Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Bill, The C&R status was approved, then rescinded, in the space of 6 weeks. But the official status is that it is under review. Did ATF pursue any WH 1928 C&R transfers, if there were any, during this tiny widow of misunderstanding. Did they pursue the Atkins accelerators that were sold in between the time ATF back peddled on their official Okey Dokey? Is ATF currently thinking all inclusive C&R status for any type TSMG made after 1944? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inertord Posted March 5, 2007 Report Share Posted March 5, 2007 Arthur, Reference the Atkins Accelerators, The BATF has determined a spring in the unit to be the restricted part and has set up a compliance plan requiring all owners to surrender their spring(s) to them. The whole ugly chain of events can be followed here: http://www.firefaster.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 This is fascinating. As observed in another thread, Keepshooting.com, the distributors for the replica Crosby L drum, has been advised by Saeilo Enterprises to cease and desist using the trademarked Thompson name as they claim to own it. Where was Saeilo when Trast supposedly sold the "Thompson" name to Kahr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 Saeilo is Kahr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 But Trast was never sold the Thompson name from Numrich, who was never sold the Thompson name from Kilgore, who was never sold the Thompson name from Willis, who was never sold the Thompson name from Maguire. Trast had on 7/25/84 applied for the "Thompson" trademark and that Auto-Ordnance Corporation at West Hurley was then granted that trademark registration on 9/17/85. So this new "Thompson" name only dates back to 1985, not 1917. So why wasn't Saeilo as interested in historical truth when they bought out Trast's version of the Thompson? They also do not seem to care that Doug Richardson freely uses both Thompson and AOC names and bullet logo on his receivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1921A Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 This could get even more interesting. I believe I read recently that the Crosby company is still around! Wonder what they think about all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 Big D, Of course the legal beagle letter has about as much foundation in law as the letter Opie Taylor received from the Miracle Sav Company. But it is too easy for Keepshooting.com to sidestep the whole matter by adding or subtracting words from their advertisement. It has no impact on their manufacturing process. It would have been the essence of cool to see a business stand up to Kahr and see if they have the huevos to go beyond threatening letters. It's not as if they were Starbucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 6, 2007 Report Share Posted March 6, 2007 Since Kahr Arms has never produced the 1921/28 submachine gun, why do they stamp "Thompson Submachine Gun" on their drums? Since Keepshooting.com does not use the Thompson name inside the bullet logo, use of the name "Thompson" has become as generic as "Spike." Spike Lee sued Viacom for using the name "Spike" for "Spike TV." He lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 Phil, Kahr is going to have to shift into attorney over drive to admonish these folks as well. Collectors Armory: " M1A1 Thompson Submachine Gun" a2armory: "M1928 Thompson Submachine Gun Replica Model." Kahr, and Numrich & Trast before them, seem to be target selective about perceived copyright and trade mark infringements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalbert Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 All, A board member sent me pictures of a vintage Numrich brochure that should be of interest to those who have followed this thread. The brochure is an update to the earlier "Inside Numrich Arms Corporation" brochure that I have in my collection, and posted previously. It is undated, without a zip code listed, which dates it as pre-1963. My best guess, from the crest that is utilized on the front cover (not pictured), is that it probably dates between 1960-63. Notice the TSMG exclusive manufacturer verbage in the lower left hand corner. This can be found on several Numrich paper items of the 1950's and 1960's, and in interviews and correspondence of the period. http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Thompson%20Catalogs/Numrich%201-Web.JPG Numrich Arms Corporation manufactured Thompson Submachine Guns in the 1950's and 1960's. A previously unpublished Numrich manufacturing process picture appeared in the brochure, along with a picture below it that was repeatedly used in Numrich catalogs of the 1970's. Notice the M1 Thompson in the proof testing equipment for the 20-round test. I referenced the bottom picture previously in this thread, and have included 2 links below that take you directly to some posts I made in this thread regarding Numrich paper items of the period. http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Thompson%20Catalogs/Numrich%202-Web.JPG http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invb...=replica&st=220 http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invb...=replica&st=240 No matter what opinion you may have of the whole "Replica" subject, and the line of succession debate, hopefully the new pictures can be appreciated. I want to thank the board member who sent them to me. My opinion remains that the line of succession of the Thompson Submachine Gun extends from 1916 to present. Others disagree, and I'm fine with that, and enjoy the debate. As I've said before, there's a lot more Thompson history out there... David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Dave, Why is "Exclusive Manufacturer" in quotations? He also has "Cold Blue" in quotes as well. Could it be that Numrich knew he was not actually manufacturing, and never did actually manufacture, any new TSMG from the ground up? None have ever turned up. There is a lot of Thompson history. And while there is still a lot to be discovered during the recognized period, just like the Pleistocene ice age had a beginning and an end, the Thompson epoch started in 1916 and ended in 1944. What followed after that is the T-Rep age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Wow, It seems like those that offer evidence of manufacturing and succession do a lot of posting with original research; those that cast stones only offer lip service. Anyone want to state the "Proof fire" picture is not evidence of manufacturing - and back it up with something other than hyperbole? "Exclusive Manufacturer" - yes, I understand quotation marks and the definition of manufacturer. Let's see, there were 95 machine guns (complete guns and receivers) registered with the ATTD by George Numrich in 1951; included in this total were the prototypes. And 100 complete 1921 style Thompson's were sold to Kuwait in the mid 1950's. Anyone want to count the number of Thompson's in the "Final Assembly" picture posted by David? Very nice David. There is so much material yet to be discovered and published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 TD, Of course the proof fire is evidence of manufacturing. Maguire manufacturing. The photo is circa 1942-43. Numrich was the original cut & paster of photos from original AOC catalogs and WWII production archival photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 Arthur, Can you establish the "Proof Fire" picture is from Maguire Industries in the 1942-1943 time frame? This would be very useful to me if you can establish the provenance. Is the same person in both pictures? It looks that way to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 I hate to chime in here because I know someone is going to stomp the snot out of me but I can't hold back. I have purchased a few businesses in the past and this is not somthing you do with a smile and a handshake like buying a used car. When big money is involved so are lawyers, lots of lawyers. Second, if I'm buying a gun business, as in this case, I'm not buying inventory I'm buying the trademark, name, ect. Inventory is nice but if I plan on being sucessfull, the inventory should last a very short time and I must tool up and start new production. If I don't own the patents and trademark I can't. My investors, bank and their lawyers are going to be pissed. With Muguire's reputation I'm sure a lot of red flags went up I can't belive sale not was done very carefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 20, 2007 Report Share Posted March 20, 2007 QUOTE (Wes @ Mar 20 2007, 07:49 AM)I hate to chime in here because I know someone is going to stomp the snot out of me but I can't hold back. I have purchased a few businesses in the past and this is not somthing you do with a smile and a handshake like buying a used car. When big money is involved so are lawyers, lots of lawyers. Second, if I'm buying a gun business, as in this case, I'm not buying inventory I'm buying the trademark, name, ect. Inventory is nice but if I plan on being sucessfull, the inventory should last a very short time and I must tool up and start new production. If I don't own the patents and trademark I can't. My investors, bank and their lawyers are going to be pissed. With Muguire's reputation I'm sure a lot of red flags went up I can't belive sale not was done very carefully. Wes, I don't think anyone would "stomp the snot of you." http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif That would be un-neighborly! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/nono.gif When you said "When big money is involved so are lawyers, lots of lawyers." That is true, but when you have lawyers involved, you have paper-trails, LOTS of paper-trails. I would have to agree with Philohio and AF that no concrete evidence exsists to show that all rights were directly purchased. Hopefully, some of the hard evidence will one day surface on this issue. Until then, it is all speculation. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif Norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 "Wow, It seems like those that offer evidence of manufacturing and succession do a lot of posting with original research; those that cast stones only offer lip service" TD Except the "original" research keeps providing unintentional results by the "researcher." The Numrich catalogs, from the beginning, reprinted photos from Maguire's AOC and Savage WWII operations. The fact that Numrich deliberately assumed a connection with Maguire's AOC to give potential customers the impression they were dealing with the same entity does not engender Numrich as a business man devoted to truth in advertising. "Anyone want to state the "Proof fire" picture is not evidence of manufacturing - and back it up with something other than hyperbole? "Exclusive Manufacturer" - yes, I understand quotation marks and the definition of manufacturer." TD I think Numrich sold out of hyperbole leaving empty shelves for his critics. If you check Hill's "Thompson: The American Legend," on page 183, you will see a gentleman who could be the twin to the guy in David's posted Numrich catalog photo. The date of that Iron Age Magazine photo is July 2, 1942. "Let's see, there were 95 machine guns (complete guns and receivers) registered with the ATTD by George Numrich in 1951; included in this total were the prototypes. And 100 complete 1921 style Thompson's were sold to Kuwait in the mid 1950's. Anyone want to count the number of Thompson's in the "Final Assembly" picture posted by David?" TD Anyone want to bet that that final assembly photo was lifted from Maguire's AOC/Savage factories? That renders any amount superfluous since they were not of Numrich's West Hurley operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hardrede Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Is a 2 wheel drive postal jeep a real "WWII" jeep???? That seems to be a relevant analogy here. It really does not matter who bought what from whom. It does not matter what Trademark or patents changed ownership, or anything else for that matter. There are three distinct "generations" of Thompsons. 1) The Colts, which are probably the best built and of superior quality, IMHO. (Including the overstamps.) 2) WWII Production of 1928A1's and the M series. (And their derivatives and rebuilds, e.g. NAC's.) Excellent weapons, but gov. contract so not of same quality, fit and finish. (But far superior to anything manufactured subsequently!) 3) Post-war remakes, replica's, what have you. The semi-auto's are not even Thompsons!!! ( I equate the semi's as like kissing your sister. Yeah, its a kiss, but it isn't a REAL kiss!) The semi's are a pale fascimile and should not even be mentioned when talking about a select-fire Thompson. The pre and post 86 MG's are of poor quality and require alot of fine tuning. The 1928 WH's that I have seen are machined quite poorly, especially with the technology that is available!! My opinion, yours may vary. But, in all honesty, if Kahr did BUY the lineage, rights, patents, trademarks, ad nauseum, they are not even manufacturing a REAL Thompson, and what they do make is so poor in quality that it sullys the name and tradition! And isn't that the topic being argued here??? If I legally buy Hershey Chocolate in PA and start selling Shit Bars, the lineage is correct, but so what??? All you are going to have available to buy is a shit bar!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Wes, Welcome to the board. You obviously know how business is transacted in the real world. Please join in anytime with this or any other topic. Norm, Your right about the paper trails. Unfortunately, most good lawyers and businessmen keep the paperwork private when a company is privately owned and operated. There is no need to prove or show anything to anyone. I don't believe anyone but George ever claimed ownership rights to the Thompson. And these claims started immediately upon purchase. That has to count for something. Arthur, I doubt that any company would have an employee that could operate a double vertical profile milling machine doing proof testing. It is not an effective use of skill sets. I also doubt George Numrich had the 1942 Iron Age magazine pictures that did not find their way into print. What about those 100 Thompson's George sold to the government of Kuwait in the mid 1950's? Please do the math. Phil, Your right, George Numrich knew how to buy defunct firearms companies. He built an empire doing just that. I tend to believe him when he stated for the record many times over the years that he purchased the Thompson and owned the Thompson - completely. I take that as fact until someone can prove other wise. Interestingly, no one has ever been able to prove otherwise....and Kahr Arms certainly felt good enough about it to purchase the Thompson from him and/or his long time employee, Ira Trast. Notice how when bits and pieces of evidence are found, it backs up what George claimed all along. What about those 100 Thompson's George sold to the government of Kuwait in the mid 1950's? Again, please do the math. A newspaper article about a closing at a lawyer's office when Maguire sold to Kilgore; that would be very interesting. Please try to locate that article. It could prove extremely valuable in resolving this question for some. Phil, I challenge you to pursue that story in the name of original research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 TD, OK, I'll play Ground Hog Day on the subject of the 1955(?) Kuwait deal of 100 Model 1928 TSMG's. As Roger Cox stated, there were at least 200 TSMG's in the crates Numrich bought from Willis. I imagine Numrich could easily fill that order using existing Maguire AOC/Savage made Thomspson's and perhaps even some Colt's. But let us entertain your notion that Numrich actually made these 100 Model 1928 TSMG's from scratch. The photo of the guy using the proof tester, which you believe is from around the time of the Kuwait deal, has an M1 TSMG being tested. One would imagine Numrich's "factory" would be going at a fever pitch to accommodate the Kuwait order and any photo of "production" procedures at that time would capture a 1928 TSMG being proof tested. But if we put all that aside as mere coincidence, could you explain where all these Numrich made Thompson receivers with West Hurley addresses disappeared to? I mean if Ole George was supposedly making up 1928 receivers from scratch for the Kuwait deal (Thompson's that are still undocumented as having Numrich markings), there would have to be numerous other examples sold to buyers residing inside the U.S. that did, and still do, have Numrich's business address at that time. If you are sitting on a secret stash of these mysterious Numrich specials, could you please post a pic so we all can be enlightened? As far as Numrich's access to WWII period photos of AOC/Savage in operation, Hill had no problem finding and using them in his book. Who knows what photos from AOC/Savage archives came inside those crates Numrich bought. To dismiss their true origin because in your estimation the same technician would not be caught dead on both of these machines is rather irrelevant. Of course most of these pictures are posed and so the photog grabbed what ever employee was handy to stick in the photo for dramatic effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Arthur, I will have to side with Helmer on the number of guns found and registered in 1951 since his source of information is George Numrich. I don't know that the 100 Kuwait guns had a West Hurley address...or any US address. These guns were manufactured for export. I would assume the purchaser dictated the markings. Numrich built and sold all models of the Thompson Submachine Gun beginning in 1951. I would hope all newly manufactured Thompson's were proof fired. I don't dismiss your theory on the origin of the pictures. Now you need to do some research to prove your point. The presumption David raised by this posting of new information is not changed by your theories. You may be right, but your opinion does nothing to swing the presumption back the other way. Show me something we have not seen before. I challenged Phil to follow up on the news story about the Maguire sale of the Thompson to Kilgore. I challenge you to find some hard evidence that indicates George Numrich did not purchase everything in 1951. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Just to refocus here - and this thread is most interesting - the replica debate has evolved into this question: Did Numrich Arms manufacture and mark Thompson submachine guns from scratch, or did they just assemble exisiting guns from the already finished parts they purchased from the out-of-business Auto-Ordnance? The time period in question is post WWII to 1975. One side of the debate believes that the guns were manufactured from scratch and sold, mostly for export. This faction uses catalogues and photos and sales literature to make their case. The other faction says no guns were made from scratch, dismisses photos and sales literature as hype, and cites that no West Hurley or Numrich marked guns from this era are known to exist. Is this a fair summary? Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Bob, From reading your synopsis, I'm picturing you with a cheshire cat smile. What do you know that we do not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 TD, The most elusive Thompson smg in the world must be the Numrich manufactured Thompson smg. This is one shy beast. There has never been one shown in captivity or in the wild. Think of all the unusual examples of Thompson's that have been documented over the last 88 years: The Savage Model of 1927 The 9mm Savage 1928 Left Handed Model M1 The 30 Caliber Short Rifle M-1 The T-2 The Aluminum M1928A1 The M1928A1 Cutaway All the pre 1921 prototypes The Chinese TSMG The Vietnamese TSMG The Egyptian TSMG You say the Kuwaitis dictated the markings they wanted on their 1928 TSMG's. Fascinating. Where are the examples of these unusually marked, sans Numrich markings, TSMG's? If you champion the latest current research on Thompson's, then why would you lean towards Numrich's 1967 recollection of the number of TSMG's found in the crates, and not Roger Cox's 1982 up to that date researched figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted March 21, 2007 Report Share Posted March 21, 2007 Arthur - no, I don't have any secret info and I don't have a circa 1950 Numrich marked Thompson on my wall. I was just synopsizing out loud. I think Phils response has made it even clearer about the doubts of unbroken succession. The replica vs. original is irrelevant to me other than establishing the value of a gun. They are what they are...Colts are Colts and WH's are Wh's and that works for me - I consider them all to be Thompsons. What interests me is the idea that over time a series of people have been using the Thompson name and trademark and figuring that since no one challenges their use of it that they then become the defacto owner. Of course this is confused by the awarding of the trademark in 1975. The recent Kahr threat to the Crosby drum guy is the latest episode. I do think that Numrich was a Barnum and Bailey type showman and promoter and that his presentation of the Thompson guns in his sales literature was in the hopes that he'd get a big order, not because the guns were in production. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts