Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Replica


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

#301 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 21 March 2007 - 01:25 PM

QUOTE (Lancer @ Sep 5 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.

I think this quote from DR earlier in this thread is what PhilOhio is refering to.
  • 0

#302 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 March 2007 - 04:17 PM

Lancer,

This seeming conflict in D.R.'s on the record opinion regarding Numrich and the purchase of crates from Willis is a point one should take up with D.R. But it is more likely D.R. was repeating what Helmer wrote in his TGTMTTR. As stated earlier in this thread, in D.R.'s "Thompson Submachine Gun Drum Magazines Type L & C 3rd Edition" he states unequivocally:

QUOTE
"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 not 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

#303 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 21 March 2007 - 04:38 PM

Arthur
I'm just a very interested bystander here and don't feel qualified to argue any of these points with you, TD, Dalbert or alot of the other experts here. I threw the DR quote in because Doug wrote it and it seemed back up TD's point of view to a degree. It shouldn't be hard for someone here who knows Doug personally to see if he stands by the quote or not.
  • 0

#304 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 March 2007 - 05:22 PM

Lancer,

If his views submitted on this board are any indication of his position on this issue, which post date the quote from his Technical Journal, he emphatically does not subscribe to that quote. Not to mention his quote from his 1996 Drum Magazines also is at odds with the Technical Journal quote. What was the publication year of the Tech Journal in which you found that quote?

  • 0

#305 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 21 March 2007 - 05:34 PM

Arthur
I don't see a publication date listed but it does say "second edition" on the cover. The article in question has a copyright date of 1999
  • 0

#306 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 March 2007 - 08:13 PM

Phil,
As you know, any member that starts reading this thread from page 1 will find several quotes and statements by George Numrich over the years posted by different board members stating he owned the Thompson. What you will not find is any evidence to refute what George has consistently stated from 1951. George published and stated his ownership rights many times over the years. And he certainly acted like an owner in possession. No one has ever been able to find one thing that contradicts his claim of ownership. Proving a negative? Not at all. The presumption is George Numrich purchased it all - because he did.

  • 0

#307 full auto 45

full auto 45

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 4621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking over your shoulder right now
  • Interests:Thompson's, Any Machinegun, Harley's and scuba diving. In that order.

Posted 21 March 2007 - 08:45 PM

user posted image
  • 0

#308 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 March 2007 - 09:16 PM

TD,

Self proclamations of ownership by Numrich from 1951 to his demise would constitute bupkiss in a court of law. Numrich's actions also speak volumes about his own ambiguity about using the names Thompsn, AOC, and bullet logo, along with his West Hurley Mamaroneck New York address on any newly manufactured receiver.

  • 0

#309 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mena, Arkansas, USA
  • Interests:Plenty

Posted 21 March 2007 - 10:29 PM

Lets take a breather.....




















































user posted image






See, ain't that better..... biggrin.gif
  • 0

#310 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 March 2007 - 10:34 PM

Arthur,
No offense (and I do mean it), but I will take George Numrich's statements of ownership over your hyperbole anyday. After all, he did end up with all the remains of General Thompson's dream...and managed to keep it alive for many years. And I don't remember George ever having to go to court to prove ownership - for something he owned for many years. Another presumption, not bupkiss.


  • 0

#311 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 March 2007 - 10:36 PM

Jr.,
I surrender!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 0

#312 1921A

1921A

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 543 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 March 2007 - 10:27 AM

I confess I have not read this entire thread so maybe I missed something but, this really seems like a simple thing to resolve for those who have the time and interest to research it.

Issues involving corporations, trademarks etc. are documented somewhere. In Florida we have the "Dept of Corporations" that keeps records of this type. Surely, legal records still exist in New York (AOC and WH AOC), Connecticut and Texas, (Maguire Industries and Container Corporation of America), Ohio, (Kilgore) and so on. The progression of ownership and what all that included was documented at the time. You don't just buy and sell corporations and assets without legal documentation and contracts.

George Numrichs' business was buying defunct gun companies and their remaining assets, usually inventory and spare parts. He was, as the company name implied, in the "gun parts" business. As such, it is quite conceivable that he purchased only the inventory of AOC. By then the TSMG was a lame duck and the remaining spare parts were the only real asset. This scenario fits his business plan and seems likely he didn't need or care about the rights to the corporate name/trademark. It looks like nobody did until Trast started pushing the production of the semi-auto replica.

Anyway, the argument for or against who owned what will continue until someone takes the time to dig through the maze of old records left by each of these companies. The current fuss from Kahr may actually produce the answer, though I think they are all bluff at this point.

This might be good job for Gordon. He likes to do the research and seems to have the contacts.
  • 0

#313 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 March 2007 - 11:29 AM

TD,

I suppose we could take Valerie Plame's word that she was "covert" even though the legal definition says otherwise. I suppose Howark K. Stern's name on a birth certificate proves he is the father of Dannielyn, even though the paternity test will prove otherwise.

Since Numrich's business never garnered such media attention as the above soap operas, his contention that he bought more than crated assets from Willis was never scrutinized, until recently.

But as 1921A reminds us, Numrich was known for buying defunct companies whose only intrinsic value were the left over crated assets.

Defunct: "No longer in effect, or use, not operating or functioning, no longer in existence, dead, extinct."

By the definition of "defunct," the word associated with every business Numrich ever purchased, Maguire's AOC became "extinct" in 1944. Surely 'dead" means end of the story, broken chain, or in the immortal words of Daffy Duck, "That's all folks!"

The fact that from 1951 Numrich sold parts for Thompson's was indeed invaluable to Thompson owners. However, it just didn't have anything to do with the AOC Thompson business that pulled a sheet over itself in 1944.

To claim otherwise would be to deny what Numrich was proud to be famous for, buying "defunct" companies.

  • 0

#314 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 March 2007 - 04:01 PM

Phil,
You obviously did not go to the beginning of this thread and begin reading. Clearly stated on page one is the following:
QUOTE
I suggest anyone with additional interest see an article by Ray Bearse, titled, The Thompson Submachine Gun, Weapon of War and Peace, published in the 1967 edition of Gun Digest. At the end of the story, George Numrich in a discussion concerning the development of a new semi-auto Thompson stated, to wit: “Numrich states that, since his company holds the patents, trademarks, etc. on the Thompson SMG, it is doubtful if any other company could produce a Thompson of any kind.”

There are other statements to this effect offered by other board members in this and other threads on this subject. No one ever addresses George Numrich's statements of ownership and the many years he ran the Thompson business. Everybody wants to see the paperwork, the details of the deal when the purchase took place in 1951. Numrich Arms Company was a sole proprietorship when the sale occurred. It later evolved into what I believe was a privately owned corporation. There is no duty to publish any business dealings - you’re private. When you or others can disprove the above statement with something other than hyperbole, then we may have something to talk about. Every piece of new evidence published on this topic supports George Numrich's claim that he owned the Thompson. Find something tangible to support your claims; I got an owner in possession for over 30 years that no one ever challenged who was later able to sell the Thompson to another party. Everything you and Arthur comment about (on this topic) rings hollow.

  • 0

#315 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 March 2007 - 05:14 PM

TD,

If Numrich believed he owned " the patents, trademarks, etc," in 1967, then why did Trast, Numrich's partner, apply for the "Thompson" trademark in July of 1984?

Numrch also sates that it is "doubtful" that another company could "produce" a Thompson. Yet his own NAC business was not, and had not, produced any TSMG right up to the time of this interview.

Of course if you know of an one example of an all Numrich TSMG please share.

In Thomas B. Nelson's 1963 "The WORLD's Submachine Guns" there is no mention. and no photo. of the Numrich made TSMG. There is also no photo of the Numrich made TSMG in the Bearse 1967 Gun Digest article. A puff piece article on Numrich and no photo of his hardware? What's up with that?

As far as me and Phil being the only heretics regarding your, and Dave's, contention that Numrich purchased all rights to everything Thompson in 1951, need I remind you that these folks also find fault in your opinion:

Gordon Herigstad
Roger Cox
Doug Richardson
R.J Wilson
and even William Helmer ,who could not confirm Numrich's claims.

  • 0

#316 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 March 2007 - 06:51 PM

Arthur,
I suspect the reason Trast renewed the Thompson Trademark is because George Numrich let the trademark protection expire. That is not a problem as long as no one uses the trademark during the unprotected time period. If the trademark is used, it could then become public domain and not eligible for renewed trademark protection. I bet Brian at Keepshooting.com will know the history of the Thompson Trademark by the time Kahr's dispute with his company is finished.

Whether or not George Numrich manufactured Thompson's from scratch is not important to the question of succession. It is certainly an issue worthy of discussion but the two issues have no bearing on each other.

Is calling George Numrich's statements of ownership a "puff piece" your only evidence to the contrary? Come on Arthur, post something relevant on this subject. Again, I have an owner in possession for over 30 years that no one ever challenged who was later able to sell the Thompson to another party. It is going to take a little more than words to overcome George Numrich's claim of ownership.

  • 0

#317 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4386 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 22 March 2007 - 07:50 PM

Arthur,

It would be refreshing to see your contribution of any original research.

Knowing that you prefer reliance upon previous research of select Thompson authors, I'm going to suggest that if you (or others) would dig deeper into one of the works you mentioned in your post at 5:14pm today, a seed of doubt regarding your opinion would develop. I am being deliberately vague here, because you need to seek this on your own, and I can't divulge more than I already have at this time.

There is a lot of Thompson history still out there....

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

  • 0

#318 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 March 2007 - 08:08 PM

Dave,

I know you have a vested interest in Numrich/Trast/Kahr because you believe their is collectible and monetary value in their catalogs and advertisements. But so far, the Numrich catalogs that you have posted do not show any evidence of Numrich manufacturing any TSMG, but that he had no compunction about using Maguire AOC photos in his brochures to delude those at the time, and now you and TD, that he did anything other than own a parts repository.

I keep hearing about all this Thompson history to be uncovered post 1944 that tells us anything we do not already know, yet nothing ever seems to materialize

  • 0

#319 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 March 2007 - 08:51 PM

Arthur,
I disagree. Dave recently posted some never seen before pictures from an early Numrich catalog and all you do is puff. It doesn't matter that you don't like what the pictures represent, do something other than puff about it if you plan to rebut the Thompson succession and strong presumption George Numrich manufactured some Thompson's from scratch. Dave is out looking for more evidence to support what happened with the Thompson in the 1950's and 1960's; all you are doing is puffing. Post something we have not seen before. You dislike what was stated in the Ray Bearse article but you don't have any substantive reply.

  • 0

#320 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 March 2007 - 09:31 PM

TD,
We are all grateful for Dave's sharing of these mid 1940's photos from Numrich's 1950's and 1960' catalogs. Of course those photos from Numrich's catalog were seen before by recipients of the catalog. They are not undiscovered photos, but perhaps photos not seen recently. But Dave has himself proffered that these photos are more than interesting snapshots of a bygone era, he posts them as evidence of Numrich manufacturing. That is a misinterpretation of the facts.

Bearse is repeating what Numrich told him. Nobody disputes that Numrich believed he was the "exclusive" inheritor all things Thompson. But that is not the question anymore. The question is outside of Numrich, there is no impartial source or document substantiating his claims.

Every time a fact is demonstrated, such as his lack of manufacturing any Thompson from scratch, a point I believe I initiated (how's that for "new" point of view on the subject?), you poo poo it because it flies in the face of your contention.

You now back off from stating there exists a Numrich manufactured TSMG to the less strident "strong presumption" possibility there exists "some" TSMG.

I feel confident between you and Dave that a Numrich TSMG will be uncovered, even if you guys have to dummy one up yourselves.

  • 0