57 replies to this topic

[PatM]

Everyone except Arthur please feel free to rate this Colt ...Arthur don't bother you never have anything good to say so zip it!

http://www.auctionar...itemnum=6510880

Edited by PatM, 08 March 2005 - 04:43 PM.

[LIONHART]

Doesn't look all that bad, considering it appears to have been refinished. The Rear Grip and Stock aren't proper. Who knows about the rest of it though.

[Norm]

I don't know much about the Colt Thompsons, but the S/N stamping sure looks strange. It looks as if it is "hand stamped."

Also, I have never seen a Colt number with letter in the serial number.

Intresting gun.

[Sgt]

It sure looks clean. I wonder if it has been non-military refinished. If it stays around that price, it seems like a good price to me. Of course, mine is not an expert opinion, but only someone who has done a lot of window shopping.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

PatM,
So as not to offend your delicate sensibilities, please don't read the following:

This appears to be a non numbered "over run" Colt 1921 receiver that was stamped with a serial number by ? and not matching anything that Colt used for the 15,000 factory guns.

In fact, if it were #13159, it would not have the 1922 patent dates that came after #14499. GH has that Colt number as being a 28 Navy acquired from Savage Arms in 78 and currently located in the Springfield Armory historical site. What does the "B" denote? Why was the "U.S"
stamped twice over lapping the other? Why is there a period after the "NO?"

The rest of the TSMG appears to have non Colt parts, at least as far as the controls, actuator, possibly the barrel, wood, etc. The frame would no doubt be of Savage/AO manufacture, but what number does it sport? Or was it re stamped to match the receiver?

It is interesting though. It certainly warrants closer inspection before committing to a purchase. Not sure how much more than the $22K price it is worth considering there is a Savage 1928 for $18,500. on the other gun board.

[philasteen]

I disclaim Thompson expertise but I can see this gun has been refinished, possibly more than once.

[full auto 45]

If you look close at the lower, you can see it was pitted and refinished. Also something about the numbering just don't look right. Yes the rear part of the wood, all attached to refinished lower, are not correct. maybe a Savage lower? And I have never seen a Colt with a letter before or after the number.

[Z3BigDaddy]

QUOTE (PatM @ Mar 8 2005, 04:43 PM)

Everyone except Arthur please feel free to rate this Colt ...Arthur don't bother you never have anything good to say so zip it! http://www.auctionar...itemnum=6510880

Boy Arty your fan club just keeps growing....

[Hawkeye_Joe]

I would say I'm no expert on Colt's but .. that serial number has been buffed down when the refinish job was done. The "B" and probably the "period" were added after the buffing process, notice the bottom of the "B" is deeper than the rest of the numbers in the series. The double stamped "US" was probably because they had buffed out the original too much and wanted to make it more promenent. I wonder what the original paperwork has on it for a serial number?

Funny how not only the "US" is doubled but the periods are too.. like the "U.S." was in a form when struck.

[hughlong]

I got out my 1921 colt and compared the lettering of the Colt's marking as well as the Auto Ordnance marking as well as the patent dates. In my opinion, none of it looks correct on this so called "colt thompson".

My guess is that this is one made up from something else that has been roll marked or engraved to look like a colt to me.

What do the rest of you think?

[giantpanda4]

You know, this is way too similar to my "15043" s/n on my 28. All of the text seems clear except the s/n, and (on mine) there is evidence of the "no" being re-stamped into the gun as well. Mine is obviously an altered gun. I am sure this one is too!

What is important is what s/n it is registered as. As long as it is registered with a particular #, then the gun cannot # change!

I hope the buyer for this recognizes it for what it is, pays a reasonable price (whatever that is), and goes out and shoots it!

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

hughlong,
If your Colt markings appear differently than the ones on this Colt TSMG, then you may have cause for concern. The markings on this gun, other than the serial number, "U.S.," "A1" and the added period after the "NO," sure look spot on to me.

[TD.]

PatM,
Thanks for the thread. It is definitely an interesting Thompson. I know you will not appreciate this comment but I always give credit where credit is due: I think Arthur is right on point. However, I will take issue with him on two minor points at the end of my post. This is not a Colt production Thompson. Yes, a Colt receiver, but not a Colt production gun. The history of this particular gun would be interesting and could add some value to it. The best known Colt receiver Thompsons that are not Colt production Thompsons are commonly referred to as NAC Thompsons. We have discussed the NAC Colt Thompson variation on the board before. Known Colt receiver Thompsons with a NAC prefix serial number are NAC 3 and NAC 5 (remember that JC Devine auction). This is simply another Colt Thompson variation. Without more verifiable information (and an in person inspection) it could easily be classified as a "lunch box special."

Minor Point Number 1: I think the "NO" is also hand stamped. Look at the serifs in the letter "N" - definitely not from Colt.

Minor Point Number 2: Value. It is definitely worth what someone will pay. However, it is not a Colt production Thompson. A Colt parts kit will bring $4000 to $6000 depending on condition. This Thompson does not appear to have anything Colt other than the receiver. NAC 5 sold at auction for $11,500 after auction fees - and it had a few Colt parts on it. I believe the NAC Thompsons with Colt receivers are more valuable because of the NAC connection and verifiable pedigree. That said, if the history of this Thompson can be established and is noteworthy, it might exceed the value of a NAC Thompson. This could be a NAC assembled Colt Thompson – look at the 1922 patent dates - the only Colt receiver Thompsons with 1922 patent dates that are not Colt production Thompsons that I have seen until now came from NAC. Does anyone know of any others? (Denmark NO 7886 does not have 1922 patent dates) Irrespective of what this Thompson really is or was, it is never going to be worth the price of a Colt production Thompson - to a semi-educated buyer. Without more information, I would place the value of this Thompson at the high end of the current 1928 West Hurley prices.

Again Pat, thanks for the post. Hopefully, more information will be forthcoming on this particular Colt Thompson variation.

[John Jr]

This appears to be one of the "ugly step sister" colt guns. You know, the ones the colt freaks want to keep in the closet. This receiver was indeed made by the notorious Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company at the same time the more well know 15,000 EXAMPLES were produced. There are LOTS of them out there. This one is just a bad job.

Interesting find there PatM. This is however a colt receiver and deserves the same respect as any other colt.

[Sgt]

I agree with you guys, but please clarify one point. I was under the impression that NAC guns used the NAC in their serial number. So, this is not always the case?

[hughlong]

My point about the markings is not about what the markings say...they indeed say the same things that are on a Colt 1921 TSMG (mine is absolutly a pristine mint example of a genuine Colt 21A)....it's how on the gun in question the markings actually look in the metal....look at the spacing of the lettering and see if you see subtle differences. Maybe i am looking crosseyed at it, but it looks wrong to me.

My point is just because it looks like a colt receiver, it may not be one. there are plently of people out there who can roll mark a receiver to look like almost any variety of TSMG. This one simply looks odd to me on both sides of the receiver.

[Norm]

QUOTE

My point is just because it looks like a colt receiver, it may not be one. there are plently of people out there who can roll mark a receiver to look like almost any variety of TSMG.

My "Thompson" proves this to be true.

Norm

[TD.]

Jr - An “ugly step sister” Colt Thompson? Colt purists will howl but, your right – it is a Colt Thompson variation. However, respect is one thing, value another. Based on what I see now, it will never have the value of one of the other well known “15,000 EXAMPLES.”

Sgt – It is hard to quantify one rule for NAC guns. However, the “NAC” prefix marking has been part of the serial number in all the “early” NAC Thompson I have seen – Colt receiver or not. However, I am not stating this Colt Thompson variation is a NAC Thompson. It is just the first Colt Thompson variation with 1922 patent dates I have seen that does not have a direct path back to Numrich Arms Corporation.

Hugh and Norm – I think a side by side comparison with a Colt production Thompson would have to be done to be sure of anything. However, I can’t imagine why someone would go to all the trouble to roll mark a Thompson receiver with Colt markings and then hand stamp markings on the receiver to include a serial number that is not indicative of a Colt production Thompson. The 1922 patent dates are really unusual. Does anyone know if Doug Richardson has ever made a “Richardson Receiver” with the 1922 patent dates? As Arthur stated earlier, all information to date indicates this Thompson was built with a receiver left over from the initial production run. Given the bluing, polishing, and hand stamping, I would guess this gun was assembled years ago when the value of a Colt Thompson variation was quite low.

[Norm]

TD,

My Richardson receiver has patent dates that go all the way up to February 28, 1922.

My receiver is a Richardson 27A1 (semi-auto) with Colt "Navy" markings.

I would post a pic, but I don't know how.

Norm

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

As fas as the Colt type markings and patent dates, they look identical to any Colt TSMG that has come off the factory line. Not just the information, but the actual look of it as well. The correct patent dates that were only stamped on the last 540 Colt TSMG's is in keeping with an "over-run" type receiver. Even though ATF has no set guidelines about recording the manufacturer of an NFA weapon, no doubt ATF went with Colt or Auto-Ordnance as the manufacturer. While this does not guarantee who the manufacturer was, it would show a record of when this weapon got into the registry. If the paper work shows this to be registered before 1968, which it would have to be to be sold other than on a Form 10, where would the motivation be for faking a Colt TSMG receiver when they were selling for $500 at that time? If this were a fake type Richardson receiver done in the last 10 years, how would it ever be registered? The classification of NFA weapons precludes this sort of forgery since it has to have a paper trail of registration.

Who would go to the cost of manufacturing Colt roll marking dies and then apply them to a "blank" receiver and then screw up the bluing and the serial number and the over-stamping? Surely if this was in vogue at some point in time, many more examples of these "forgeries" would have surfaced. Who creates these roll dies to make just one receiver if their intent was to make money by defrauding non existent buyers back in the 1960's? So what is left to consider is that this is indeed a non serial numbered Colt receiver that was fished out of the crates that were transfered to Russel Maguire and then eventually to Numrich. The real subterfuge on this weapon is the attempt at the WWII type nomenclature over stampings. The possibility that these stampings were done before, or during, WWII is beyond remote.

The only logical supposition left is that this is indeed what TD describes as a "NAC" type Frankenstein sample. If this "mutt" type weapon is comprised of a Colt receiver, Savage frame and various other WWII components, I would think it would bring what the other "NAC" type TSMG's have been getting. More than WH"S, but less than WWII models? Still, this is definitely unusual in that it is a "NAC" type gun, but without the "NAC" stampings which I think makes it more desirable than the "NAC" ones.