CptCurl Posted September 18, 2014 Report Share Posted September 18, 2014 Timkel, Thanks for your kind comment. My Farquharson is a .450/.400 3-1/4" Nitro Express. Curl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) Darryl, I agree with your point about the word "replica." That word is already used for blank-firing and display guns so it doesn't really fit this situation with the west hurleys. I don't agree with your comments about how "opinions are like xxxx, everyone has one." That's a dismissive statement, it doesn't apply to this thread. Same with the guys who keep insisting that I hate west hurleys. I already owned two of them. Paying thousands and thousands of dollars to buy something is a funny way of displaying hate. Here's a question for everybody: Suppose S&W makes a brand new production run of the original 1935 Model 27 revolvers, complete with an exact copy of the 1935 presentation case and registration letter. Say they made a small batch of 3,000 revolvers, priced out at $5,000, which obviously would be sold to gun collectors who like the 1935 gun. What would you call that new production of that gun? Copy? Replica? Original? Edited September 19, 2014 by buzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancer Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 Now were talking about Farquharson rifles (including numerous pics) and S&W Model 27 revolvers???? Both are app[es & oranges, really have little to do with Thompsons. I hate to see this great thread erode in an off topic direction. Just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) Not at all. When I was taking my engineering degree, I found that a tricky problem could be solved if I first thought about an extremely pure example, with all the confusing details stripped away. This whole thread is about whether or not a WH Thompson should properly be called or considered an "original Thompson." Well, suppose S&W reissued a perfect copy of the original 1935 registered model 27 revolver, which is currently an iconic gun collector item. What would you call that a copy or an original? Or what other name would you pick? A collector re-issue? If you cannot answer that question about the S&W, which is a simplified and pure example, then you cannot answer it about the WH Thompsons. Edited September 19, 2014 by buzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancer Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 BuzzI fail to see how posting numerous pics of Farquharson rifles adds to the discussion of TSMG's or comparing S&W, which has been in continuous operation & production for well over 100 yrs. to Auto Ordnance which has questionable lineage. Also not sure what your engineering degree (which you manage throw out there at every opportunity) has to do with anything either unless that is some kind of slam to the rest of us. IMHO, I think this thread should be locked because I have seen nothing posted since it was reopened that hasn't already been said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 (edited) Lancer, you must not know too many engineers if you think my level of obnoxiousness is noteworthy. No, it's not a slam to anyone else, it just happens to be something that shaped my thinking since I've devoted the last 31 years to it. I don't think the status of WHs depends on the legal lineage. I think it hinges on the intended market for the gun. A gun made specifically for collectors, because they adore an original gun, has a hard time ahead of it to get lumped in with the original guns it was made to copy. I've been waiting for someone to address that idea, looks like it's not going to happen? Edited September 19, 2014 by buzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancer Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 BuzzNo, don't know to many engineers but my best friend is a lawyer so I'm familiar with occasional obnoxiousness. LOL I got to wonder if you took the time & effort to read the 20 odd pages of post to this thread. Most of the debate revolved around Auto Ord's questionable linage. There is no questionable linage with S&W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 Lancer, The thread is 95% about WH's legal connection to the AO corp. It's interesting, some guys did some very impressive research on it. They're trying to use the legal continuity of the AO Corp. as pathway to calling WHs "original Thompsons" My point is that it hardly matters. The main body of collectors is never going to think of them as "original" anyway. They'll think of them the same way as they think of a special edition S&W revolver made specifically as a collector's item. No matter how you slice it, it's still a full auto Thompson worth close to $20K. And you can shoot it until you melt the barrel off of it without any worries. If the price wasn't so high I'd buy 10 of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancer Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 BuzzI'm not going to debate the status of WH's with you, I've already voiced my opinion on this thread. I think this thread went dormant because everyone had their say and came to realize that those who held strong opinions about the issue were not likely to change their opinion. There were excellent points made on both sides in the original postings. As I already mentioned, I've seen nothing posted since it was reopened that says anything that hasn't already been eloquently said. I think allowing the thread to morph into off topic discussions of Farquharson rifles and S&W Model 27 revolvers diminishes the greatest thread in board history. I think it should be locked. My .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim c 351 Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 I think it should be locked. My .02 Hey, wait a minute, wait a minute. Before we go and lock it I have a question. Are West Hurleys real Thompsons. Jim C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The1930sRust Posted September 19, 2014 Report Share Posted September 19, 2014 I bought my Thompson, West Hurley era, simply because it was half as much as a Savage. At the time, I don't really know if I knew or cared that it wasn't a War gun or a Colt. Those two Era guns were simply out of my price range. It was simply a Thompson. But I was OK with the Westie--even though at the time I had no idea what kind of work I was going to want to put into it (not necessarily need to put into it). Considering in the end I have dumped literally several thousand into it, it was still the only Thompson I could have ever afforded at the time. Now I have a Thompson that is one-of-a-kind. There is not another Thompson like it. It has been tweaked and polished and this and that. And it is a beautiful example of a Thompson. It looks as nice as a Colt did off the shelf in the Twenties. Which brings me to my point. I don't disagree that West Hurley has little if any lineage to John T. Thompson. But the Thompson is so much more than a gun. It is an American icon.Think Q-Tip or Band Aid. Or Jell-O. Slush Puppy or Icee. Bunch of manufacturers under various names, but it is what it is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etcetera. It is an enigma. When you say "Thompson", almost everyone knows what you mean or gets an immediate mental picture of the outline. Whether it was from a gangster flick from the Thirties, or from a Bugs Bunny cartoon, you know the outline. So, whether it was made by Colt, or Savage, or is an M1 that doesn't really even look like a Tommy Gun, or hobbled together from parts in the 50's, or built half-assed in the mid eighties, it's still a Thompson. Because a Thompson isn't defined by its maker but by what it is. It doesn't matter who made it, but that it is a Thompson. FWIW, Rust. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts