52 replies to this topic

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE

Only a very few on this board knew of this particular Savage variation before 21 smoker asked a simple question. I don’t think you are included in those few (you never answered my question  ). As to the other respected authors, they not only omitted pictures of this variation, they never referenced this variation in print. That tells me this post is the first time this information has come out in a public forum.

TD

Negative. The early Savage 1928's were already known to have patent dates and not numbers. Just because Cox, Hill and Iannimico neglected to publish said photos, or think to make note of this fact, does not make the existence of these examples any less prominent for those who actually examine TSMG's in the flesh. Once all of Smoker's pics were in, it wasn't alchemy to deduct that his early Savage depicted the usual markings for that serial number grouping. I did offer Earl's S-71189NAC as bona fide reference point. I think perhaps it is to one's detriment to presume the infallibility of authors who have written on the TSMG. The errors in Cox, Hill, Richardson and errors of omission in Innamico's books seem to bear this out.

As to the often misused, but inconsequential, Commercial applied variant of the Savage TSMG, you seemed to change your focus from your belief that Smoker's Savage receiver was actually of Colt origin to "it maybe a Savage, but not a Commercial variant," as described by Hill in his lecture. I know you wanted to send a shot across my bow that even though my initial observation that Smoker's Savage was not unusual for an early example, it wasn't technically a Commercial example. Had I shared your opinion that his TSMG receiver was not Savage, I am sure I would not be able to fetter my twinge of the oops factor.

Now as far as your tendency to imbue "missing link" status to TSMG variations that do not appear in print (you had G.I. Jive spinning) may be a sort of uncontrollable reflex. But you might not be so hasty to declare a Yeti sighting next time before determining the footprints are actually made from snow drifts.

Eventually your enthusiasm for the elusive "one off" TSMG might pay off. We all await such an auspicious day.

[Balder]

TD,

The date/number issue has been up several times before, here's one:

http://www.machinegu...&f=3&t=1064&hl=

What still puzzles me are the two versions of the NY address.

Balder

[TD.]

Balder – I also do not understand the significance of the two New York addresses. Perhaps the earlier Colt roll die was completely worn out or lost by the time Savage went into production. I can tell by the earlier threads you (and few others) have consistently talked about the 12 patent dates on the early Savage Thompsons so none of this is news to you. It is interesting to note craig101 later posted pictures of S-25688 with the 12 patent dates. I still find it amazing the markings on these early Savage Thompsons were never noted or photographed by the various authors referenced in this thread. Again, I think this is more than an omission because of the obvious value of this information. Your definition of a Savage Commercial Thompson does make a lot of sense. It is different than mine, but this is a subject that is almost subjective, not objective. I look forward to hearing more about Mr. Ødemark’s research. Please stay on the board and keep us informed on your conversations with Mr. Ødemark. Thanks.

Arthur – you are taking this way too seriously. If you would have known the answer to 21 smokers initial question, you would have posted earlier, succinctly and left all readers no doubt of your vast knowledge relating to the Thompson Submachine Gun.

[gijive]

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ May 17 2005, 10:29 PM)

Now as far as your tendency to imbue "missing link" status to TSMG variations that do not appear in print (you had G.I. Jive spinning) may be a sort of uncontrollable reflex. But you might not be so hasty to declare a Yeti sighting next time before determining the footprints are actually made from snow drifts.

Arthur,

The "spinning" analogy was pretty good! I'll concede that I originally thought the Savage guns had patent dates, then contradicted myself in a subsequent post. I do try to contribute to the discussions in a factual manner. I have not seen as many examples of different guns as I would like, but have studied the guns and read as much as I could for a good number of years.

I'm interested in learning as much as I can about the guns and find that I learn something new all the time. I respect your knowledge of Thompsons as well as many others, TD included, and find the discussions about the minutiae of the various models interesting. I learned something on this post and hope eventually someone will be able to approximate when the change was made from the patent dates to numbers.

[Balder]

QUOTE (gijive @ May 18 2005, 07:50 AM)

I learned something on this post and hope eventually someone will be able to approximate when the change was made from the patent dates to numbers.

gijive,

That change was approximated in my first post in this thread:

15041-26000 approx: NY address, 12 patent dates; address to the rear and dates to the front of receiver

26000-80000 approx: NY address, 13 patent numbers


I hope to be able to narrow it down after talking with Mr. Ødemark.

Regards,

Balder

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE

Arthur – you are taking this way too seriously. If you would have known the answer to 21 smokers initial question, you would have posted earlier, succinctly and left all readers no doubt of your vast knowledge relating to the Thompson Submachine Gun.

TD

I'm taking TSMG minutia way too seriously? Weren't you the one who immediately raced through all your periodicals to state unequivocally that Smoker 's patent date Savage had to be a Colt? I think you are confusing "knowledge" with having the earliest "post mark" when it really is about accuracy. Newsweek magazine is reeling from this very practice.

I thought my first response on the 16th was succinct and to the point. Reviewing the thread, it sure seemed G.I Jive had already put the matter to rest with his May 14th post. But you bamboozled him out of his originally correct recollection. When Smoker's right side receiver's pics were in, they confirmed G.I.'s initial post. But when you posted your "one of a kind" theory, after dismissing G.I's original post , and contrary to what the pics showed, I got into the game.

G.I. Jive,
It's like an SAT. One's initial answer is usually correct. TD was pulling a Regis Philbin with you.

[Balder]

Gentlemen,

I do not want to join in on the "who said what when and why and to whom" debate, I'm just curious to know what the address on a Colt-made M1921 Thompson looks like. Can anybody enlighten me please?

Balder

[TD.]

Balder – I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, the gotcha attitude sometime prevails on this board. It is really unfortunate in that the right information, if available, usually comes out in the end when everyone is polite and respectful. Attached below is what the address looks like on the right side of a Colt Thompson. Let me know if you need any additional photographs. And thank-you for your posts. I can’t wait to hear about Mr. Ødemark’s observations. It will be interesting to see if any patent date/number and address variations appear in his research. Thanks,



gijive - I too find the discussions about the minutiae of the various Thompson models very interesting. I started not to join this discussion because I have never really studied the WWII Thompson and you covered everything completely in your first post. However, the reference to patent dates struck a chord and as they say, the rest is history. This turned out to be a great thread. It was great to learn something from you and Balder I consider very important that has apparently been overlooked (at least in print) by such respected authors as Cox, Hill, and Iannamico. I don’t have all of Richardson’s works so it may be possible he noted these differences in one of his later writings. I apologize for leading you down the wrong road but when Frank’s two books specifically referenced patent numbers on early Savage Thompsons, I thought 21 smoker’s Thompson may have been something very noteworthy. And yes, I do respect your knowledge regarding Thompsons. Thanks,

Bug - Again, nice Thompson. Thank-you again for sharing.

Arthur – you are taking this way too seriously. If you would have known the answer to 21 smokers initial question, you would have posted earlier, succinctly and left all readers no doubt of your vast knowledge relating to the Thompson Submachine Gun.

21 smoker - thank-you for starting this thread. You have one nice Thompson. I believe many of the board members interested in the WWII Savage Thompson learned a lot from all of this - and that is always a good thing.

[21 smoker]

I thank you all who have contributed to this thread....I have learned much about the early Savage 28s in a short time span...and maybe we will further our knowledge if Frank or some other author continues researching this topic.TD.,gijive, AF,Phil O, and everyone else...thanks for keeping it lively...and at the very least it brought back a respected member..Balder..welcome back, it was especially good to hear from you...I said it before....this is a great place!...

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

TD,

Your apology to G.I. is a prime example of the "polite and respectful" attitude that bubbles up to the surface in the end.

Think of me as a lifeguard keeping you from going off the deep end when your enthusiasm for TSMG information that's new to you propels you to make grandiose statements, i.e., "one of a kind." If you believe that debunking a poster's rush to proclaim eureka! is a knuckle rap or "gothca" board journalism, then you are taking this, to use your over worked phrase, way too seriously.


But if you are chummy with Tracie and Frank, you might wish to direct your disappointment to them personally about not being able to consult their periodicals for help on this issue. Maybe Frank can send out a flier to those who purchased his most recent edition of "American Thunder" addressing this matter. Sort of the same way GH updates his serial number compendium.

[TD.]

Arthur – you are taking this way too seriously. If you would have known the answer to 21 smokers initial question, you would have posted earlier, succinctly and left all readers no doubt of your vast knowledge relating to the Thompson Submachine Gun.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE

Arthur – you are taking this way too seriously. If you would have known the answer to 21 smokers initial question, you would have posted earlier, succinctly and left all readers no doubt of your vast knowledge relating to the Thompson Submachine Gun.

TD

This is a recording. Please hang up and dial your number again.....This is a recording......

[TD.]

Arthur – you are taking this way too seriously. If you would have known the answer to 21 smokers initial question, you would have posted earlier, succinctly and left all readers no doubt of your vast knowledge relating to the Thompson Submachine Gun.