560 replies to this topic

[Lancer]

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Sep 5 2006, 02:44 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."

You are correct. But he did say what I quoted.

[TD.]

Phil,
We have made progress. You now recognize that a product succession can occur in something other than a corporate succession. Let's not waste any more bandwidth on the corporate succession nonsense. That never happened so let's end any reference to that non-event right now.

I am still waiting on one of the lawyers to post. I welcome any and all discussion on this matter. Since we both now believe that a product succession is possible (I understand you don't believe that is the case here), let's review in very basic terms the Thompson product succession to Numrich Arms. First off, George Numrich from day one held his company was the successor to the Thompson Submachine Gun from the old Auto-Ordnance Corporation. He certainly acquired everything Thompson related from the previous owners given what he found when he began opening the crated assets. He manufactured Thompson’s and sold Thompson’s in this country and abroad for many years. No one with any legal standing has ever contested his succession of ownership in the Thompson Submachine Gun. He operated openly and freely all the while the Thompson was in Mamaroneck and West Hurley, New York. The Thompson was sold many years later to a major firearms manufacturer that today references the succession of the Thompson from General Thompson all the way to its corporate headquarters. Again, no one of any consequence has ever objected in any forum as to how I describe the succession of the Thompson. No one has ever produced anything that negates what George Numrich did or said concerning his ownership rights regarding the Thompson. In legal terms, we might refer to all of Georges' statements and actions as a presumption that what is being said is true - especially since no one with any former or alleged current ownership rights is objecting in the smallest way.

I think we are making progress. However, I would appreciate if you would stop the inferences that George Numrich's selling of obsolete parts from any or all gun manufacturers is an indication he was a successor in interest to any of these present day companies. I believe he stated clearly on his letterhead (See dalbert's post) the companies he was a successor in interest too. Let's produce something documentary or otherwise that negates everything George Numrich and Ira Trast have said and done with the Thompson - including selling the Thompson to Kahr Arms. The ball is in your court to disprove George's claim of succession. In addition, would you please drop the legal stuff as you do not have the license to back it up in even the smallest way.

Lancer - Excellent point. Thank-you for taking the time to post. The passage you cited certainly states something business related transpired between Maguire Industries, Inc. and Kilgore. Perhaps Doug will join this post and explain the meaning and the source for this reference.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

“Again, no one of any consequence has ever objected in any forum as to how I describe the succession of the Thompson. No one has ever produced anything that negates what George Numrich did or said concerning his ownership rights regarding the Thompson.” TD

I know that in your zeal and frustration to convince the pagans about your unbroken chain theory you wander into the realm of hyperbole, but this latest effort is a real corker. By your estimation Cox, Herigstad, Richardson and Helmer are inconsequential authorities because they don't share yopur opinion? But if you are looking for a legal authority on this issue how about Roger Cox? We all kow where he stands and it isn't with the unbroken chain gang. Yet the only voices espousing the unbroken chain theory that I have ever encountered outside of G.N. and Kahr are you and Dave. I know Numrich and Kahr's motivations, but what's in it for you and Dave?

If I can find a Maguire relative who denies anything other than crated assets were sold to Kilgore would that constitute a source of "legal standing?"

It is ironic that the very same naysayer guy you have previously disparaged in your post regarding this topic, D.R., you now throw your arms around in a love embrace. Did anyone ever tell you you’re fickle?

[SecondAmend]

STG Thompson from BRP Corp is a replica.

MHO, YMMV, etc.

[Bob]

Hey, SecondAmend!

Watch out what you are calling a replica

"An exact duplicate of the original, using the same materials and manufacturing techniques as were used to produce the original article."

BRP is not in the product succession

[railroader]

Arthur

Pagans? Come on now. There are many of us out here, that enjoy reading these posts, and find the exchange of Thompson history and information enjoyable and informative. But to infer that we are pagans because we don't worship Colts or some other facet associated with these weapons is a little over the top. I personally could only afford a West Hurley. Perhaps had I been born 20 or 30 years earlier and in the right state, I might have ended up with a Colt. This topic has been done to death, and people will believe what they want. In the overall though, it does't really matter to most of us. We have our Thompsons, wether they be West Hurleys, Auto Ordances or Savages and we enjoy the shit out of them. It is what it is, so thats what it is.

Railroader

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

railroader,

My reference to "pagans" was not to characterize owners of any particular TSMG. Rather, it was to characterize any individuals who do not follow TD's line of succession conclusions. If my intended point was misconstrued I apologize.

We have you to thank for the most prolific thread in Machinegunbooks history.

[TAS1921AC]

Has anyone checked pages 205-208 of Helmer's TGTMTTR? Don't know that it will clear anything up.

[railroader]

Authur

Apology not necessary. I am however beginning to aprreciate everyone's enthusiasm on the subject of the Thompson lineage. Just reading the posts on the subject has become quite educational. Thank you all.

Railroader

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE (TAS1921AC @ Sep 6 2006, 04:02 PM)

Has anyone checked pages 205-208 of Helmer's TGTMTTR? Don't know that it will clear anything up.

I think once or twice....Acutally, Helmer's book has been dissected on ths topic on this board pretty thoroughly. In fact, G.I. Jive spoke to Helmer on this very issue a few months ago whereupon Helmer stated he never saw any documentation pertaining to what G.N. purchased from Willis back in 1951. Of course, Helmer's book was not at all concerned with this aspect of Numrich's claim to AOC/Thompson legal secession.

[TD.]

Arthur,
No one of any consequence has ever objected in any forum as to how I describe the succession of the Thompson. By any consequence, I mean anyone with any standing or right to object. It appears to me all the previous owners in the chain of succession are fine with the succession of the Thompson. I was not referring to the authors you mentioned. However, Richardson is hung up on the corporate succession angle, Herigstad goes along with whatever Richardson says, Cox did not address the topic of succession and Helmer is the author that reported all the different owners after the Thompson was sold by Maguire. Without Helmer's book, no one may have known how the Thompson left Maguire and ended up with Numrich. I have been called a lot of things but fickle has not been included in the group until now. Apparently, no one from Maguire Industries (Now Components Corporation) or any Maguire family members have ever voiced a claim for the Thompson since it was sold in 1949.

Phil,
I thought you recognized that a product line succession from one company to another was possible without a complete corporate succession occurring. Hang in there; it will all be clear one day. As to Doug Richardson's use of the word license, I feel it best if he explains his reasons for that choice of words. After all, he is a member of the broad and able to post himself. However, I do agree it would indicate a business type relationship between Maguire and Kilgore.

TAS1921AC – TGTMTTR is an excellent suggestion in reading material. Please do not forget the footnotes. I really don't care how anyone believes the Thompson moved from General Thompson to Maguire to Kilgore to Willis to Numrich. However, I want everyone to know there is a lot more to the story than the corporation succession angle some pundits narrowly espouse with no reference to anything else. TGTMTTR is an excellent start to learn what happened with the Thompson. Other material is available, most of it cited on this board when this topic is discussed. I always encourage everyone to read as much as possible and make their own decision - but keep an open mind as new information on the Thompson seems to be uncovered on a fairly regular basis.

And for everyone else - thanks for taking the time to read and post.

[TD.]

QUOTE

Such proprietary rights could have been conveyed with or without being attached to the parent corporation.

Phil,
I knew you understood the concept. Now let's both be quiet and let the lawyers tell us all of George's claims for the last 45 plus years coupled with the previous owners silence mean absolutely nothing.

[full auto 45]

QUOTE

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new! rep‧li‧ca  /ˈrɛplɪkə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rep-li-kuh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a copy or reproduction of a work of art produced by the maker of the original or under his or her supervision.  2. any close or exact copy or reproduction.

[dalbert]

PhilOhio,

I'm just going to say that I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the corporate legal aspects that you've argued in this thread recently. I'm not offering a specific argument against it; we should just agree to disagree on the subject. I hope we can still get together and shoot black powder cannons, though!

All,

I do have some additional background information I want to offer for those who are interested in this thread. If you go back a bit, you will see that the following points have been made against the succession of the Thompson from 1916 to 2006:

- PhilOhio relates that he toured Numrich Arms in 1967, and was offered a TSMG made up from a "crates" receiver. He indicates that when he wanted to purchase one in 1968, he was told that the company had run out of stock. (I don't doubt the validity of this, and am thankful for the firsthand account provided by Phil.)

- Arthur says that no Thompsons were produced with receivers made from scratch between 1944 and 1975. (I believe he revises the latter date to 1974 now, but that is a very small point.)

If the above assumptions are valid, I am curious what could account for the apparently transferable Thompson Submachine Guns advertised in the No. 3 Numrich Catalog dated April 1, 1973. (And no, it was not an April Fool's Day joke, but I would not be surprised to see that offered as an answer...) This catalog does not have any semi-automatic Thompsons available, as it was issued prior to those guns being approved by BATF.

Just for reference, this is the cover of the catalog, demonstrating prominent display of 2 of Numrich's products for which they claimed to be successors to the companies who previously manufactured the guns. (Hopkins and Allen and Auto-Ordnance)



On the back of the catalog, we see pictures of the 2 primary managers of the Numrich business, George Numrich and Ira Trast, along with another claim of succession to the companies listed, including Auto-Ordnance.



Here we have a 3-page advertisement, almost exactly as appeared in the two 1950's flyers I posted earlier in the thread. We see the addition of a summary about private ownership of Thompson Submachine Guns in the top right hand corner of the ad, and 1921/28 and M1/M1A1 Model Thompsons available for $325.00.







One image was used twice within the catalog, and I thought it should be included with both captions. It appears to be approximately 40 Model 1928 Thompsons lined up and ready to go. Can these be accounted for outside of Numrich manufacturing receivers? I have a couple of scenarios in my mind that might be possible to refute them. However, I think it is documentation that should be seen for all to make their own decision.



I realize the number of Thompsons in the world is rounded up in their photo description...



The catalog includes the following summary of the TSMG, which again promotes private ownership of Thompsons, and references Numrich Thompson manufacturing.



Another item I would point to that supports the likelihood that Numrich made their own receivers is an account in the 1967 Gun Digest article by Ray Bearse. (By the way, this is an excellent, 13-page summary of the different TSMG's, and history of the weapon, and was published while Bill Helmer was still finishing his research for TGTMTTR.) In the article, Bearse references several .30 Carbine Thompsons and 9mm Thompsons made up by Numrich in 1954. He notes an example that may have been one of the Numrich experimental models in .30 Carbine. He notes some technical specifications, and states that the model 1928 had no markings on the right hand side of the receiver, but that the left side was marked as follows:

THOMPSON SUBMACHINE GUN
CAL. 30 SHORT RIFLE M1
SELF LOADING CARTRIDGE

Again, my opinion on Thompson succession is well known. It was not something I just decided to begin arguing one day. I am a historian, and there is a lot of history I have found that points to a line of Thompson succession from 1916 to the present day. My main quest is to get as much information out there for others to see, so that if you are interested, you can decide your own opinion for yourself. At the very least, you get to see a lot of neat old advertisements for the Thompson in various forms and stages, and the Thompson is what brings us all together on this wonderful board.

There is a lot more to this...

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[Norm]

3,000,000 Thompsons made, and so few are legal to own today.

Makes you wonder how many magazines there are out there.

Norm

[colt21a]

dave i like the thompson table kinda remind's me of d-day and all those phoney tank's and plane's. the blow up canvass kind.and the brit's with the wooden thompson's and rifle's and part's piece's to fool the german's.remember the "propaganda war"

just make's you wonder if that table is the same.layed out frame's and grip's.....or old stock of course.since they did own real thompson's at one point.

it has been fun reading all this.and the great research.and all the paper stuff..which was just that sale's and promotion..heck macy's just took over "marshall field's " and "robinson may" store's..and the way they are promoting it.you'd think the only store in the world that sold any kind of good's..even before the old sear's catalog..{which by the way by what i know never sold thompson's.

now if all this sucksession is really true. doe's it really mean.. that all wes-hurlee gun's are now worth a min. of $25,000.00 each? and military are now $40,000.00. and the first which i guess would be colt, $75,000.00?????

and if all that is now fact. will after the 2008 election's it all be a mute point.because if any more law change's come into being...those dealer's and collector's will be glad to get part's value..

in the whole grand scheme of thing's we are such a very small group who really give a second thought to this stuff.

and on any world new's. a thompson is a bleep.{yes i know about the one in the wall in il.}heck they could not even get the story straight. wink!

have fun with it all. when it get's testy time consuming research.arguement's. bad time's, name calling.it is not fun anymore and become's tiresome...and some will read and not care anymore.kinda like some election's.or for that matter anything else in life. including my post's...have a good one stay safe.thanks for the paper info you posted. good read. take care,ron

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Dave,

I'm not sure that these Numrich periodicals shed any light on legal Thompson succession but they sure are an insight into G.S.'s sense of humor, whether intended or not.

This following ad copy is determined by you to be from 1959:


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

So G.N. was not in the manufacturing of receivers or frames in the 1950's, yes? Now in G.N.'s 1973 ad he makes a very revealing claim in three different and actually unrelated segments:

"Numrich Arms is the exclusive manufacturer."

He must mean assembler since we still can't find any scratch made Numruch TSMG's. But the question is did Numrich buy anything other than the crated assets from Willis. G.N's claim to the contrary and Ray Bearse's quoting G.N.'s claim to the contrary is still not proof.

"Final assembly of "our" world famous Thompson Submachine Gun."

What is the date of that posed photo of the ASSEMBLER using a screwdriver on the reinforcement bolt on the stock? It sure isn't from the 1970's. Knowing Numrich's indifference in using 1920's and 1930's AOC ads in his 1950's, 1960's, and now, 1970's ads, this photo is curious to say the least.

What happened to the 40 TSMG's in the photo that you claim were made from scratch by G.S? Ronald has been in the MG dealer/hobby since the late 1960's/early 1970's and he has never seen one of these. Nor did J. Curtis Earl. who we know was in the business since the 1950's, and he claims to have seen everything.

"Over 3 million times tested, battle tried Thompson's have been manufactured to date."

This last part is really too much. Exactly what part did Numrich play in the "manufacture" of any of these 3 million TSMG or any that saw combat in WWII? Helmer states that the receivers G.N. used to assemble TSMG's already had orignal AOC stampings on them.

Where are the TSMG's with brand new G.N's stampings and not just "NAC" prefix and suffix stamps? Looking at G.N.'s own letterhead logo, the borrowed British lion in the shield grasping the "N," you would think he couldn't wait to put that prideful mark on a newly made Numrich Arms TSMG.

Numrich is still using 1920's AOC ads even in 1973 with the now updated $325 price tag. You mean to tell me that G.N.'s plant was going full tilt in turning bar stock steel into complete receivers and frames and yet he couldn't hire a photographer to take a picture of one of these completed phantom G.N made TSMG's, or even a current photo of one of these receivers being made in his bustling factory?

"I am a historian, and there is a lot of history I have found that points to a line of Thompson succession from 1916 to the present day."

We are all amateur historians or we wouldn't be on this board. But I see you more of a Numrich advocate and collector of Thompson paper paraphernalia than an historian in the strict sense of the discipline. You and TD do not have the requisite partisan detachment to determine the accuracy of your documents, which, to this point, consist solely of G.N.'s own PR campaign. It's great that you have amassed these G.N. ads from the different decades, but looking for proof of succession in G.N's own ad copy is not good historical research. That would be the same as looking at Mike Romanoff (1890-1972) Beverly Hills restaurant ads to determine if he were really a descendant of the Russian royal family, which he in fact claimed he was.

[dalbert]

Arthur,

Here's a document from outside the Numrich enterprise for you to consider. I'm sure it will not change your mind, but I offer it to show that I'm not limited to Numrich paper items for my research.



David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[reconbob]

This is a long and fascinating discussion. I will
"weigh in" on one aspect of this. There is no evidence
that the photo of the line-up of Thompsons was
in fact taken at the Numrich factory.
I do not think that because the guns were advertised
automatically means that they were actually available
or in production. Numrich Arms was a large sprawling
enterprise and it was certainly a real piece of publicity
and salesmanship to hype the Thompson.
If these early NAC guns exist, they'd have turned
up somewhere by now. I doubt that they are being
collected in secret.
I'm reminded of the Pedersen Device for the M1903
Springfield. This was a top secret project, all were
supposed to have been destroyed, etc. and yet
some of them of them survived and have even been
offered at gunshows. The alleged NAC Thompsons
are far less rare than Pedersen Devices yet
no one has ever seen one...

Bob

[colt21a]

find out what was left in g.n.'s estate sale.and ask ira trast.i remember back in the early day's asking ira about a "new thompson" he told me back in early seventie's.all old stock is sold off. and whatever gun's they had completed had been long sold off. along with new in box a.o.drum's for around $35.00...then much later 1975 i bought a semi 27 from him...then later his new made wes-hurlee's, and m1a1 model's...i kinda had dibb's on a few so ended up buying over 15... thats my story and i'm sticking with it..

number of thompson's i've owned over 125 number i have seen..around a 1,000 or so...so if you factor in between earl,cox,helmer,richardson,douglas, spengel,williamson,kenny,jerry,vollmer,smith,landie's, lomont, harris.and everybody else on my "quest story list..

not really too many still hidden away..safe guess maybe a 1,000 or so.

i loved this stuff for it's history..and never made anything up.just followed the gun..wink!

pleeeeze somebody show me that numrich complete made gun...not some assembly of part's and something rehashed."That's History" have fun.take care,ron