Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Replica


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
560 replies to this topic

#221 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 September 2006 - 07:29 AM

Arthur,
I can see you are at it again. I don’t have to extrapolate anything; I deal in facts.

1. The Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries, Inc. was not a company. It was as stated by Bill Helmer, only a division of Maguire Industries, Inc. It, along with another division directly related to the Thompson, and several other divisions, made up Maguire Industries.

2. Auto-Ordnance Corporation was named Maguire Industries, Inc. when George purchased the Thompson from Willis in 1951. No one was using the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation except when speaking about past history. Maguire Industries, Inc. and George Numrich did use the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation when speaking about past history.

3. Numrich did not have to mark anything with the name Auto-Ordnance for him to be an owner in succession. The owner of a business decides what name to use. However, he did frequently refer to Auto-Ordnance.

4. If a West Hurley Thompson is a replica of an original Thompson, then the Savage and Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport Thompson’s are replicas too. You cannot have it both ways.

5. The corporate name or corporation itself has nothing to do with the continuing succession of the Thompson Submachine Gun. The Thompson was only a product of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation. The Auto-Ordnance Corporation changed its name to Maguire Industries, Inc. The Thompson product line did not fit within the business plan of Maguire Industries, Inc. The Thompson product line was sold in total to Kilgore Manufacturing Company. Maguire, Industries, Inc. retained no claim to anything Thompson and had discarded the Auto-Ordnance name prior to the sale of the Thompson.

I always enjoy being provided the opportunity to set the record straight. Following the lineage of the Thompson Submachine Gun over the years is really a very simple process. Maybe I should dig up my complete succession post that starts with the Blish pistol again....

  • 0

#222 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 September 2006 - 10:52 AM

TD,

In other words, you have no authority to substantiate your interpretation of the actual events and accepted business practices. Your posts have the same simulacrum to facts as The Onion (www.theonion.com) does to news. You are the Doyle Redland of Thompson genealogy.

  • 0

#223 Bob

Bob

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 697 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wa. and AZ.

Posted 01 September 2006 - 11:34 AM

The Thompson has gone "the way of the Zephyr"!

Like someone mentioned FMCO and the Mustang somewhere in this mess.

The new Lincoln-Zephyr is made by Ford, that bought Lincoln. But is the new Lincoln-Zephyr still a Zephyr?

Not made in the same factory with the same tooling as the 1936-1948 Lincoln-Zephyr but now made in Mexico. Does it have a traceable history to the "real" Lincoln motor car company?

(BTW, I'm doing my part in making this silly thread move on to the next page)
  • 0

#224 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4269 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 02 September 2006 - 12:03 AM

All,

This is going to be a long post…

I have mentioned in a couple of posts that Thompson history chapters exist which have yet to be written. It’s thrilling to see the amount of previously undiscovered or unpublished material that still exists regarding Auto-Ordnance, the TSMG, other AO inventions, and the many involved personalities over the years. Some clues have existed for 37 years without further research, some are completely new discoveries, and all required a lot of time and patience to unwind. There are chapters lending support to the opinion that the succession of the Thompson Submachine Gun extends from 1916 to present day, which is obviously an opinion of mine. One may reject or support the succession opinion, and I’m fine with that. What I strive to do is to find and publish as much Thompson history as I can, as I know it has a rich history unlike any other. I appreciate the historical value of other guns, and study some of them as well, but believe none compare to the Tommy Gun. Recently, others and I have discovered and/or researched history which provides substantial new information about the Thompson. Included in this new information is the disposition of thousands of Colt Thompsons, and about Auto-Ordnance during the “golden era.” Evidence in support of succession has also been found. Portions of the succession evidence will be revealed in this post, while disclosure of other significant finds will have to wait until the research paths are fully yielded.

The first historical find will not be a surprise to many, as it was published in the July 2006 issue of SAR, with a supportive preview in the May 2006 issue. I have mentioned Jean Koree, and the Hyde Model 35 Submachine Gun before on this board. The Hyde gun story is intertwined with the Thompson. Mr. Koree, along with Marcellus Thompson in 1932, and again with Marcellus Thompson and Matthew J. Hall in 1935, attempted to purchase Auto-Ordnance from the Ryan estate. I’m not going to go into all the details here, as you can read the magazine to see this bit of Thompson history that has been tucked away for 60+ years. This historical find took about a year to piece together from a 26 lb. box of documents I happened to purchase. I mention the Koree/Thompson information to support the fact that new Thompson historical information may still be found today.

The next bit of newly discovered history is a major find for the Colt Thompson world. A researcher in France and I shared information over the past 9 months or so to aid both our Thompson research efforts, and I also received help from others with the story here in the U.S. As a result, I can state that over 3000 Colt Thompsons were exported to France by Auto-Ordnance in late 1939. France methodically considered the Model 1921 Thompson, a Model 1923 in .45 Remington-Thompson caliber, and the BSA Thompson in 9mm during trials to select a submachine gun for their military during the 1920’s. They also tested a Model of 1921 Thompson in .351 Winchester, which is quite a unique story by itself. (The caliber selection had a connection to WWI balloon observation.) While the French did not select the Thompson for various reasons, when war appeared imminent, they bought up the remaining stock of Auto-Ordnance Colt Thompsons, just as company ownership was transferred to Russell Maguire. The timeline of the Savage plant TSMG startup was affected by France, as an additional order for 3000 was Savage’s first production order, placed by the French Purchasing Commission. British orders replaced the French order upon France’s surrender, before the Savage plant began production. This find has significant supportive documentation, including examples of remaining Colt Thompsons in France (with a uniquely standardized feature), pictures of 1921A’s in the hands of expatriate French soldiers training in Algeria, a letter from Savage, a letter from Matthew J. Hall, several French government documents, a German WWII manual referencing French Model of 1921 Thompsons, and three French manuals produced in France, specific to the Model of 1921 Thompson, published in 1941, 1942, and 1944, under Nazi occupation. It is also supported by several early French AO marketing examples that exist. The 3K+ Colt Thompsons purchased by France served mostly with French Police, and also with their military under Marshall Petain during WWII (under Nazi occupation), while some of the weapons left the country. There is a lot more specific detail to this find, and it will be published in the November 2006 issue of SAR. (The next issue) Thompson history is still out there to be found.

Now to Thompson succession…I am particularly interested in the Numrich years. Who here has seen a picture of “the crates?” Scroll down, and you will see one. George Numrich made an investment in something he believed in, and bought more than just parts, although gun parts in general was his main business. Numrich wanted to grow his business, and saw an opportunity in the Thompson. He began marketing, manufacturing, and servicing Thompsons by at least 1952, following his purchase in 1951. The Thompson was still widely used at that time, and he catered to law enforcement repairs, gun sales, and supplied parts. Many of the NAC guns exist in collector hands today, and are an intriguing chapter in Thompson history. I suggest not making the jump from 1944 to 1975 without carefully considering what Maguire, Kilgore, Willis, and Numrich did in the intervening 31 years.

Numrich moved operations from several warehouses in Mamaroneck, NY, to West Hurley, NY, following his purchase of the West Hurley property in 1952 from Martin Retting. Numrich wanted to move because the logistics of fulfilling orders with many remote warehouses in Mamaroneck was cutting into profit. He desired a centralized location where most of his parts could be located, and fulfillment operations run. At the same time, Numrich maintained some parts in warehouses in 2 other states, and Canada. I acquired a Numrich sales flyer that was generated in the Mamaroneck location, and was updated with the new West Hurley address after the company moved, with the Mamaroneck address crossed out. This probably dates the flyer to 1952 or 1953, based on what I have been able to determine since acquiring it. It states that the company had “13,000,000 Parts In Stock.” Three quarters of the flyer markets new Thompsons, Thompson parts, and service for existing Thompsons, focusing presumably on the law enforcement community. You will note that prices do not vary in difference much from the 1920’s and 30’s, and that catalog pictures from those periods are utilized in the advertising. Here are scans of the 3 pages of Thompson material included in the 4-page flyer.

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

The 4-page flyer was mailed as a folded insert within a single-page, double-side-printed general parts advertisement that was updated to 1957, with a 1957 postmark. Incidentally, my research indicates that Numrich advertised “13,000,000 Parts In Stock” approximately during the 1952-55 time period, “15,000,000 Parts In Stock” from 1956-57, and “17,000,000 Parts In Stock” from about 1957-59. In 1963, they had “Over 27,000,000 In Stock,” and in 1967, they had “Over 38,000,000 In Stock,” according to their corporate stationary. Numrich mail advertising was usually undated, but observations of the Numrich “# Parts In Stock” quote in dated magazine advertisements has aided in providing rough estimates of when the flyers were produced. I believe they have around 150,000,000+ parts in stock now. Here are pictures of the double-sided, single-page advertisement that is updated to 1957.

user posted image

user posted image

Their stationary also listed them as “Successors to: Auto-Ordnance Corp. (Thompson Submachine Guns)” in all the examples I have from 1963-1969. Here is an example from 1963:

user posted image

Here is an example from 1969:

user posted image

The next item is a brochure that was sent out to mail order customers as a way to satisfy their curiosity about what the Numrich operation looked like. It is undated, but based on the “17,000,000 Parts In Stock” comment it contains, it is circa 1957. This flyer is a significant piece of Thompson history. On the back page, it has some erosion around the bottom. Under a Numrich crest, you can read “M…………….…n Sub-machine Guns.” I am more than fairly certain that before the paper became eroded, it said “Manufacturer of Thompson Sub-machine Guns.” You be the judge. I don’t know what other “….…n Sub-machine Guns” Numrich would include as a highlight below their company crest, and within the brochure, Thompsons are the only reference to submachine guns made.

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

Here is a picture from the brochure of some of “the crates.” I don’t believe any such pictures have been published, or otherwise seen any time recently. Notice the caption indicates the Thompsons in the crates are ‘awaiting completion.”

user posted image

Here is a picture of an experimental gun rack that includes some Thompsons.

user posted image

The next series of Thompson advertisements appear almost exactly like the Mamaroneck flyer, except for a few pricing changes, and the updated West Hurley address. I believe this flyer dates from about 1959.

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

Numrich manufactured Thompson barrels from bar stock from at least 1955 to 1996. This is supported by onsite observations made in 1965 by a Gun World writer, as well as an account from Ira Trast to me stating that barrels remained in production from the time he started at Numrich (1966) to at least 1996. It is also supported by this advertisement from the December 1955 American Rifleman magazine.

user posted image

This is a zoom of the Thompson barrel advertisement contained within the 1955 American Rifleman ad:

user posted image

Here is one thing to ponder. As Arthur challenged earlier in this thread, he wants to see a Numrich production receiver that was made from scratch. (He was much more specific than this, but you can go back and read the details.) I will pose to you that the answer to this may be mathematical. Look at what we know about Numrich Thompson sales in the 1950’s, and decide if it adds up.

I know what I have posted will not be seen as definitive for those who reject the succession opinion. My intention is to provide new information, which I hope some will appreciate.

There is significantly more to the story.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  • 0

#225 Norm

Norm

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Thompsons (of course), Electronics, Physics, History, Mechanics, Collecting License Plates.

Posted 02 September 2006 - 12:36 AM

Dalbert,

I like all the info you shared, but it just hurts to read these prices.... banghead.gif

user posted image
  • 0

#226 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 September 2006 - 01:30 AM

"I will pose to you that the answer to this may be mathematical. Look at what we know about Numrich Thompson sales in the 1950’s, and decide if it adds up." Dave

First, thanks for all the photos of the old catalogs and sales brochures. Now, what are we supposed to be adding? Nobody disputes G.N. was in the parts business. Nobody disputes that G.N. sold existing 1921/28 TSMG's for $195 and the M1/M1A1 for $150. Are you suggesting that these advertised complete smg's were of brand new manufacture? Even the prices undermine that notion.

Nobody disputes that the French received 3,000 Colt TSMG's on November 1, 1939 for $750,000. The U.S. Army then ordered another 900 Colt TSMG's. That left 800 left of the original 15,000 in AOC's racks. Supposedly, the British ordered the bulk of these. Why any complete Colt TSMG's were left in AOC's possession (as in the ones that G.S. found in the crates along with WWII TSMG's), aside from the prototypes, is a mystery. Unless that by the time Savage got a contract to make 10,000 TSMG's in December of 1939, Maguire forgot about the existing Colt's and concentrated on the WWII Savage 1928 production models for export?

How much of G.N.'s business was devoted to TSMG's and how much to Hopkins, Forehand Arms, Standard Arms, military surplus, general surplus and imports? What percentage of the 13 million parts or the 17 million parts (from 1955 to 1959 his parts increased by 4 million) were devoted to TSMG's? If the demand for TSMG parts was so great, one would think that the demand for a complete TSMG would also be great and even cost efficient to the customer compared to buying replacement components piecemeal. I also notice receivers with Lymans priced at $44. Now add the $200 ATF tax and it doesn't seem practical to not just pay an additional $150 for a complete TSMG. He also states in his 1959(?) flyer that "vertical foregrips are no longer produced." That means he ran out of surplus stocks, yes?

How long did it take G.N. to sell the existing complete TSMG's found in the crates? The actual number of these is only known to ATF, but it is estimated that there were between 85 and 125(?). Even if there were 200 of them that would have grossed G.S. less than $35K. How much did G.S. gross from existing surplus TSMG's parts and newly made barrels? Other than the barrels, who has a G.S. made actuator, bolt, frame, etc TSMG part? What stamp did he use to make these parts if they exist?

Now we come to G.S.'s use of "Successors to: Auto-Ordnance Corporation Thompson Submachine Guns" on his business letterhead. Interesting that this latest and greatest acquisition of G.S. only rates third billing in the small print of "absorbed" firearm companies. Is this a chronological order? Had I bought the crates of Thompson goodies, you better believe I would have stated the same thing on my business correspondence, but I would have given it above the title billing.

But in all this paraphernalia, I still do not see a picture of, or an add for, a brand new TSMG? Did I miss some fine print somewhere? But if such a TSMG exists, and G.S. must have had some cracker jack filing system to keep track of those 13 million parts, would there not be a record of such a Thompson? Not to mention not one has shown up in a P.D. or private hands.

I do notice that on G.S.'s letterhead he changed his winged camel coat or arms in 1963 to approximate the British lion in shield coat of arms by 1969. I wonder if those were trademarked by him?

  • 0

#227 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 02 September 2006 - 11:46 AM

dave great info i had a few of those sheet's and letterhead year's ago..sold them off in some collection out east..

the whole ira trast and george numrich thompson deal. is pure advertising and sale's..and with keeping the thompson history alive.i'm sure neither one did that much research. they both were too busy buying and selling old gun companie's and trying to make a buck. and to hype up anything they could
shade's of "curtis earl"and a few hundred other class three guy's today!

it's nice to see the old price's and the worded stuff.notice most just used the same old 1920's pic's and diagram's.and old sale's catalog's reprinted..WHY? because it looked nice. and to keep the cost's down..

my take... colt made thompsons;so did a.o. and savage,and so did numrich...is there a colt connection?never was never will be.is there a a.o. connection?something this board will ponder till we are all gone. and maybe will never get answered.ask somebody at a gun show if they care. wink!!

thanks for the time and effort spent here....it's more then i put into 35 year's of collectin...he-he!

take care,ron
  • 0

#228 October1971

October1971

    Industry Expert

  • Regular Group
  • 283 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 September 2006 - 03:36 PM

Dalbert,
Thanks for sharing the paperwork. It's amazing how much stuff is still out there and occasionally turns up, even 85 years after the Colt Tommys were produced. You are to be commended on your efforts to unearth so much valuable material. Whether the recent material you posted answers all of the "succession" questions or not, it still adds to the overall knowledge base that we are all compiling on Colt T-guns.

PhilOhio,

Congrats on unearthing some more PD Thompsons in your area. Hearing about the PD not knowing how to disassemble the gun makes me cringe. When you go back, maybe you could make up a tag for them to hang on the Colt that says something like: NOTE: ATTEMPTING TO DISASSEMBLE THIS FIREARM MAY PUT SCRATCHES ON THE FINISH THAT CAN REDUCE ITS VALUE BY SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS.

Thanks to your efforts in locating some otherwise previously undocumented Colt Tommys. Wouldn't it be something if 50 years from now ALL 15,000 Colts had been located and accounted for. Let's see, Gordon Herigstad, your book would weigh 746 lbs and be sent by 18-wheeler flat bed trucks to the purchasers...


  • 0

#229 October1971

October1971

    Industry Expert

  • Regular Group
  • 283 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 September 2006 - 10:22 AM

PhilOhio

I probably should go re read your first post, but did you say it was transferable? If so, before you make it too famous, why don't you try to acquire it from them so some future idiot chief doesn't give it to Shumer, Kennedy, et al or worse, cut it up!

But, if you aren't going for it, then by all means get some pro-Tommy gun notoriety out of it. Good luck on this one.
  • 0

#230 Grey Crow

Grey Crow

    RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1077 posts
  • Location:North Central Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Thompson Submachine guns, computers, reptiles.

Posted 03 September 2006 - 12:04 PM

The Williamsport, PA Police Dept has a 21, unfortunately the bolt is a Savage, that a long past armorer had swapped out. The gun is registered but not transferable. They do take it out and shoot it, but unfortunately I'm certain that it does not receive the care it should. It has been years since I've seen it, I wonder if Gordon has it listed in his book?

The city allegedly had another 21 but it disappeared some years ago. Hard to say where that one is now.
  • 0

#231 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 September 2006 - 09:08 AM

Phil,
An excellent post. Several of the points you make do need to be addressed (and can be). However, you are still hung up on the corporate succession angle. The continuing lineage of the Thompson after it was sold by Maguire Industries, Inc. is definitely "something." To define this "something," one only has to look at how the Thompson arrived at Numrich Arms, consistent comments made by George Numrich over the years dealing with ownership rights and the lack of any claim from Maguire Industries regarding the Thompson or the use of its old corporate name. Again, the sale of the Thompson by Maguire did not involve a corporate succession, only the sale of a product line from one company to another. This "something" shows a direct linkage to what Maguire sold and George ended up with. This "something" is something that manufacturers like Pearl, Philadelphia Ordnance, Richardson or others will never have. I call this "something" the continuing lineage or succession of the Thompson Submachine Gun.

One other point. Your comments involving “defined legal issue" are not specific enough to address. I believe you are trying to say certain legal requirements would have to be met for this succession or lineage to be completed or successful. You may be right - but only if one party is contesting what took place. Again, this is not a corporate succession. Simplistically, this could have simply been a verbal contract of sale and as long as neither party objected, no problems would ever surface. The concept of "Standing" is very applicable to this situation. In essence, who has the legal right to contest George Numrich's continual verbal and published claim of ownership as "Successors to: Auto-Ordnance Corp (Thompson Submachine Guns)." From where I sit, the only parties that fit this bill would be Maguire (now Components) Kilgore and Willis. With no objection from these parties, George must certainly have acquired "something." And lets not just state off hand that this was just a bunch of old crates of gun parts George acquired. These old crates contained everything related to the Thompson Submachine to include the Blish pistol, prototype Thompson’s, the original contract with Colt to produce the first 15,000 Thompson’s, blueprints, drawings - everything needed to manufacture the Thompson Submachine Gun. The entire Thompson product line left Maguire Industries, Inc in 1949...and later found its way to George Numrich. Phil, your right, these events were certainly "something."

David,
Excellent post. I agree, more will be written someday on all of this. Mathematical? I see your point.

Arthur,
Again, George did not have to manufacture anything for his claim to succession to be valid - but I enjoy addressing this non-event with you. Could you point out something in the posted Numrich advertisements that indicates the buyer of one of these advertised Thompson Submachine Guns will obtain something other than a brand new manufactured Thompson Submachine Gun?

  • 0

#232 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 September 2006 - 01:41 PM

"Could you point out something in the posted Numrich advertisements that indicates the buyer of one of these advertised Thompson Submachine Guns will obtain something other than a brand new manufactured Thompson Submachine Gun?" TD,


You have already made your position clear that whether G.N. made a new TSMG is irrelevant to whether NAC was the legal successor to the original AOC in your opinion. Yet you still seem to be the victim of G.S.'s creative advertising practices. G.N.'s own ads simultaneously infer and contradict what he is selling as far as complete TSMG's. Dave was very precise in his evidence of G.N. made barrels, which nobody contended did not exist, by stating:

"Numrich manufactured Thompson barrels from bar stock from at least 1955 to 1996. This is supported by onsite observations made in 1965 by a Gun World writer, as well as an account from Ira Trast to me stating that barrels remained in production from the time he started at Numrich (1966) to 1996." Dave

Why did the "Gun World" writer make so much of manufactured barrels yet no mention of manufactured receivers and frames? The barrels exist today as tangible proof of a G.N. made product. What happened to all these G.N. made from scratch (just like the barrels) TSMG's?

As Ronald reminded all of us, the exploded parts view and Colt Thompson paraphernalia used in G.N.'s ads were reprinted from 1920's and 1930's AOC brochures. This makes G.N's 1950's ads really confusing. Dave also states that the photos in Numrichs ads are vintage, but it isn't just the photos as the original ad copy has been lifted from AOC brochures as well.

From G.N.'s 1953 ad:

"The Thompson Submachine Gun gas always been considered the finest. Police departments and military establishments throughout the word depend on their Thompson's for rugged service and complete dependability.
"Our guns are of solid construction and no effort has been spared to keep them from being "the best."

This ad implies G.H. was making TSMG's as new. Of course he was not. Would it not be false advertising to continue to run photos of 1291/28 Colt TSMG's and WWII Savage/AO TSMG's and original AOC copy if he had manufactured his own TSMG? Where is the photo of his brand new Numrich TSMG? Unless he was stamping "COLT PATENT FIREARMS MFG CO" on his receivers, this ad is definitely misleading and might even be considered fraudulent.

This ad is determined by Dave to be from 1959:

"All Parts Listed Are New
50% Discount On Used
No Frames Or Receivers Available"

The above is G.N's own copy. The original AOC TSMG description is no longer included in the ad. Why? That is self evident. If G.N. is making his won TSMG's then he went out of business 6 years after his last ad advertised TSMG's that you think were newly manufactured.

Since my motives in this discussion are considered partisan, what could Phil's motives be when he speaks of G.N. only in the most glowing terms? Why does he not see what you and Dave see?

If you could give me an example of a product that existed once and was resurrected decades later that broke off the chain of succession I could better understand your thinking.

But what do you call the five year gap from when Maguire's AOC stopped making TSMG"s and then absorbed AOC into his own company and then the sale of crated assets to Kilgore? Just define this period for me.

Phil,

You just don't understand Thompson mythology. He who possesses the Blish pistol is the rightful heir to the legacy. Who needs legal documentation when a King Arthur sword in the stone test is all that is needed for Thompson peerage.

  • 0

#233 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 September 2006 - 02:55 PM

Phil,

I would be intellectually dishonest if I was confronted with a legal document that proved what G.N. was proffering since 1951 and still maintain AOC and Thompson came to an end in 1944. I just do not understand the campaign to insist on an uninterrupted AOC history to today when all available factual evidence proves the contrary.

Were G.N's motivations regarding his Numrich Thompson ads devoid of subterfuge? Dick Armitage says he never knew Valerie Plame was "covert" when he leaked her identity to Novak and Woodward. If I had to choose between the two, I would assign more credibility to Armtiage. This was before truth in advertising laws. But looking back on his 1950's ads from the perspective of all the information we now know, G.N. played fast and loose with photos, ad copy and sins of omission and commission.

  • 0

#234 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 September 2006 - 09:30 PM

Phil,
Again, it was not a corporate succession. The corporation went one way; the product went another after being sold off by the corporation. It is really not a difficult concept to follow. No one ever associated with any of these companies or products has ever contested the Thompson succession as I have laid on this thread (and others) many times. No one. There is one lawyer who has posted on this thread and he agrees with everything I have said. I will be glad to discuss my postings with any attorney on this board regarding what happened to the Thompson Submachine Gun after it left Maguire Industries, Inc. in 1949. You have been an RKI on this board a lot longer than I and must know a bunch of the members. Ask one or more of these attorneys to chime in. As everyone knows, I carry on a very civil discussion.
Thanks,

Arthur,
QUOTE
But what do you call the five year gap from when Maguire's AOC stopped making TSMG"s and then absorbed AOC into his own company and then the sale of crated assets to Kilgore? Just define this period for me 

I know this won't do any good but Maguire did not absorb AOC into his own company. The Auto-Ordnance Corporation changed its name to Maguire Industries, Inc. and went forth with a business plan that did not include the Thompson Submachine Gun. Maguire fully understood the product that made him and his shareholders millions of dollars was obsolete. Maguire Industries, Inc. crated everything up dealing with this product line, stored it in a warehouse and later sold it to an interested buyer. The years in storage do not in any way negate the succession of this product to that buyer when it was sold in 1949. There is no factual evidence to contradict anything I have posted. Thanks

  • 0

#235 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 September 2006 - 10:07 PM

TD,

A) Could you give me an example of what you would consider a broken chain succession in any business at any period of American or world history?

cool.gif If Roger Cox states that the original AOC is alive and well under Components Corporation of America which it is owned by a Maguire family member (or was at the time of his 1982 book), then why does he not say the original AOC is alive and well under George Numrich or Ira Trast? Hence Cox's replica appellation to the Trast version of the Thompson.

  • 0

#236 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 September 2006 - 11:07 PM

Arthur,
How about the Indian motorcycle? I have not researched this subject, but I have heard that the new Indian motorcycle did not evolve from the old Indian motorcycle. If I am not mistaken, the new Indian motorcycle is now out of business. If anyone has any information to the contrary, please let me know and I will step aside as I have not researched this business.

The Auto-Ordnance Corporation changed names two times and is now called Components Corporation of America. As Roger reported, it still exists today. As I have stated all along, the corporation went one way, the product or Thompson went another. Components has no claim in anything related to the Thompson because it (Maguire Industries) sold off the Thompson in 1949. The Thompson later became a part of George Numrich's business, Numrich Arms. In 1974, George Numrich and Ira Trast made a business decision to form a new Auto-Ordnance Corporation, this one headquartered in West Hurley, New York, to market along with the older Thompson Submachine Gun models, a new semi-automatic Thompson Rifle. This new Auto-Ordnance Corporation in West Hurley did not evolve directly from the old Auto-Ordnance Corporation in New York. Aside from a few transfers between Maguire (now Components) and George Numrich, it is as simple as that.

I really don't have a problem with the replica moniker as the NAC and West Hurley Thompson’s are not in the same league as the Colt Thompson’s. However, if you are going to use the name replica on the NAC's and West Hurley’s, the same name must be applied to the Savage's and Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport Thompson’s. You can't have it both ways.

  • 0

#237 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1055 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fremont, Ohio

Posted 05 September 2006 - 11:31 AM

I read something interesting in Doug Richardson's "Thompson Technical Vol. 1", page 30 the article titled "Auto-Ordnance Corporation" that has raised a question in my mind.
On page 31 he writes
"In 1949, rights to manufacture the Thompson Gun were licensed to the Kilgore Manufacturing Co. Kilgore also purchased the remaining guns, parts, tools,records, etc."

It would seem that Doug believes Kilgore purchased more that just physical assets. I'm not a lawyer but this sounds like a legal term that perhaps could be construed to be the link that TD is looking for. I must also point out that Doug does not cite a source for this information.
  • 0

#238 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 September 2006 - 01:26 PM

QUOTE
"It would seem that Doug believes Kilgore purchased more that just physical assets."
Lancer

I would check that passage in D.R's "Thompson Technical Vol 1." again. D.R. is a vociferous critic of the notion that Maguire sold anything besides crates. He has even posted on this board about this very issue and his sentiments can also be found in his "Thompson Submachine Gun Drum Magazines Type L & C 3rd Edition" where he unequivocally states:

"Some confusion has been caused by the Numrich Arms Corp in West Hurley, New York who have called themselves the Auto-Ordnance Corp. and have used Auto-Ordnance "Thompson" trade marks on newly manufactured drums. Cox, in his book "The Thompson Submachine Gun," states that Numrich acquired the physical assets of the Auto-Ordnance Corp but not the name."

Obviously, Maguire, in selling the machines that enabled the manufacture of TSMG's to Kilgore, was acknowledging that the buyer was free to go ahead and do so. That is no the same as saying Maguire sold the AOC name, patents and logos. Savage Arms was licensed to make TSMG's for Maguire's AOC but they didn't own the AOC name, logo or patents either. That is why the Savage Utica, New York address never appeared on the TSMG receiver's they made. The Bridgeport, Connecticut address, home of AOC, was stamped on the receiver.
  • 0

#239 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1055 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fremont, Ohio

Posted 05 September 2006 - 01:42 PM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Sep 5 2006, 02:26 PM)
QUOTE
"It would seem that Doug believes Kilgore purchased more that just physical assets."
Lancer

I would check that passage in D.R's "Thompson Technical Vol 1." again. D.R. is a vociferous critic of the notion that Maguire sold anything besides crates. He has even posted on this board about this very issue and his sentiments can also be found in his "Thompson Submachine Gun Drum Magazines Type L & C 3rd Edition" where he unequivocally states:

"Some confusion has been caused by the Numrich Arms Corp in West Hurley, New York who have called themselves the Auto-Ordnance Corp. and have used Auto-Ordnance "Thompson" trade marks on newly manufactured drums. Cox, in his book "The Thompson Submachine Gun," states that Numrich acquired the physical assets of the Auto-Ordnance Corp but not the name."

Obviously, Maguire, in selling the machines that enabled the manufacture of TSMG's to Kilgore, was acknowledging that the buyer was free to go ahead and do so. That is no the same as saying Maguire sold the AOC name, patents and logos. Savage Arms was licensed to make TSMG's for Maguire's AOC but they didn't own the AOC name, logo or patents either. That is why the Savage Utica, New York address never appeared on the TSMG receiver's they made. The Bridgeport, Connecticut address, home of AOC, was stamped on the receiver.

Arthur
I copied the quote word for word.
Like Phil, I really don't care one way or the other. I just threw this out for discussion because it would seem to indicate a legal link between the "New" and the "Old" AOC.
  • 0

#240 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 September 2006 - 01:44 PM

Lancer,

What does D.R. say before and after that passage? But again, D.R. is not saying that Maguire sold the AOC name, patents or logos in that sentence you cited from his "Thompson Technical Vol 1."

  • 0