be.
Posted 28 August 2006 - 04:41 PM
NYS Department of State
Division of Corporations
Selected Entity Name: AUTO ORDNANCE CORPORATION
Selected Entity Status Information Current Entity Name: COMPONENTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
Initial DOS Filing Date: AUGUST 25, 1916
Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
Entity Type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
Current Entity Status: INACTIVE
Selected Entity Address Information DOS Process (Address to which DOS will mail process if accepted on behalf of the entity)
C T CORP SYSTEM
277 PARK AVE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10017
C T CORP SYSTEM
277 PARK AVE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10017
NOTE: New York State does not issue organizational identification numbers.
Search Results New Search
Division of Corporations, State Records and UCC Home Page NYS Department of State Home Page
"The original Auto Ordnance Corporation is still (circa 1982) a valid New York chartered corporation. It was incorporated on August 25, 1916, and with the two name changes is still in business today in Dallas, Texas headed by Cary Maguire, the son of Russell, although far removed from firearms manufacture. The name was changed officially to Maguire Industries, Inc., on March 15, 1944, and again to Components Corporation of America on March 14, 1961.
Posted 28 August 2006 - 06:29 PM
I post on this subject for two reasons. I enjoy the history of the Thompson and I hate to see Arthur spread half-truths about the subsequent transfers of the Thompson from Maguire. I want all members, new and old, to hear the other side to this story. Whatever decision each member makes is fine with me. It appears since I have been telling the story on the line of succession, this subject is much better understood - and that is a good thing for all. I even have Lancer now saying that maybe the Thompson when transferred from Maguire is a bastard child from General Thompson's original company. Actually, that is not a bad analogy; Lancer, I may steal that phrase from you someday.