560 replies to this topic

[buzz]

I've seen a lot of engineers try to win an argument by enlisting a lot of supporters, it's the biggest waste of time. 

 

When did the truth about anything ever get decided by a vote?

 

 

If you want to persuade someone of something, present facts and logic. 

 

Everything else is just noise.  That gets old pretty fast.

 

 

The thing I like about you Thompson guys is you're serious minded and you go digging for facts.

 

Look at all the information that was dug up on Numrich and AO. 

 

That's what makes gun collecting interesting. 

[buzz]

So anyway,

 

Three batches of Thompsons were made.

 

We're trying to decide which ones should be called "original" and which ones should be called a "replica".

 

 

The word "replica" means a copy of an artwork or an exact copy of an original item, especially if the copy is a smaller scale.

 

Unusually the word is used for copies of stuff that is valued due to a connection with history.

 

Like for example, they made a "replica" of the grand staircase of the Titanic so people could see what it looked like first hand.

 

 

I don't think it would be correct to call something a "copy" or "replica" unless it was made specifically as a copy of an original object.

 

If they stopped making Monopoly sets for a few years because they have too many, and then they start production again when they run short, that wouldn't be a "copy".

 

On the other hand, if they produced a special edition that looked exactly like the original 1920s set, then it would be a copy or replica.

 

 

Colt Thompsons obviously were not a copy, since they were the original product.  So that one is easy.

 

 

Savages were not made for the purpose of being a copy of anything.  They were made to supply an army with weapons.   

 

AO tried to get Colt to resume production, but wouldn't do it, so AO got another major gunmaker to resume production with the original tooling and blueprints.

 

The Savages were not made to be a copy, they made no effort to copy anything.  The 1928A1, M1 and M1A1 are copies of what gun?

 

The word "copy" is never applied to wartime production of guns like Remington M1903s or Remington 1911s.  They weren't made to be a copy, so it doesn't occur to people to call them that.

 

 

West Hurleys, on the other hand, are replicas. 

 

They were specifically made with a single purpose: as a copy of a historical gun for people who appreciate the historical properties of the original guns.

 

That is literally the dictionary definition of a replica.

 

If you have someone paint an exact copy of a Picasso painting, it is literally a replica. 

 

Same thing if you have someone make an exact copy of an ancient clock or sundial.

 

 

How could any gun that was specifically manufactured as a copy of a iconic original gun also be called an original?

 

It makes no sense.

 

"Look at the exact copy I had made of a famous original Picasso painting, it's also an original."

[buzz]

The above isn't about anything other than trying to use the English language properly.

 

It has nothing to do with hating west hurleys.

 

The world of gun collectors is never going to give a toss for how this thread turns out.

 

The guys driving the price of WHs up to $20K couldn't care less, they just want a Thompson to shoot.

[dalbert]

When I think of original Thompsons, I think of Colt Thompsons.  I don't think of WWII AO Bridgeport and Savage Thompsons as original Thompsons.  I think of them as WWII era Thompsons.  I don't think of West Hurley Thompsons as "original" Thompsons.  They are another era of Thompsons in the succession of the Thompson product. 

 

The argument we have presented details succession of the Thompson product through the years. 

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[darrylta]

Buzz,

Your statement that the Savage guns were made without any adherence of any kind to the Colt guns is incorrect.

The early Savages were produced with using the quality of the Colt guns as the guideline, as per Savage"s written contract with AOC.

 

When WWII production started in earnest, the driver then shifted to quantity & cost saving while improving functionality when possible.

 

In my opinion all the Thompsons made under the banner of AOC are genuine AOC guns, even though quality wasn't consistent. over the years

 

Replicas in my opinion are non functioning guns as in display guns. The old adage that opinions

are like a_ _ holes, every one has one, applies to this discussion.

 

I guess the owner's of the WHurley guns are somewhat biased, I own (2) of them :-)

 

My 2 cents.

Darryl

Edited by darrylta, 17 September 2014 - 10:20 AM.

[CptCurl]

It boils down to semantics.  The guns are what they are.

 

You can make the same argument about Farquharson falling block single shot rifles.  The design arose with John Farquharson's patent of 1872.  George Gibbs bought an interest in the patent in 1875 and began production of the rifles, continuing until about 1910. 

 

 

The rifle above is not my rifle.  I borrowed the photo.

 

The patent expired in 1889.  Shortly thereafter, exact copies of the Farquharson action were being produced in Belgium by Auguste Francotte.  These were imported by a number of English gunmakers and finished into complete rifles.  A. Francotte was not a successor to John Farquharson or George Gibbs.  A. Francotte never had any rights in the Farquharson patent.

 

These later rifles are still called "Farquharson" rifles; and often "PD" (public domain) Farquharsons, as they were stamped "PD" on the face of the action behind the wood.  Here is one I own.  It was built by Charles Osborne and sold through Army & Navy CSL:

 

 

 

 

So is mine a Farquharson?  Is it a copy?  Is it a replica?

 

Here's how Wal Winfer, a foremost authority on British single shot rifles, wrote up my rifle in his work:

 

 

Winfer, British Single Shot Rifles, Vol. 6, page 127.

 

You can see he calls the public domain Farquharsons by the name, "Farquharson".  He doesn't call it a copy or a replica.  In this case he refers to it as an "Army & Navy Farquharson" although it was only retailed by Army & Navy.

 

So what is it?  Collectors hold the Gibbs Farquharsons at the top tier, and rightly so.  All the others are highly regarded but known to be of a different class from the Gibbs rifles.  Making an analogy to the TSMG, the Gibbs is the Colt, the others are Savage/AOC.  There is not third tier that would be analogous to the West Hurley.

 

Do I call a Colt a "Thompson"?  Yes.

Do I call a Savage or AOC a "Thompson"?  Yes.

Do I call a West Hurley a "Thompson"?  Yes.

 

So what the hell, boys, what the hell?  It's semantics.  We know the guns for what they are.

 

Curl

 

[Z3BigDaddy]

So a Priest, a Minister, and Arthur Fliegenheimer are in a bar.  The two men of the cloth get into a discussion about The Holy Trinity and overhearing the conversation Arthur pipes in, "You do realize that two thirds  of The Trinity are but replicas?".

[timkel]

It boils down to semantics.  The guns are what they are.
 
You can make the same argument about Farquharson falling block single shot rifles.  The design arose with John Farquharson's patent of 1872.  George Gibbs bought an interest in the patent in 1875 and began production of the rifles, continuing until about 1910. 
 

 
The rifle above is not my rifle.  I borrowed the photo.
 
The patent expired in 1889.  Shortly thereafter, exact copies of the Farquharson action were being produced in Belgium by Auguste Francotte.  These were imported by a number of English gunmakers and finished into complete rifles.  A. Francotte was not a successor to John Farquharson or George Gibbs.  A. Francotte never had any rights in the Farquharson patent.
 
These later rifles are still called "Farquharson" rifles; and often "PD" (public domain) Farquharsons, as they were stamped "PD" on the face of the action behind the wood.  Here is one I own.  It was built by Charles Osborne and sold through Army & Navy CSL:
 

 
 

 
So is mine a Farquharson?  Is it a copy?  Is it a replica?
 
Here's how Wal Winfer, a foremost authority on British single shot rifles, wrote up my rifle in his work:
 

 
Winfer, British Single Shot Rifles, Vol. 6, page 127.
 
You can see he calls the public domain Farquharsons by the name, "Farquharson".  He doesn't call it a copy or a replica.  In this case he refers to it as an "Army & Navy Farquharson" although it was only retailed by Army & Navy.
 
So what is it?  Collectors hold the Gibbs Farquharsons at the top tier, and rightly so.  All the others are highly regarded but known to be of a different class from the Gibbs rifles.  Making an analogy to the TSMG, the Gibbs is the Colt, the others are Savage/AOC.  There is not third tier that would be analogous to the West Hurley.
 
Do I call a Colt a "Thompson"?  Yes.
Do I call a Savage or AOC a "Thompson"?  Yes.
Do I call a West Hurley a "Thompson"?  Yes.
 
So what the hell, boys, what the hell?  It's semantics.  We know the guns for what they are.
 
Curl
 

That is a beautiful Farquharson rifle. The engraving, the wood all first class. What caliber?

[The1930sRust]

I kind of like the sound of West Hurley era Thompson. I shall adopt this. Rust

[mnshooter]

So a Priest, a Minister, and Arthur Fliegenheimer are in a bar.  The two men of the cloth get into a discussion about The Holy Trinity and overhearing the conversation Arthur pipes in, "You do realize that two thirds  of The Trinity are but replicas?".

 

Actually, upon seeing Arthur, the Priest and Minister both shouted at the same time:    

"At last!  He hath come down to visit us!".

 

 

 

 

 

("And he brought several new commandments  -regarding some type of gun")

Edited by mnshooter, 17 September 2014 - 08:13 PM.

[CptCurl]

Timkel,

 

Thanks for your kind comment.  My Farquharson is a .450/.400 3-1/4" Nitro Express. 

 

Curl

[buzz]

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 by buzz, 19 September 2014 - 09:12 AM.

[Lancer]

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

 

[buzz]

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 by buzz, 19 September 2014 - 11:42 AM.

[Lancer]

Buzz

I 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.

[buzz]

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 by buzz, 19 September 2014 - 12:19 PM.

[Lancer]

Buzz

No, 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.

[buzz]

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.

[Lancer]

Buzz

I'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

[jim c 351]

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