TNKen Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Has anyone ever done a search in the US Patent and Trademark office for the history of "Thompson", the "Bullet" logo and "Tommy Gun"? Just curious. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Ken - you raise an excellent point. I would love to know the FACTS. We do know (I have a copy) that in 1975 the word "Thompson" and the bullet logo we are all familiar with were awarded as a trademark to Trast/West Hurley. During the 25-30 years between the shutting down of the original AO and the awarding of the trademark in 1975 the word "Thompson" was widely used by many people selling everything from replica guns to newly manufactured replacement parts. The bullet logo was probably not used as much, but there is plenty of evidence that it was used as well. Obviously nobody knew that these trademarks were re-applied for and awarded in 1975. If someone knew, and cared, they could have pointed out that for many years the trademarks were in wide use by numerous people and companies. If this had been brought to the attention of the Patent and Trademark office - easy to do by providing ads and sales literature of people and companies over the years selling "Thompson" products - would they have denied the trademark? Annnd, to further muddy the water, there are many places currently using the trademarks and they are left alone...Does this not set some type of precedence? Yet, out of nowhere they jump all over the Crosby drums...I don't get it... Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 QUOTE (TNKen @ Mar 23 2007, 10:25 AM) Has anyone ever done a search in the US Patent and Trademark office for the history of "Thompson", the "Bullet" logo and "Tommy Gun"? Just curious. Ken Didn't Trast (or who ever owned AO of WH, NY) apply and receive the rights to the "bullet logo" in 1984? Norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Norm, Yes. The bullet logo was not awarded to Trast until July of 1984. I believe only the "Thompson" name and possibly the patents were applied for by Trast in 1975. But the name of the original Auto-Ordnance Corporation was never granted to Trast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Mar 23 2007, 01:03 PM)Norm, Yes. The bullet logo was not awarded to Trast until July of 1984. I believe only the "Thompson" name and possibly the patents were applied for by Trast in 1975. But the name of the original Auto-Ordnance Corporation was never granted to Trast. Was he also awarded the "old" bullet logo as in the picture? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/huh.gif http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y204/mbsennett1/Auto-Ord-Co.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1921A Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Arthur: QUOTE But the name of the original Auto-Ordnance Corporation was never granted to Trast. That's an interesting statement, but how do you know that? The answer to that question could go along way towards clearing this up. Trast operated "The Auto Ordnance Corporation" in West Hurly, NY for a quite a few years. If the state of NY has the "articles of incorporation" on file for Trast under that name, it would seem to support the opposite view. Surely somebody checked on that. Greg Fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Norm, Since the only logo that appeared on West Hurley type Thompson's is the second bullet logo, with the script "Thompson" inside the logo, Trast might not have been granted the original bullet logo trademark. This would stand to reason since Trast could not have applied for the original "AUTO-ORD-CO" name/trademark/ since it remained with the Maguire family after it became defunct in 1944. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 QUOTE (1921A @ Mar 23 2007, 01:16 PM) Arthur: QUOTE But the name of the original Auto-Ordnance Corporation was never granted to Trast. That's an interesting statement, but how do you know that? The answer to that question could go along way towards clearing this up. Trast operated "The Auto Ordnance Corporation" in West Hurly, NY for a quite a few years. If the state of NY has the "articles of incorporation" on file for Trast under that name, it would seem to support the opposite view. Surely somebody checked on that. Greg Fox 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 AOC stayed with the Maguire family's COMPONENTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA. Why is their no updated reference to Numrich under the Auto-Ordnance Corporation entity name? Because it ceased to exist in 1944. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 QUOTE I remain a sceptic. That's different from a total disbeliever. You keep repeating the claim, but without evidence. A great man (?) from Tennessee once said "I created the internet." http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif Now that a statement falls under the "I am a total disbeliever" catagory! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/slap.gif Norm http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Jr Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Mar 22 2007, 08:42 AM) Mike and John Jr., All of the folks discussing this question seem to be enjoying it, and taking it in the spirit of honest and open debate, and trying to learn something new. And the board has been a happy place for a few weeks. Wouldn't it be a nice gesture, to not intentionally upset that by posting insulting graphics and snide comments calculated to, in effect, give the rest of the board members the finger? And it's a question of maturity. As far as I know, neither of you has been given some sort of veto power over what is discussed on this board. If it doesn't interest you, that's fine. Just don't read it, and there's no great need to tell us how much you dislike it. There are a few things that don't interest me, either. I just skip them; I feel no compulsion to post something snotty, implying that the rest of our members are idiots because their Thompson interests differ from mine. Right? Wouldn't it be nice if, in the spirit of congeniality, good will, and a desire to get along with others on this board, we would never ever see those pictures of headache man on this board again? Or any substitute intended to do the same thing...John? I can't think of a single reason anybody could come up with to pretend that the purpose of posting any of those things is something other than intentional insult. I thought we were supposedly leaving that behind. Or so Nick said. If I am misinterpreting any of this, could either of you explain exactly how? I can't speak for Mike on the matter but I can speak for me. LIGHTEN UP and get over it. 3 people on this board give a crap about this discussion anyway. You might try to have a sense of humor instead of being a crusty old shit. You are not going to change the minds of these people because they think they are right. This discussion is pointless and yet people get charged up over nothing. If you can't enjoy some humor, don't post that we should be posting something that is humorous, get over it. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1921A Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Who really cares but....... Here is what the state of New York lists in addition to JTT's AOC filed 1916...... QUOTE But the name of the original Auto-Ordnance Corporation was never granted to Trast. New York shows two AOCs registered. The original (inactive) and the West Hurley/Trast venture. Based on this it looks like Gregory Jenks currently owns the AOC name, at least in New York. Not sure what all this means but it certianly does look like somebody in the West Hurley operation has owned the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name since 1974. NYS Department of State Division of Corporations Entity Information -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Selected Entity Name: AUTO-ORDNANCE CORPORATION Selected Entity Status Information Current Entity Name: AUTO-ORDNANCE CORPORATION Initial DOS Filing Date: JUNE 14, 1974 County: ULSTER Jurisdiction: NEW YORK Entity Type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION Current Entity Status: ACTIVE Selected Entity Address Information DOS Process (Address to which DOS will mail process if accepted on behalf of the entity) AUTO-ORDNANCE CORPORATION 225 WILLIAMS LANE WEST HURLEY, NEW YORK, 12491 Chairman or Chief Executive Officer GREGORY M JENKS 225 WILLIAMS LANE WEST HURLEY, NEW YORK, 12491 Principal Executive Office GREGORY M JENKS 225 WILLIAMS LANE WEST HURLEY, NEW YORK, 12491 Registered Agent NONE NOTE: New York State does not issue organizational identification numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalbert Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 PhilOhio, Ira Trast called me last April. If I were to offer up the details of what he told me, you and Arthur would both simply claim it was just more hype from a key player in this supposed Numrich TSMG manufacturing hoax. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 QUOTE (dalbert @ Mar 23 2007, 05:17 PM)PhilOhio, Ira Trast called me last April. If I were to offer up the details of what he told me, you and Arthur would both simply claim it was just more hype from a key player in this supposed Numrich TSMG manufacturing hoax. David Can he supply any documented proof of what he claims? Like I said earlier, we have a guy from TN that claimed he invented the internet when he was running for president in 2000. Just because he says he did, it doesn't make it true. Norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frets24 Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 Re: the "headache man" and the volitility of this whole issue... QUOTE LIGHTEN UP and get over it. 3 people on this board give a crap about this discussion anyway. You might try to have a sense of humor instead of being a crusty old shit. Lighten up? no doubt! ...3 people...? maybe. There's probably alot more than 3 people on the board that care about the issue but, just aren't so emotionally tied to it. I very much enjoy the wealth of info and expertise offered by all who post on this topic. Also the "intrigue" that seems to envelope the later thompson years. In many ways it gives the WH's some sort of "dark" history themselves...somewhat akin to TSMGs that may have actually been used by or againt a gangster or like some long hidden bastard child of a well known figure that suddenly surfaces in the limelight. I find the banter informative and enlightening, though sometimes very heavy and tedious...It's usually at those times the headache man pops up or some other light diversion or comment and, for me anyway, it just brings me back round to the realization that this whole thing is just a diversion...something that I enjoy but isn't going to appreciably further me in my business or personal life. Besides I've seriously considered making him (H.A. man) into a T Shirt to wear around the house or to work sometime...Haven't yet though...Don't know if it's Mike's property or not. Usually to my eye it doesn't seem to be malicious but then I'm not the person who seems to be the "target"...Sometimes thought or spoken humourous interjection just doen't translate to print very well. It appears that the Westies are going to remain an enigma...the "DNA results" have come back inconclusive for many. What their true bloodline is doesn't really matter in the market. Their value is what the market has set it to be and that is based more on the quality of the manufacturing and the absence of prohibition era or war era history. Bloodline "proof positive" would likely affect $$$ value in no way shape or form. Lastly..With over 11,000 views, the evidence would suggest that a WHOLE lot more than 3 people care about this topic! (and i would bet that most are having fun with it and not reading to much vitriol into the whole thing) JMHO http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalbert Posted March 23, 2007 Report Share Posted March 23, 2007 QUOTE (Norm @ Mar 23 2007, 05:25 PM)QUOTE (dalbert @ Mar 23 2007, 05:17 PM)PhilOhio, Ira Trast called me last April. If I were to offer up the details of what he told me, you and Arthur would both simply claim it was just more hype from a key player in this supposed Numrich TSMG manufacturing hoax. David Can he supply any documented proof of what he claims? Like I said earlier, we have a guy from TN that claimed he invented the internet when he was running for president in 2000. Just because he says he did, it doesn't make it true. Norm Norm seems to want to discredit something prior to even knowing what it is. I've put a lot of effort into researching the TSMG, and its history is rewarding and vast. I usually enjoy sharing my thoughts and finds with other Thompson enthusiasts, including those who disagree with the opinions I derive. Lately, posting about such things has not seemed worth the time, and I need to spend it on other projects. I'm going to take leave of the "Replica" subject for a while, and posting on this board for the time being. Research continues, and there's a bunch of Thompson history still out there... David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 dalbert, My opinion (and it is just my opinon) was never meant to discredit you or anyone. I never meant to offend you. You have much more knowledge on the history of the Thompson than most on this board, and am grateful that you are willing to share it. If you (or anyone else) showed some documentation on the transfer of all rights, trademarks, etc.; then I wouldn't have any problem accepting your point of veiw. For the record, I don't think that WH Thompsons are any less of a SMG than a Colt or Savage. Remember, I am the guy that has a replica of a replica, so I am not trying to say that WH owners are a lesser group than Colt owners. I think this is just one of those subjects that has two hard sides and everyone goes to one side or the other. I hope there are no hard feelings- МИР! Norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt21a Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 QUOTE (dalbert @ Mar 23 2007, 06:30 PM) QUOTE (Norm @ Mar 23 2007, 05:25 PM)QUOTE (dalbert @ Mar 23 2007, 05:17 PM)PhilOhio, Ira Trast called me last April. If I were to offer up the details of what he told me, you and Arthur would both simply claim it was just more hype from a key player in this supposed Numrich TSMG manufacturing hoax. David Can he supply any documented proof of what he claims? Like I said earlier, we have a guy from TN that claimed he invented the internet when he was running for president in 2000. Just because he says he did, it doesn't make it true. Norm Norm seems to want to discredit something prior to even knowing what it is. I've put a lot of effort into researching the TSMG, and its history is rewarding and vast. I usually enjoy sharing my thoughts and finds with other Thompson enthusiasts, including those who disagree with the opinions I derive. Lately, posting about such things has not seemed worth the time, and I need to spend it on other projects. I'm going to take leave of the "Replica" subject for a while, and posting on this board for the time being. Research continues, and there's a bunch of Thompson history still out there... David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com dave KEEP up the good work, and tell IRA http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif hi! i've not spoken to him in year's.however still have that neat valentines day card he sent.probably a collector item today. R.Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNKen Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 (edited) First, I do not profess to be a patent and trademark attorney. I took the class in law school and have litigated a few trademark/intellectual property matters. One is ongoing now over a trademark. There are several thing and ways to register. You can register a mark under the federal system with the US Patent and Trademark office and obtain trademark protection in the US. You can register under a state system, i.e. Tennessee, and obtain protection in that state, but no where else unless you obtain additional common law rights. All of which is different than registering a corporate name in a state corporation commission setting. When you let the corporation expire, you loose the name. The only thing the state corp. commission lets you have is somewhat exclusive use of the name in that state. For example, even though there an Auto Ordnance Corporation may be registered in Tennessee, I could probably register an Auto Ordnance Corporation of Bristol. That's the way cellular businesses manage to register thousands of Verizion stores, Verizion of Bristol, Inc., Verizion of Johnson City, Inc., Lebanon Verizion, etc. Then you simply file a fictious name registration and say you are doing bussiness under a different name. In registering a trademark in the federal system, you have to swear under oath certain facts. Usually, one is first use. Now, just because you come up with the name, doesn't necessarily mean it can be trademarked. It must first be used in "interstate" commerce, compared to intrastate commerce. First use grants rights. Wonder what was sworn to in the second set of affidavits? Wonder who swore the second time around that he was "first use"? Then under the federal system, there is a period when the mark is filed to challenge the registration, and a period of contestability after the registration is granted. If nothing is done, then absolute title to the mark vests in the registrant. I think this is correct, but I could be mistaken on some of this, and it may vary from state to state, Ken Edited March 24, 2007 by TNKen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted March 24, 2007 Report Share Posted March 24, 2007 Arthur, Your last post is interesting. Too bad you don’t know how to decipher the information. May I suggest a call to the clerk’s office – it certainly helped me understand the meaning of your post. Phil, This “somebody†that George Numrich told about owning all the rights to the Thompson in 1967 was none other than the Editor of Gun Digest, John T. Amber. These were two very well respected and powerful men in the firearms field at that time. You can’t pass that statement off as George Numrich did not know what he was talking about – and you certainly have offered nothing but hyperbole to counter it. I don’t think I need anymore evidence because no one has ever disproved this claim of ownership made in a nationally recognized firearms publication with international distribution. The 1967 article by Ray Bearse is also a very good article on the Thompson for that time period. It is still good reading today and worth having in your library. I recall Dave reported that this article referenced several 30 caliber carbine Thompson’s Numrich manufactured in 1954. Again, this reference to manufacturing was just ignored. I agree with Dave that it really doesn’t matter what is posted about the Thompson succession because several people on this board have their minds made up on this topic and nothing is going to change it. I don’t post for those few; I just keep posting to point out the obvious so as to cast in a different light what others claim as the history of the Thompson since 1949. I am also interested if anyone has any real evidence that would show George Numrich did not purchase all rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun in 1951. frets24, I am glad you are enjoying the posts. TNKen, I think your post is right on point. I previously posted that I believe George Numrich probably let the Thompson Trademark logo expire, thus the need for the new registration in 1984. (Now this is just my opinion; I have never fully researched this point because all I cared about was that the trademark would have been in effect when George Numrich acquired the Thompson in 1951. Dave covered this issue in a post on a similar thread not too long ago. If I am not mistaken, Dave believed the Thompson Trademark would have expired in the early 1960’s without renewal. I believe Doug Richardson also came to the same conclusion in one of his writings.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 1921A, Looks like Greg Jenks of Numrich GUN PARTS Corp, in business since 1950, felt it was necessary to file for the NEW AOC name in 1974. Yet the original AOC name became COMPONENTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, and still was as late as 1982. The fact that Trast and Jenks were going to manufacture their version of a 1927A1 Semi-Auto Thompson, as well as a full auto version, they needed to have their ducks in a row to cover the use of this NEW AOC name. I wonder why doesn't show Kahr as the current owner of the New AOC name as they are in Pearl River, NY as well as Worcester, MA. Dave, If you were referencing Thomas Nelson's quote in 'The World's Submachine Guns," where he states, "The Numrich Arms Corporation of West Hurley, New York, which absorbed the Auto-Ordnance Corporation after World War II," the context was that NAC was in possession of the Warner & Swasey prototype Thompson's. Notice Nelson is careful to say assimilate, not purchased. I promise I will chain up my dogmatic distemper if you would relay what Trast confided in you last April. Did he tell you why George used 1940's photos in his NAC catalogs, and did he tell you what became of the post 1944 manufactured Thompson's George alluded to in his catalogs of the 1950's and 1960's. TD, The only reason the Thompson trademark would have expired in the 1960's was from lack of use. Another indication that George didn't need to file for trademark rights since he wasn't using the bullet logo on a newly made receiver. But isn't it sufficient that you believe what you believe regarding Numrich and how there is absolutely no change in the pre 1945 AOC and the AOC of today? I don't think anyone is trying to deny you your faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1921A Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 Does Kahr own rights to "AOC" name in NY or MA? No record on file in New York! No record on file in Massachusetts! New York "AOC" corporate record posted earlier, shows current "active" owner of AOC name is Greg Jenks of West Hurley, NY (Numrich Arms). It will be interesting to see what (if any) "cards" Kahr is actually holding in this game! Massachusetts record: Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin Secretary of the Commonwealth, Corporations Division One Ashburton Place, 17th floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108-1512 Telephone: (617) 727-9640 KAHR INC. Summary Screen Help with this form The exact name of the Foreign Corporation: KAHR INC. Entity Type: Foreign Corporation Identification Number: 133786285 Old Federal Employer Identification Number (Old FEIN): 000000000 Date of Registration in Massachusetts: 10/26/1994 Date of Withdrawal: 10/14/2003 The is organized under the laws of: State: DE Country: USA on: 08/02/1994 Current Fiscal Month / Day: 03 / 31 Previous Fiscal Month / Day: 03 / 31 The location of its principal office: No. and Street: ONE BLUE HILL PLAZA P.O. BOX 1518 City or Town: PEARL RIVER State: NY Zip: 10913 Country: USA The location of its Massachusetts office, if any: No. and Street: 130 GODDARD MEMORIAL DRIVE City or Town: WORCESTER State: MA Zip: 01603 Country: USA Name and address of the Registered Agent: Name: HIQ CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. No. and Street: 9 CRESTWAY E. City or Town: BOSTON State: MA Zip: 02128 Country: USA The officers and all of the directors of the corporation: Title Individual Name First, Middle, Last, Suffix Address (no PO Box) Address, City or Town, State, Zip Code Expiration of Term PRESIDENT FRANK E. HARRIS TREASURER RANDALL CASSEDAY 03/15/04 SECRETARY RANDALL CASSEDAY 03/15/04 DIRECTOR SOJI WADA 03/15/04 DIRECTOR KOOK JIN MOON 03/15/04 business entity stock is publicly traded: The total number of shares and par value, if any, of each class of stock which the business entity is authorized to issue: Class of Stock Par Value Per Share Enter 0 if no Par Total Authorized by Articles of Organization or Amendments Num of Shares Total Par Value Total Issued and Outstanding Num of Shares CNP $0.00000 0 $0.00 0 Consent X Manufacturer Confidential Data Does Not Require Annual Report Partnership X Resident Agent X For Profit Merger Allowed Select a type of filing from below to view this business entity filings: ALL FILINGS Amended Foreign Corporations Certificate Annual Report Annual Report - Professional Application for Reinstatement Articles of Consoldation - Foreign and Unregistered Foreign Articles of Consolidation - Foreign and Domestic Articles of Correction Articles of Merger - Domestic and Foreign Articles of Merger - Foreign and Foreign Articles of Merger - Foreign and Unregistered Foreign Certificate of Resignation of Resident Agent Certificate of Withdrawal Foreign Corporation Certificate Revocation by SOC Statement of Appointment of Registered Agent Statement of Change of Registered Agent/Registered Office Statement of Change of Registered Office Address by Registered Agent Statement of Resignation of Registered Agent © 2001 - 2007 Commonwealth of Massachusetts All Rights Reserved Help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted March 25, 2007 Report Share Posted March 25, 2007 QUOTE KOOK JIN MOON "KooK!" 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 More sharing options...
TD. Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 Arthur, I am glad you found the reference by Thomas Nelson dealing with the question of Thompson succession. Of course, Numrich Arms absorbed the assets of the former Auto-Ordnance Corporation that were related to the Thompson Submachine Gun. Absorbed, assimilate or whatever word you would like to use, we all know Numrich purchased these assets from Frederic A. Willis in 1951 - and the assets included the prototype Thompson’s (along with the Blish pistol). This is just one more source that you will have to discredit if you continue with your mantra that the Thompson succession ended in 1944. Mr. Nelson is certainly as well known and respected as John Amber and George Numrich; thanks for sharing this information with the board. If Dave or I brought this information to light, it would just be ignored like everything else we post on the history of the Thompson succession. I believe you and 1921A are on to something with your Corporation research. I believe I know the answer but would not want to deprive both of you from performing new research in this area as my interest really ends before the Thompson was sold to Kahr Arms. As a word of advice, don't get hung up on the corporate form of ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 TD, As late as 1963, Nelson, not trying to make waves, said "absorbed," when he could have just as easily said "purchased," bought," "became the sole proprietor of," yet he was rather non committal. Why? This is a very carefully chosen word. It shows that Nelson was somewhat bemused as to the intent of Maguire, or for that matter, Kilgore and Willis, when Numrich made his deal for the crated assets. The facts as to what George did actually obtain other than crates back in 1951 was still dogging him at the time of the 1967 Bearse article. Otherwise, why would ownership of the rights to the Thompson brand, logo, patents, and use of the original AOC name even come up during the interview? Imagine Willie G. Davidson and Vaughn Beals being asked whether another motorcyle manufacturer could turn out Harley Davidson's 16 years after AMF sold them the business in 1981. Why do you and Dave consider the legion of skeptics to be invincibly ignorant instead of having a healthy dose of Kolchak cynicism? The nagging suspicion regarding this 1951 sale, fueled by lack of independent documentation, has finally come to a head in the last decade. Until the details of the 1951 sale become public, this is one controversy that can never be resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted March 26, 2007 Report Share Posted March 26, 2007 Arthur, I don't like to guess what an author is thinking. I prefer to take it as written; I am comfortable with his use of the word "absorbed." It bypasses any need to reference Kilgore and Willis and gets the Thompson to Numrich Arms - the point Mr. Nelson was making. If you read the Bearse article, you would see why the topic came up at the end of the story by John Amber, the Editor of Gun Digest. The reason is quite similar to your Willie and Vaughn example. If you don't have the article, send me your address and I will mail it to you. Happily, I don't see legion's of skeptics on this issue. I do see a few that will never be convinced and a few more that are still confused with the different corporations. Mainstream Thompson enthusiasts have no problem with the history of the Thompson I have laid out on Page 1 of this thread. But I do enjoy the discussion. There is a wealth of information in this thread and you and many others have helped make that possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts