Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Replica


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

#261 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2006 - 03:47 PM

Arthur,
It's nice to know David and I are so partisan in our research given we are going against what you describe as the accepted history of the Thompson Submachine Gun. I am not going to speak for Dave, but I have found all this history you cite does not hold up to close scrutiny. I am guessing David too has discovered all is not as you continually post.

Bob,
QUOTE
There is no evidence that the photo of the line-up of Thompson’s was in fact taken at the Numrich factory.

With all due respect, it's also possible Bill Helmer faked the letter from Savage David has posted since during the time of this letter and catalog publication date, this was a very hot topic for firearm historians:)

I think it is highly possible you and Ron may have actually seen some Numrich manufactured receivers over the years and did not even realize it. Not that this is necessary to show the continual lineage of the Thompson. It is obvious David has done the math…

  • 0

#262 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2006 - 04:53 PM

Dave & TD,

The last paragraph in the Savage letter stating "Numrich Arms Corp of West Hurley owns all the assets of the Auto Ordnance Corp. and now produces them for Police use, etc" has never been in dispute. Notice Roe Clark did not say "owns Auto-Ordnance Corp," but owns the assets of that company and he didn't say Numrich manufacturers but "produces" Thompsons.

The fact that Helmer used this letter in his "TGTMTTR" as a reference never constituted any documentation that Numrich purchased anything other than crated assets from Willis. Remember, Helmer was explicit in saying that he never saw any legal documentation from 1951 that expressly states Numrich bought anything other than the assets.

What we do know from your collection of G.N. catalogs is that his copy did not live up to reality. The fact that G.S. was indifferent to incorporating 1920'2/30's pictures and ad copy in his current catalogs does not substantiate his claim, or your's and TD's claim, that he actually made any TSMG's, it actually serves to undermine these claims.

Now TD says TSMG collectors and dealers may have held a Numrich made TSMG but didn't identify it as such? That would be a neat trick. How does even a novice miss the Mammaroneck or West Hurley address stamped on the right side of a receiver made between the years 1951 and 1974?

Why did Trast use the West Hurley New York address on his version of the TSMG and 1927 in 1975, but Numrich , a guy with his own British coat of arms crest, not identify where his phantom TSMG was made?

So the absence of G.S scratch made TSMG's is irrelevant to AOC succession? Yet you still cling to the notion such an animal exists. Faith can produce a G.N. scratch made TSMG as well as succession? How about the absence of any Maguire/Kilgore/Willis documentation stating anything other than crated assets were sold? Or is that just another irksome question that has nothing to do with succession either? You have certainly perfected the all purpose answer to any questions regarding succession.

Please, what is this math you and Dave keep referring to? Is there a magical algebraic computation that I am missing? Is there a Thompson Archimedes Principle and a secret hand shake only known to Numrich successor club members?

  • 0

#263 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2006 - 05:18 PM

Ronald,

The list of TSMG authorities/collectors/hobbyists/dealers who have never seen a scratch made George Numrich Thompson Submachine Gun bears another mention:

J Curtis Earl,
Roger Cox,
Bill Helmer,
Doug Richardson,
Gordon Herigstat,
William Douglas,
Robert Thomas Spengel,
William York,
Ross Capawana,
R. J. Vollmer,
Ike Ziros,
Bob Landie's,
Tommy St. Charles,
Irv Kahn,
Dick Wray,
Ed Anthony,
Fred Rexer,
Ron Rudin,
Hy Hunter,
Kenny,
Jerry,
Smith,
Lomont,
Harris,

and who could forget:

Dave Albert & TD
etc
etc
etc

Of course this has nothing to do with succession, sure, but is definitely has something to do with truth in advertising. A feature sadly lacking in G.N.'s catalogs.

  • 0

#264 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2006 - 07:31 PM

Arthur,
QUOTE
Of course this has nothing to do with succession, sure, but is definitely has something to do with truth in advertising.

Good Deal. I can see you are off that having to manufacture to continue succession theme. This is progress in that you now recognize another side to this story of the Thompson after it left Maguire - even if you do not agree with it. Manufactures versus produces - a difference? I think you are grasping at straws here. Please keep an open mind as more and more information is uncovered all the time.

Truth in Advertising - Wow, the theme of this thread has really expanded. Instead of pointing out some of General Thompson's puffing during Auto-Ordnance Corporation advertisements and publications, I will acknowledge same and move on.
popcorn.gif popcorn.gif popcorn.gif
  • 0

#265 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2006 - 07:57 PM

Since G.N's own catalogs make for a quicksand foundation for your proposals, I figured I'd throw you a bone. But if G.N. is being less than forthright about manufacturing TSMG's, it doesn't inspire confidence in his claim to all things AOC either. In fact, if he embellishes something so basic and easy to check, as we are doing now, like the existence of disseminated TSMG's, it isn't such a leap of faith to believe he would embellish ownership of the AOC/Thompson name and bullet logo. The proof of ownership of these things that seem lost (or misappropriated) to history. To this day we still do not have access to these documents. The very same documents he never produced at the time he was in business, and, apparently, was never asked to produce at any time he was alive.
  • 0

#266 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2006 - 08:17 PM

Arthur,
I think you are realizing that all the years George Numrich claimed ownership and succession of the Thompson from the Auto-Ordnance Corporation without one protest from anyone, much less the previous owners, indicates there very well may be something to his claims. After all, given what he acquired in 1951, there was nothing Thompson left to secure. I am not surprised George never produced any documents concerning the purchase of the Thompson; this is standard business practice. And your right, no one ever cared about his rights or questioned his claims to succession until after he had formed a new Auto-Ordnance Corporation to market along with the old Thompson’s, the new Thompson semi-automatic rifles. While I am not that far into the story, the thought that Kahr Arms did not perform some due diligence prior to purchase to know exactly what they were buying is not believable by me. Keep an open mind. I suggest if you really want to disprove the succession to George, attempt to prove it. You may surprise yourself.
Thanks,


  • 0

#267 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2006 - 09:25 PM

You look at the crates, and I look at the dates. The amount of distance your chain has to stretch violates all principals of metal elasticity. From 1944 until 1975, when Trast finally made a scratch version of a TSMG, is too much of a gap to extend a relationship from Maguire's AOC to Trast's new AOC, the very same AOC he sold to Rev. Moon.

Had this distinction between the two AOC entities been brought to light back in the mid 1970's, when all the participants were alive, and the only time since 1944 when a truly "new" TSMG was truly being manufactured, then the discussion today would be moot. Trast would have been obliged to submit all the credentials proving that his AOC was the same AOC that existed back in 1944. It didn't happen then. But it surely doesn't mean that succession wins by default.

The undeniable fact is that the more "evidence" you and TD submit the more we see that proving a negative, that G.N. never bought anything but crates, is not even a factor since the positive proof of succession is still invisible. These Numrich ads serve as an abrasive edge upon which the imaginary chain keeps rubbing up against. The inevitable popping sound will deafen your ears.

  • 0

#268 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2006 - 09:37 PM

Let's see, the last Colt produced Thompson came off the assembly line in 1922. When was the first Savage Thompson manufactured? It seems the passage of a lot of time in between production is a normal occurrence in Thompson history. Numrich and Trast are not required to produce anything (but apparently they did to Kahr Arms). The sale of the Thompson after Maguire and their claims has stood the test of time. If you are really interested in proving your point, show me some documentary evidence that establishes your position. I am very open on all of this.
  • 0

#269 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 09 September 2006 - 10:21 PM

Coming up on 300 replies.....

user posted image

  • 0

#270 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 September 2006 - 11:49 PM

Norm,

Will this be a Hammer Film?

TD,

The quintessential difference between the time the original AOC contracted Colt to make TSMG's and the 18 year gap before Savage was contracted by the original AOC to make TSMG's again, is that the Original AOC never folded up shop. When AOC did fold up shop in 1944, that signaled the end of the chain. Its elementary my dear Watson. Through slight of hand, you have shifted the onus to prove succession to those who do not buy into it. I can understand the rational behind your shell game, but the problem with all con games is that there isn't any pea under any of the three shells. We turned over all the shells and exposed G.N.'s ruse.

  • 0

#271 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

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

Posted 10 September 2006 - 11:57 AM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Sep 9 2006, 05:18 PM)
Ronald,

The list of TSMG authorities/collectors/hobbyists/dealers who have never seen a scratch made George Numrich Thompson Submachine Gun bears another mention:

J Curtis Earl,
Roger Cox,
Bill Helmer,
Doug Richardson,
Gordon Herigstat,
William Douglas,
Robert Thomas Spengel,
William York,
Ross Capawana,
R. J. Vollmer,
Ike Ziros,
Bob Landie's,
Tommy St. Charles,
Irv Kahn,
Dick Wray,
Ed Anthony,
Fred Rexer,
Ron Rudin,
Hy Hunter,
Kenny,
Jerry,
Smith,
Lomont,
Harris,

and who could forget:

Dave Albert & TD
etc
etc
etc

Of course this has nothing to do with succession, sure, but is definitely has something to do with truth in advertising. A feature sadly lacking in G.N.'s catalogs.

a rogue's gallery of thompson wheeling and dealing.and i just wonder if any had some good deal's?wink!

and in about ten or twenty year's no more...about six have passed on already.at it's highest point i had 200 name's in thompson collecting around 1985/89.

in the total picture that really is not too many in a world of six billion.

in the far future when nick is old and grey and this place is a shell of itself...somebody will chime in and ask what was it all about...and can my phaser work on stun?

and what is this 100rd.disk thing with the name kahr stamped on it really worth? because he located a abandoned warehouse with 5,000 of them. and wondered did he need a form six to import to freakastan in the war to find ben and jerry?so they could use them in all the thompson's that had been turned in around 2008 when his grandpa fought the "Big One"to end all war's...

and that's the fact's..2036...

take care,ron

gort nicto mirada klingtoe,get the f-out!!
  • 0

#272 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 March 2007 - 07:57 PM

http://www.cswnet.co...er/REVOKECR.pdf

ATF denied WH 1928 smg C&R status back in March, 2006, two months after application, and we are just hearing about this now? Could it be the possible replica status was a C&R hurdle that ATF balked at?
  • 0

#273 full auto 45

full auto 45

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 4555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking over your shoulder right now
  • Interests:Thompson's, Any Machinegun, Harley's and scuba diving. In that order.

Posted 02 March 2007 - 08:50 PM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Mar 2 2007, 07:57 PM)
http://www.cswnet.co...er/REVOKECR.pdf

ATF denied WH 1928 smg C&R status back in March, 2006, two months after application, and we are just hearing about this now? Could it be the possible replica status was a C&R hurdle that ATF balked at?

I guess you aren't a member of ANY Thompson association, either one, or you would have known about this the day Carol wrote the letter. It was approved. And then later they decided against it.
  • 0

#274 sgfa4ever

sgfa4ever

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 49 posts

Posted 03 March 2007 - 04:31 AM

Arthur, maybe this post being brought back to life falls into the category of Postenis Envy.

Now..c'mon guys a little humor in the wee hours of the morning when you cant sleep never hurt anyone! nono.gif
  • 0

#275 bt3_guns

bt3_guns

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:VA
  • Interests:Tommy Guns
    F-111s

Posted 03 March 2007 - 07:55 AM

Arthur – BATFE did not deny the WH C&R status. They approved it on 12 Jan 06 biggrin.gif . Then on 3 Mar 06 they revoked their approval sad.gif because they realized that the approval letter had been sent out before the required legal review of the ruling was accomplished.

I did speak to the BAFTE about this in the last 30 days and the FTB has not been idle. They have been working closely with the legal office on the review. The legal office is short staffed and things are taking longer than planned.

Thus the WH C&R status was not denied but is still under review.

Speaking just for myself, I am confident that we will prevail.

Bill Troy

  • 0

#276 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2007 - 08:46 PM

Bill,

The C&R status was approved, then rescinded, in the space of 6 weeks. But the official status is that it is under review. Did ATF pursue any WH 1928 C&R transfers, if there were any, during this tiny widow of misunderstanding. Did they pursue the Atkins accelerators that were sold in between the time ATF back peddled on their official Okey Dokey?

Is ATF currently thinking all inclusive C&R status for any type TSMG made after 1944?

  • 0

#277 inertord

inertord

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 378 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NE Ohio

Posted 04 March 2007 - 10:34 PM

Arthur,

Reference the Atkins Accelerators, The BATF has determined a spring in the unit to be the restricted part and has set up a compliance plan requiring all owners to surrender their spring(s) to them. The whole ugly chain of events can be followed here: http://www.firefaster.com/
  • 0

#278 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 March 2007 - 08:05 PM

This is fascinating. As observed in another thread, Keepshooting.com, the distributors for the replica Crosby L drum, has been advised by Saeilo Enterprises to cease and desist using the trademarked Thompson name as they claim to own it. Where was Saeilo when Trast supposedly sold the "Thompson" name to Kahr?
  • 0

#279 Bob

Bob

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 05 March 2007 - 08:16 PM

Saeilo is Kahr
  • 0

#280 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 March 2007 - 08:55 PM

But Trast was never sold the Thompson name from Numrich, who was never sold the Thompson name from Kilgore, who was never sold the Thompson name from Willis, who was never sold the Thompson name from Maguire.

Trast had on 7/25/84 applied for the "Thompson" trademark and that Auto-Ordnance Corporation at West Hurley was then granted that trademark registration on 9/17/85. So this new "Thompson" name only dates back to 1985, not 1917.

So why wasn't Saeilo as interested in historical truth when they bought out Trast's version of the Thompson?

They also do not seem to care that Doug Richardson freely uses both Thompson and AOC names and bullet logo on his receivers.

  • 0