Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Replica


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

#461 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2952 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2008 - 09:00 PM

Arthur,
You really need to bone up on the history of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation. Briefly, this was the corporation founded in 1916 by General Thompson, acquired by Russell Maguire (majority shareholder) in 1939, changed names to Maguire Industries in 1944 and changed names again in 1961 to Components Corporation of America. It is still going strong today. Yes, the same corporation. A Maguire is still the majority shareholder. Changing corporate names is very easy...and the trail is very easy to follow.

And no, Components Corporation of America does not have or own any interest in the Thompson Submachine Gun or the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation. The product was sold off many years ago to Kilgore Manufacturing Company and the name was abandoned when the corporate name changed (to Maguire Industries).

Maybe this explains all your inaccurate posts on this thread. You really believed these were all separate and different companies....wow.




  • 0

#462 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 September 2008 - 11:29 PM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 12 2008, 10:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Arthur,
You really need to bone up on the history of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation. Briefly, this was the corporation founded in 1916 by General Thompson, acquired by Russell Maguire (majority shareholder) in 1939, changed names to Maguire Industries in 1944 and changed names again in 1961 to Components Corporation of America. It is still going strong today. Yes, the same corporation. A Maguire is still the majority shareholder. Changing corporate names is very easy...and the trail is very easy to follow.

And no, Components Corporation of America does not have or own any interest in the Thompson Submachine Gun or the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation. The product was sold off many years ago to Kilgore Manufacturing Company and the name was abandoned when the corporate name changed (to Maguire Industries).

Maybe this explains all your inaccurate posts on this thread. You really believed these were all separate and different companies....wow.


NYS Department of State
Division of Corporations
Entity Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected Entity Name: AUTO ORDNANCE CORPORATION

Selected Entity Status Information Current Entity Name: COMPONENTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
Initial DOS Filing Date: AUGUST 25, 1916
County: QUEENS
Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
Entity Type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
Current Entity Status: INACTIVE

Are you going to continue to duck the request to name your legal sources?
  • 0

#463 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2952 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2008 - 05:18 AM

Arthur,
Your research notwithstanding, General Thompson's company is alive and well:

Components Corporation of America
2660 KPMG Building
717 N. Harwood St.
Dallas, TX 75201-6510

There was another corporate re-organization in 1981, but I am not going to confuse you any further.

The attorney's name is listed; you need to read the story again.

  • 0

#464 ClevelandShooter

ClevelandShooter

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 179 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cleveland Ohio
  • Interests:Class 3,Beer, VietNam era small arms, Beer, Harley-Davidson's, Beer, and as Car and driver once said &quot;Torque and Recoil&quot;

Posted 13 September 2008 - 10:05 AM

"This isn't my opinion. This is fact. Or really, I should say an absence of fact. I'm only speak as would a juror, having listened to sworn testimony and maybe studied material evidence presented in a courtroom. If I see or hear no evidence that it happened, I cannot conclude that it did happen. Reading 50 articles, the summary of 50 persons' opinions, does not change the existence, or non-existence, of the evidence upon which all those opinions may be based." Quote Phil,


QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Sep 11 2008, 12:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (blueline541 @ Sep 11 2008, 02:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...Why not present the evidence to uninterested parties who couldn't care less about the famous gun and listen to what they have to say on the subject?...

Exactly. Or submit it to a couple lawyers who specialize in this area of business law. Or submit it to a couple retired judges. ...or historians with respected credentials. ...or just a few people with reasonably high IQs.

I have no doubt whatsoever what the result would be. It's only common sense.


Hi Phil, well I see that you have moved from a jury to an elitist group of persons. I guess that the "common man's " verdict no longer appeals to you.
Your colors always surface. You my friend are an elitist, this by no means is derogatory, just my statement. The "reasonably high IQ's "does set your tone.

My .02
Bill out

  • 0

#465 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 13 September 2008 - 10:24 AM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 12 2008, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...Phil,
Would you kindly list all this intellectual property you continually harp about?

That question is a diversionary effort with no basis in fact. In each and every post where I have used the term I have defined it to include the Thompson name, bullet logo, and Auto Ordnance Corporation business name. And I have gone into detail expanding upon this, to say that there is no such thing as your "the Thompson" without referring to these. Whether it had been informally abandoned or just not legally transferred to later entities, they used it without us seeing documentary evidence that this was kosher. Intellectual property is still intellectual property, even if it is lost or abandoned and sitting out in the high grass somewhere. It doesn't look like this property was legally transferred, in several cases for sure, and probably in most cases. So the chain was clearly broken...probably a bunch of times. But even this is unclear, because there is just no evidence of anything happening, except for the transfer of miscellaneous hard property at different times. Even this record is purely anecdotal. There is virtually nothing in your article that is more than anecdote. I'm not saying that in a critical way, but just as an accurate description of a very good, and very interesting article.

Kilgore ended up with the machinery, tooling, drawings, gages, blueprints, dies, spare parts, records, Blish pistol, the Persuader, most of the other Thompson prototypes, many of the BSA prototypes and everything else related to the Thompson Submachine Gun.

...but none of the intellectual property rights, as far as you, I, or all the people who have studied this question in minute detail have been able to determine. This is not some foggy issue. It is open and shut. Personally, my theory might be that the buyers of this package, at the several times it changed hands, just didn't think it had enough business value to go to the trouble and expense of transferring and re-registering the intellectual rights through attorneys and government agencies, etc. But that, again, is only my vague theory...NOT FACT. I.e., I won't ever write an article for SAR adamantly stating that this happened this way, and now all questions can be "laid to rest", because I have no such facts.

If you notice, Kilgore used the Thompson signature bullet logo trademark on their first piece of sales literature. What exactly did Kilgore not obtain in the sale that negates the complete transfer of this corporate product from one company to another?

What they did not obtain, as far as any of us have been able to document and prove, was the right to do what you describe above. It is possible that they obtained somebody's oral understanding not to interfere, but we don't know even that. Which gets back to what I've been saying, that you have not produced one piece of evidence to support your claim. My burden of proof is not to answer "What did they not obtain?". It is your burden to prove what they did obtain. You have not.

And who with standing has ever raised a legal question about the sale?

I give up, who? If nobody, then why not? That one is easy. Nobody had the financial incentive to bother with an issue which is only of interest to a bunch of collectors. But I guess you reserve for yourself the matter of defining who has "standing" to raise the question. If you don't agree with their logic or position on this, they have no "standing". rolleyes.gif I believe we can guess who you think has no "standing". wink.gif My question would be, who has standing to claim that the world must accept, just on faith, the "unbroken succession" theory without one shred of evidence to support that?

If you recall during the TATA presentation, I told of my inquiry with the current corporate officials of General Thompsonís company. The corporation did not retain any interest related to the Thompson. None. The Maguire family claims no ownership interest in the Thompson. None. The Thompson Submachine Gun was a product they owned long ago; it was sold off in its entirety when the business plan of the corporation changed.

There's something else we need to address here, your circular logic. Throughout this thread, when people raise doubts, you refer them to your own article in SAR and your own lecture at the TATA meeting as implied evidence to prove your "unbroken succession" theory. It doesn't work that way. I attended the lecture and have read the article repeatedly. Both were consistent with what you say now, but neither added any new evidence, or cited old evidence, to support the claim. And when I raised this question of a lack of documentary evidence at the lecture, it was brushed off with a response that things were done in a more casual way then, and there was no need for such formalistic transfers. Baloney. We all know better.

You say that neither General Thompson's company nor the Maguire family retained interest in the Thompson rights. That does not tell us whether they abandoned all or some of them, or sold them to a new REGISTERED owner. In the absence of such evidence, your "unbroken succession" theory is disproven by default.


While some may not like Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms because of the quality of workmanship, their place in history with the Thompson gun is undeniable.


TD, now there's a statement with which I cannot disagree. If you stick to supportable and self evident facts like that one, nobody will dispute you and your research will be respected in Thompson Land; I know I will. We can talk about the PROGRESSION of the Thompson design through various manufactures and dabblers. We can talk about the EVOLUTION of the Thompson and its rich history. We can talk about how various people tried to appropriate the intellectual property rights without buying them, or certainly without us seeing proof that they did. We know virtually for sure that George Numrich usurped the AOC name and freshly registered it as his own. But the first rule of publishing the result of any historical research is to be sure your facts are facts, and that you can footnote them with reference to documentation which will solidly back you up. You have not done that. And since this key unbroken succession "fact" is not a fact, you have painted yourself into an embarrassing corner, one which I tactfully tried to steer you out of early in this debate. When an article is published, it's too late...save for a retraction. Maybe a short followup article, "clarification of some of the terminology used earlier", would help, with a description of what was "intended" to be said, for the sake of historical accuracy. Otherwise, the article stands as a sitting duck target for future writers on the subject. And considering the ever growing interest in the Thompson, you can be sure that there will be some. The best way for a new writer to make his name is to disprove something that has been inaccurately claimed before. Consider the possibility of some new young hot shot taking your article apart with a fine tooth comb and then doing a new round of intensive research over the same ground you covered. It happens all the time. He might well be less charitable than Arthur or me. When you write for publication, you are jumping into a swimming pool filled with sharks. Here, we're all basically friends, I hope, so what you are seeing now is nothing.

I really would like to see us all end up on the same page on this issue, eventually. It can be done, but not without abandoning the "unbroken succession" theory unless or until there is hard, documentary evidence to support it. I'm enjoying this candid and open discussion as much as ever. Sure, it is not going to interest everybody. They don't need to read the thread. And as I keep saying, eventually somebody here might stumble across new information and the whole picture would change. Nothing wrong with that. That is just how you get at truth. It's always hiding out there someplace. Finding it used to be my full time business, which keeps any job from becoming boring.


  • 0

#466 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2008 - 01:20 PM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 13 2008, 06:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Arthur,
Your research notwithstanding, General Thompson's company is alive and well:

Components Corporation of America
2660 KPMG Building
717 N. Harwood St.
Dallas, TX 75201-6510


But General Thompson's AOC is not Kahr's AOC. Ask David for confirmation on this. Not to mention, Roger Cox (whom WJH calls "an historian and original indefatigable researcher) back in 1982, stated on page 3 in his highly collectible book, "the ORIGINAL Auto Ordnance Corporation is still a valid New York chartered corporation." He also mentioned the CCOA in Dallas ,TX.

Now, Cox goes on to say on page 25:

"Numrich Arms are marked 'AUTO-ORDNANCE CORPORATION WEST HURLEY, NEW YORK' although the ORIGINAL AUTO ORDNANCE CORPORATION still exists and is NOT connected with Numrich Arms."

This means not connected with Kahr as well.

Now, either by your own claim that AOC and Maguire Industries are one and the same, or the accepted version, that the AOC of pre 1945 and the current AOC are completely different, Maguire would either have had to sell Kilgore Maguire Industries, or AOC, or both in order for Kilgore to legally obtain AOC. Maguire did not do any such thing.

You say, and write, that you have conclusive proof that Cox (as well as Herigstad, Richardson, R. L. Sutherland, R. L. Wilson, Thomas B. Nelson) was/is wrong about this very point. Since you challenged Cox's integrity, you had better be able to back it up with documentation, rather than just referring people to attend your lectures, and read your non footnoted SAR articles.

You said:

"When you do the research, obtain the facts and write the story, you get to make a first hand determination as to what happened."
TD

You also, as Phil has noted, are required to produce these "facts" that will substantiate your conclusions. Could you explain how your methods of research are more exacting than Cox, and that your "first hand determination" is more authoritative than Cox?

Perhaps you should have road tested your hypothesis here before going to print. Then you would have had all your ducks in a row before you, as Phil said, "... painted yourself into an embarrassing corner."

  • 0

#467 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3637 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 13 September 2008 - 02:11 PM

i think now we have about 50 people in the world that care.and a the few that posted on this.

look up that old ww2 propoganda picture with the "Great Dane" it says watch yourself pal!
be CAREFUL what you say or write.

kinda cute.

and the story continues.i want to know who made the first KULACHKY?
polish, german or czech.

have fun
Ron
  • 0

#468 Bridgeport28A1

Bridgeport28A1

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 13 September 2008 - 05:42 PM

QUOTE (colt21a @ Sep 13 2008, 02:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
i think now we have about 50 people in the world that care.and a the few that posted on this.

look up that old ww2 propoganda picture with the "Great Dane" it says watch yourself pal!
be CAREFUL what you say or write.

kinda cute.

and the story continues.i want to know who made the first KULACHKY?
polish, german or czech.

have fun
Ron


You can count me in the 50 people in the world that care as estimated by respected Ron.

Ross



  • 0

#469 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3637 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 13 September 2008 - 05:45 PM

Ross i am going by membership number's.and first responder's.......you know them small knit groups.nothing like the "Bund" in the 40's.

well off to my bakery quest...

Ron
  • 0

#470 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2952 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2008 - 08:22 PM

Phil,
This is too easy. You agree everything Thompson was sold by Maguire Industries to Kilgore Manufacturing except the intellectual property. And your definition of intellectual property is the "Thompson name, bullet logo, and Auto Ordnance Corporation business name." The Thompson name and bullet logo are one in the same. Simply stated (the story contains a lot more detail), when the President of Kilgore tells of purchasing the Thompson from Maguire Industries, I call this documentation. When the Executive Vice-President and Chief Counsel of Maguire Industries tells that everything related to the Thompson was sold to Kilgore Manufacturing in 1949, I call this documentation. When a well-established company like Kilgore Manufacturing uses the Thompson name and bullet logo in a sales brochure with an obvious plan to manufacture and market the Thompson, I call this documentation. When a subsequent owner of the Thompson (George Numrich) claims to have purchased all the assets related to the Thompson and subsequently uses the name and bullet logo for many years, I call this documentation. When I couple all of this with a government investigation that substantiates everyone's version of the events that happened in the 1949 to 1951 time frame regarding the sale and purchase of the Thompson, I call this documentation. I also call it documentation when officials of the corporation that at one time owned the Thompson, tell me this product was sold off many years ago and nothing related to the Thompson is owned by the corporation or the family that has controlling interest in the corporation.

Please show me one piece of documentation that counters the statements and actions of the above people. It all happened - just like they said and as I reported. You saw the results first hand when you visited Numrich Arms in the 1960's.

As to the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name, I have never claimed Kilgore, Willis or Numrich purchased this name. The name Auto-Ordnance Corporation was simply abandoned when the Auto-Ordnance Corporation changed names to Maguire Industries in 1944.

Arthur,
At first I thought you were just using your usual smoke and mirrors when things don't go your way in speaking about the history of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation. I now realize you really don't understand what you are taking about. Your post does not deserve a response. I suggest you go back and re-read some of my posts before you post on a topic you know very little about. I stand by my story and all the documentation that goes with it. While you may not like Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms because of the quality of workmanship, their place in history with the Thompson gun is undeniable.

  • 0

#471 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 13 September 2008 - 10:27 PM


  • 0

#472 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2008 - 11:41 PM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 13 2008, 09:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Phil,
As to the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name, I have never claimed Kilgore, Willis or Numrich purchased this name. The name Auto-Ordnance Corporation was simply abandoned when the Auto-Ordnance Corporation changed names to Maguire Industries in 1944.


I am in good company for not knowing what I am talking about as the premier authors of TSMG history beleive what I do.

1) The original AOC name was not "abandoned" as Cox and the NYS Department of State Division of Corporations
Entity Information prove.

2) But even using your "abandoned" theory, Kahr is claiming that this "abandoned" company name can be used in connection with their business as if there actually is a bonafide relationship between the pre 1945 AOC and their company. Imagine if all businesses operated on your principal there would be chaos and anarchy.

3) When ever there is a hitch in your theory, you dismiss it with the cavalier attitude that "corporations are not important," "names changed," "follow the crates, not the corporations," "hearsay documentation is as good as paper documentation," "quality of workmanship is immaterial," "any dissenting views are merely smoke and mirrors," etc, etc. I have never encountered a true authority on a subject that used this kind of personality driven invective instead of just producing their paper trail evidence to quell their critics.

  • 0

#473 Merry Ploughboy

Merry Ploughboy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 898 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2008 - 01:55 PM

Arthur,

If, in your quote of the Cox book, you are implying that the text is infallible, please note that in at least two locations Mr. Cox incorrectly states that the M1 Thompsons were originally parkerized finished (pages 22 and 23). Mr. Cox also states on page 23 that the 28 Commercial Savages were parkerized which I also believe to be an incorrect statement.

With all due respect to the research Mr. Cox may have done regarding the history of the Thompson, there are clearly some mistakes in the book.

FWIW, I couldn't care less about the whole line of succession thing. I'm just saying, don't depend on every non-fiction book you read to be 100% accurate.

MHO, YMMV, etc.
  • 0

#474 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 14 September 2008 - 02:55 PM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 13 2008, 09:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Phil,
This is too easy.

You're absolutely right. It is too easy, but in exactly the opposite of the way you are thinking. We have finally gotten to the core of the misunderstanding, which is what it is. You are showing here that you have no concept of what acceptable documentation is, within any legal or business world context.

You agree everything Thompson was sold by Maguire Industries to Kilgore Manufacturing except the intellectual property.

No, I do not, and did not, so agree. I do not know or believe that necessarily "everything" was sold. Actually, I have no firm opinion on that. Looks like some of it was sold, but we have no inventories or receipts or anything else. There is not even any evidence of what you describe. There are only anecdotal accounts that somebody said something was sold...machinery, parts, blueprints. The only thing we can really pin down are the receivers George Numrich eventually registered. That is adequately documented, but only because he had to register them long after the fact.

And your definition of intellectual property is the "Thompson name, bullet logo, and Auto Ordnance Corporation business name." The Thompson name and bullet logo are one in the same.

No they are not one and the same. It is becoming more clear what you do not understand; any of it. I'm not defining "intellectual property". Lawyers and the business community did that long ago. I have mentioned several Thompson-related things which are included, but perhaps not all of them.

Simply stated (the story contains a lot more detail),...

I've read all this "detail", and the factual detail simply is not there.

...when the President of Kilgore tells of purchasing the Thompson from Maguire Industries, I call this documentation.

Here we have finally arrived at the core of the problem. You are making up your own self serving definition of "documention". By no means is it that. The term I would use would not be very polite, but accurately descriptive. What you "call it" has nothing to do with what the legal and business communities call it. These people will laugh in your face if you try to explain to them your theories on why they must accept your Thompson "unbroken succession" documentation as fact. They would say, what is this guy talking about?

When the Executive Vice-President and Chief Counsel of Maguire Industries tells that everything related to the Thompson was sold to Kilgore Manufacturing in 1949, I call this documentation.

And again it is not, and you will be laughed at.

When a well-established company like Kilgore Manufacturing uses the Thompson name and bullet logo in a sales brochure with an obvious plan to manufacture and market the Thompson, I call this documentation.

Ditto to my above comment. the laughter becomes louder.

When a subsequent owner of the Thompson (George Numrich) claims to have purchased all the assets related to the Thompson and subsequently uses the name and bullet logo for many years, I call this documentation.

The assembled lawyers, judges, and CEO listeners to your lecture begin clutching their abdomens and falling off their folding chairs, laughing hysterically.

When I couple all of this with a government investigation that substantiates everyone's version of the events that happened in the 1949 to 1951 time frame regarding the sale and purchase of the Thompson, I call this documentation.

Members of your hypothetical audience all stop laughing, because they did some research and know for a fact that there was NO SUCH INVESTIGATION, EVER, BY ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY, TO DETERMINE AND AUTHENTICATE DETAILS OF THE SALE AND SPECIFICS OF ANY THOMPSON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; ATF only investigated the improper transfer of a few taxable receivers, and maybe some finished guns, between two parties, human or corporate. They did not investigate or care about the parties' parentage. None of it had a thing to do with sale of the registerable business equities and intellectual properties. When you make some contrary claim, you have crossed a clear line into very bad territory; because what you imply above, that a government (ATF) investigation verified your "unbroken succession" claim at that juncture, is flatly and emphatically false.

I also call it documentation when officials of the corporation that at one time owned the Thompson, tell me this product was sold off many years ago and nothing related to the Thompson is owned by the corporation or the family that has controlling interest in the corporation.

You continue to "call it documentation" when no other person with even an elementary understanding of legalities in the business world would do so. This is not even a close one to call.

Please show me one piece of documentation that counters the statements and actions of the above people.

There is no need to present "documentation" to disprove vague baloney, groundless claims, and interesting anecdotes. The burden is upon you to show receipts, inventory documents, notarized records of transfers of hard items, sworn and witnessed records of the transfer of specific intellectual property filed in some court of record, government copyright records, law office records, even just copies of any pertinent documents from one of the companies involved in all this. You have not presented one whit of any of this, not even one page, nor have you pointed us to a respository where any of it might be retained. Why? Most likely because it is not there. But most assuredly I can see it is because you have not even looked for it. And that is because you have not the slightest understanding of what kind of research is necessary to write and publish a credible, unimpeachable, multi-page article of the type you have published in SAR without doing the homework. This is nothing more than an interesting flying-by-the-seat-of-the-pants opinion article. Sorry I have to finally put it that way, but nothing else has worked, in the course of earlier and more tactful efforts to suggest that you slow down, re-think this through, and see if you might need to reconsider all these unverified and maybe unverifiable claims. The deeper this hole gets, the harder it is going to be to climb out gracefully.

It all happened - just like they said and as I reported.

Maybe some of it happened and maybe not. But nothing that you have written has in any way substantiated the "unbroken succession" which you claim. And a bunch of fragments and anecdotes, all strung together to make an interesting story, does not magically become a set of brand new facts or "documentation", no matter what you decide to "call it". TD, you would not make it 24 hours as even an understudy apprentice junior intelligence officer, required to separate fact from fiction and baloney, and then write it up as unique single-source flash guidance for National Security Council people making life or death immediate action decisions. They don't care what you "call it". They only want to know the truth, which is either known or unknown, or perhaps estimated. You have no facts, only your own guesses and estimates, and far reaching assumptions, based on smoke. But you are adamant in labelling them as facts, which they are not. To be unable to differentiate is to be unqualified to do the kind of research writing you insist that we accept. You have the raw tools, but you need to learn how to use them, and how to be your own critic and editor before you publish.

You saw the results first hand when you visited Numrich Arms in the 1960's.

What I saw there had nothing to do with verifying anything you are claiming. I have described, several times, what I saw. I have never stated it to mean something other than a simple eye witness description. This is where you drift astray, when you see or hear a couple interesting things, and then gallop, not just jump, to conclusions not warranted by your sketchy facts.

As to the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name, I have never claimed Kilgore, Willis or Numrich purchased this name. The name Auto-Ordnance Corporation was simply abandoned when the Auto-Ordnance Corporation changed names to Maguire Industries in 1944.

That may be true. Probably it is. And so it was that many years later, George Numrich filed with a court in the State of New York an application for its exclusive use, and his request was granted. This is what "documentation" is. A board member found it. He directed us to where we could find what he found, because it is still there, forever. This was in the '60s, I believe. This one fact, this proven documentation, is all the evidence any court of law needs to show that there is positively no "unbroken succession", and that Kahr's advertising claims to be the original, or successor to the original manufacturer of "the Thompson", are demonstrably FALSE! They even use a picture of General Thompson in some of their advertising. The guy would probably want to hose those Moonies with one of his "trench brooms" if he could see how his picture is being abused.

Now, if they want to claim to be successors to the original manufacturer of the SEMI-AUTO Thompson, that would be demonstrably 100% true. But that is not at all what they presently claim.

And I guess I have to come to Arthur's defense again, regarding your comments below. He understands exactly what he is talking about. His post does deserve a response, but when your position is solidly founded on quicksand, it is understandably difficult to respond persuasively. TD, you can't keep referring people back to your own writings to try to prove points that have no basis in fact, are undocumented, and cannot be independently verified by any objective observor or researcher. You say you stand behind your story and "all the documentation that goes with it". None accompanied it, not even a footnote leading to such "ducumentation". I'd say you'd better stop standing behind your story, because at this moment the thing is in the process of falling on top of you. But the fact that there's no weight to it should make it much less lethal. None of this has a thing to do with our opinions about Kahr Arms products, or Numrich, or Willis, or the Maguire family, or the Thompson's "undeniable" place in history. It's only about unsubstantiated claims and nonexistent facts being misrepresented as historical certainty. Sadly, that's what it boils down to.

Again, I have to close with my sincere reassurance that this is not meant to be personal. It truly is not. You're a very nice guy. I just think you need to take a breather, think about all this, reconsider the conclusions you reached, and be a little bit slower and more self critical before writing another major article for publication in a magazine read by everybody in the Class III world. As a young, new guy in Washington long ago, some people rode very close herd on me, before I was allowed to write important things for important consumers in government. As I've said here before, I thank my lucky stars for that. They taught me to think clearly. It isn't something that comes naturally to most people, I have observed. You have obviously never been exposed to such a learning process. Had you been trained as a young journalist on a large newspaper, you might have gotten the same training. When you don't, it is a big disadvantage, if you plan to write seriously. Doing an article for SAR is writing seriously. Or at least all of us Thompson nuts think so. wink.gif And keep at it. You can write well. ...just needs a little critical tweeking.


Arthur,
At first I thought you were just using your usual smoke and mirrors when things don't go your way in speaking about the history of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation. I now realize you really don't understand what you are taking about. Your post does not deserve a response. I suggest you go back and re-read some of my posts before you post on a topic you know very little about. I stand by my story and all the documentation that goes with it. While you may not like Numrich Arms and Kahr Arms because of the quality of workmanship, their place in history with the Thompson gun is undeniable.


  • 0

#475 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2008 - 05:13 PM

QUOTE (Merry Ploughboy @ Sep 14 2008, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Arthur,

If, in your quote of the Cox book, you are implying that the text is infallible, please note that in at least two locations Mr. Cox incorrectly states that the M1 Thompsons were originally parkerized finished (pages 22 and 23). Mr. Cox also states on page 23 that the 28 Commercial Savages were parkerized which I also believe to be an incorrect statement.

With all due respect to the research Mr. Cox may have done regarding the history of the Thompson, there are clearly some mistakes in the book.

FWIW, I couldn't care less about the whole line of succession thing. I'm just saying, don't depend on every non-fiction book you read to be 100% accurate.

MHO, YMMV, etc.


Cox said all military TSMG's had "a gray parkerized finish." Of course the 'parkerizing' was not applied until these weapons went through a spa treatment at U.S. arsenals. He used the term "parkerized" to describe what was a Du-Lite Type II Black oxide finish. But he was still accurate that the finish was not blued. He also said that the barrels were blued, which is true. He also said that a military 1928A1 or M1/M1A1 blued TSMG would be a refinished one. True.
Cox did say the Savage Commercial TSMG's had "parkerized' or "dark' finishes. But while this is incorrect for a true "Commercial," collectors are still trying to nail down what actually legitimizes the name "Commercial" for a Savage TSMG.

Of course Cox, as well as Hill, Herigstad, Richardson, Iannamico etc, have errors in their publications. The only person claiming 'infallibility' is TD.

While Cox's range of Colt TSMG serial numbers that had different markings on them has since been proved inaccurate as well, where Cox is indeed 100% accurate is in his statements about the original AOC name. The NYS Department of State Division of Corporations listings substantiates what he said in 1982. Cox's book was also reviewed by Helmer before it went into publication, and Helmer didn't disabuse Cox about the AOC name retention, a subject Helmer had more than a passing acquaintance of, to say the least. His book "TGTMTTR" actually has footnotes, annotations, the lot.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 14 September 2008 - 05:47 PM.

  • 0

#476 Elbow

Elbow

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

Posted 14 September 2008 - 09:36 PM

I was going to read this again just to update myself, but this guy apparently read the WHOLE thing and look what happened to him.... unsure.gif

Attached File  pinhead_freaks.gif   787.25K   5 downloads

  • 0

#477 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2952 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2008 - 09:38 PM

Arthur,
I believe the time you spend trying to make the history of the Thompson fit in your dream world would be better spent learning the history of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation. (I do admit your confusion really did surprise me). You have a good start with your research from the New York Department of State Entity database. I have a note book with many more prints from this site, plus a few conversations with the employees from this office andÖ.well, I think it best that you do the research yourself on this one. Re-reading my posts will point you in the right direction. I only hope no one takes your version of what happened to General Thompsonís company throughout the years seriously. Here is a little something to get you started on the first name change:


Phil,
I knew you would finally get around to saying something that would allow me to understand why you continually post about my story without adding any new information. You expect my story to meet the standard of proof that is used at the Central Intelligence Agency. I have to apologize up front; I canít do that and expect to be taken as a serious author and historian. My arena deals with a much higher level of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal matters and a preponderance of the evidence in civil matters. Your playing Internet lawyer is not amusing, especially because you have nothing to add to the history of the Thompson. And youíre not very good at playing lawyer. It is over Phil. My story is self authenticating, stating all sources of information. It is the most current information on this subject. Actually, I believe it is the only information on this subject with documentation and facts. You bought the magazine; your opinion is noted. Now please go out and spend some of this spare time you seem to have an abundance of and find one fact to add to the succession of the Thompson. That would be something we could all take pride in.

  • 0

#478 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2008 - 12:20 AM

QUOTE (TD. @ Sep 14 2008, 10:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Arthur,
I believe the time you spend trying to make the history of the Thompson fit in your dream world would be better spent learning the history of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation. (I do admit your confusion really did surprise me). You have a good start with your research from the New York Department of State Entity database. I have a note book with many more prints from this site, plus a few conversations with the employees from this office andÖ.well, I think it best that you do the research yourself on this one. Re-reading my posts will point you in the right direction. I only hope no one takes your version of what happened to General Thompsonís company throughout the years seriously. Here is a little something to get you started on the first name change:


Phil,
I knew you would finally get around to saying something that would allow me to understand why you continually post about my story without adding any new information. You expect my story to meet the standard of proof that is used at the Central Intelligence Agency. I have to apologize up front; I canít do that and expect to be taken as a serious author and historian. My arena deals with a much higher level of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal matters and a preponderance of the evidence in civil matters. Your playing Internet lawyer is not amusing, especially because you have nothing to add to the history of the Thompson. And youíre not very good at playing lawyer. It is over Phil. My story is self authenticating, stating all sources of information. It is the most current information on this subject. Actually, I believe it is the only information on this subject with documentation and facts. You bought the magazine; your opinion is noted. Now please go out and spend some of this spare time you seem to have an abundance of and find one fact to add to the succession of the Thompson. That would be something we could all take pride in.



Good. You are showing tangible written support for your position. WJH also refers to The Annual Report To Stockholders by the AOC in March, 1944. He charatcerizes what occured as AOC being downgraded to the ORDNANCE DIVISION of this newly formed Maguire Industires. At this point, I contend that everything Maguire does with the TSMG is no longer connected to what we might call the traditonally historical period of the original AOC and the TSMG. But set that aside for the moment.

Now lets revue the common ground that Cox, Richardson, Herigstad and I share with you and Dave on this issue.

Neither Kilgore , Willis, Numrich, Trast or Kahr purchased the original AOC. OK

WJH reports that Kilgore approached Maguire Industries, not AOC, to buy the "Tommygun." OK

You say that the original AOC was "abandoned" when Maguire changed the name of his organization in 1944.

Now here it gets tricky because WJH is in conflict with all of us as to what occurred in March, 1944.

He says that Maguire was happy to "dispose of AOC" so jumped at the prospect of selling AOC to Kilgore. And that Kilgore, in turn, accepted Willis's offer to "take AOC of its hands at a cut rate price." By the time it gets to Numrich's turn at buying the "Tommygun," for presumably, an even more "cut rate" price, WJH describes it as the "crated assets of AOC" that was sold.

WJH, in characterizing the reported $385,000 figure Kilgore paid Maguire Industries as a "tidy," (i.e. substantial) sum
because WJH was under the impression that AOC, "a valueless paper corporation sealed in wooden boxes" as he called it, had to be part of the deal. WJH's subtle inference is that Kilgore got fleeced by the operator Maguire.

If we eliminate AOC from the deal, which we are in agreement was never part of the sale, we can assume that Kilgore assumed he was buying everything for that price, including the original AOC, patents, logos, trademarks, as well as the machinery, tools, blueprints, records, spare parts, and complete TSMG's and prototypes that he did actually purchase.

What sort of paper documentation do you have in the way of that notice that stipulates exactly what Kilgore purchased? When dealing with the type of businessman Maguire was, the neeed for documentation, not former employees recollections, is paramount to reconstruct what Kahr could have purchased from Trast in 1999, regardless of what they thought they were buying.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 15 September 2008 - 12:22 AM.

  • 0

#479 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2952 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2008 - 06:11 AM

Arthur,

We donít have to assume Kilgore Manufacturing purchased everything you listed and more; it has been documented in writing by the buyer and seller. Simply stated (the story contains a lot more detail), when the President of Kilgore tells of purchasing the Thompson from Maguire Industries, I call this documentation. When the Executive Vice-President and Chief Counsel of Maguire Industries tells that everything related to the Thompson was sold to Kilgore Manufacturing in 1949, I call this documentation. When a well-established company like Kilgore Manufacturing uses the Thompson name and bullet logo in a sales brochure with an obvious plan to manufacture and market the Thompson, I call this documentation. When a subsequent owner of the Thompson (George Numrich) claims to have purchased all the assets related to the Thompson and subsequently uses the name and bullet logo for many years, I call this documentation. When I couple all of this with a government investigation that substantiates everyone's version of the events that happened in the 1949 to 1951 time frame regarding the sale and purchase of the Thompson, I call this documentation. I also call it documentation when officials of the corporation that at one time owned the Thompson, tell me this product was sold off many years ago and nothing related to the Thompson is owned by the corporation or the family that has controlling interest in the corporation.

If you want to know exactly what Kahr Arms purchased from Ira Trast, why donít you research this area and let us know. My story ended with the 1951 sale. While I know generally how the Thompson evolved from 1951 until 1999, I would like to hear more on this subject. It would also better help you understand the history of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation in New York, New York and the Auto-Ordnance Corporation in West Hurley, New York.

  • 0

#480 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2305 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2008 - 12:25 PM

This may apply to both sides of the argument here - I'm not sure.
When somebody says they did something, ok fine, but did they actually
DO it? We know, for example that Numrich used the bullet logo, because
we see it on guns.
Trast, told his lawyers to tell me that his "rights" to the Thompson
name and logo, which he received the trademark for in 1984, extended
back to 1917. He was telling his lawyers to repeat the
shameless BS/hype that was part of his sales pitch. His "rights" go back
to 1984 when he received the trademark. I don't think it would be
reasonable to say that Trasts statement was "documentation" that
West Hurley AO and the original Bridegport and New York AO were one
and the same.
From the Kahr website: (try not to laugh)

"Quality is never compromised in a Thompson. Every Thompson submachine
gun is made in accordance with the strictest international manufacturing
standards, and is individually tested at the factory firing range. The
quality-conscious Auto-Ordnance staff is committed to assure your
confidence in purchasing a Thompson submachine gun."

I do not believe Kahr has ever made, or has the ability to make, or
the licenses to make, or even wants to make a true full auto
"submachine gun". It just sounds good to say this.
Its hype. Its salesmanship. Its BS. It would not be correct or reasonable
for some present or future researcher to assert that this is documentation
or proof that Kahr manufactured full auto Thompson submachine guns.
And yet, perhaps 30 years from now when the trail is cold someone will
be doing just that...

Bob

Edited by reconbob, 15 September 2008 - 01:51 PM.

  • 0