Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Great Forum


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#41 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 February 2006 - 01:19 AM

Ron,

J.J. is a one trick pony. His reliance on cut and paste characters substitutes for his inability to formulate original responses. Perhaps it stems from his boss denying him access to the Glen Gary leads.

  • 0

#42 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2950 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 February 2006 - 07:26 AM

Lethal – funny. Actually, one does not have to asked loaded questions when only seeking ones position. The answers are what are important.

We are making progress. So, you believe it was not the sale to Kilgore or the Kilgore link that caused the break. You believe it was the simple corporate re-organization of Auto-Ordnance Corporation to Maguire Industries, Inc. in 1944 that ended the chain of succession for the Thompson Submachine Gun started by General Thompson in 1916.

Based on the above, all your comments about what may have been the reasoning behind George Numrich’s business decisions after Numrich purchased what Maguire had sold is really immaterial so I find no need to comment.

I find it interesting that you believe a corporation cannot take a collective group of business assets and sell it off to another entity without breaking a chain of succession for the asset at hand.


  • 0

#43 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 13 February 2006 - 10:08 AM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Feb 13 2006, 01:19 AM)
Ron,

J.J. is a one trick pony. His reliance on cut and paste characters substitutes for his inability to formulate original responses. Perhaps it stems from his boss denying him access to the Glen Gary leads.

he has never proved to me he has done anything original. or for that matter been even in the bizz....so i leave it at that!,t.c.ron
  • 0

#44 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 13 February 2006 - 10:25 AM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Feb 13 2006, 12:30 AM)
When Maguire sold ONLY the crated assets to Kilgore in 1949, there was no "Auto Ordnance Corporation" name to transfer to Kilgore. The only possible name "Ordnance Division," would have been on a document if one ever existed.

Arty
I've seen you guys argue this issue many times in the last couple of years and I sympathize with JJ's frustration. To be quite honest I don't think it matters much to most of us if the currant day Auto Ordnance is a bastard child or not.

I do have a question about the statement above. What hard proof do you have that "Maguire sold ONLY the crated assets to Kilgore in 1949"? You cite the consensus of all the prominent authors on the subject but I see no hard evidence there.

Also in regard to the second part of your statement:
"there was no "Auto Ordnance Corporation" name to transfer to Kilgore. The only possible name "Ordnance Division," would have been on a document if one ever existed."
Even if there was no name , wouldn't Maguire have owned the rights to it and could sell the rights along with the other assets?

  • 0

#45 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 February 2006 - 11:39 AM

Lancer,

JJ.'s frustrations stem from personal issues, not board topics. But as to your question regarding proof, you have it backward. The only "proof" of what went with any of the three sales is the crated assets. There is no "proof" of any other transfer of Thompson name, Auto-Ordnance Corporation name (which the Maguire family still owned as late as 1982), or patents.

In fact, the only source that TD could refer to was Helmer's book to infer anything other than "crated assets" were transfered. When Helmer himself confirmed to G.I. Jive a few months ago that Numrich never produced any document stating anything to the contrary, we are left with "crated assets" as fact, and anything more than that as speculation.

Consider this fact, in 1951, Numrich Arms Corporation was a small and obscure business. If Numrich purchased anything other than crated assets, why wouldn't he start doing business as the much more famous and renowned "Auto-Ordnance Corporation?"

That would be like Joe's Plumbing buying Roto-Rooter and continue to do business under the name "Joe's Plumbing."




  • 0

#46 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 "Torque and Recoil"

Posted 13 February 2006 - 01:08 PM


Arty, All that I have surmised from your postings on the lineage of the Thompson name from you has been speculation. No fact, No documentation period. At this time Kahr is using the Thompson name with reference to the Great Col. Himself. Yet you do nothing about it. That being the case I consider it closed. Thanks for the great time ARTY.
BILL OUT
  • 0

#47 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 13 February 2006 - 01:22 PM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Feb 13 2006, 11:39 AM)
The only "proof" of what went with any of the three sales is the crated assets. There is no "proof" of any other transfer of Thompson name, Auto-Ordnance Corporation name (which the Maguire family still owned as late as 1982),  or patents. 

Arty
I don't see hard evidence on either side. The lack of hard evidence on one side or the other proves nothing.

How do you know that the Maguire family still owned the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name as late as 1982? Can you show hard evidence of this?
  • 0

#48 draver

draver

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 26 posts

Posted 13 February 2006 - 01:34 PM

As a new owner/user of this forum, I'd say someone is afraid the use of the Thompson name for West Hurley and/or Auto Ordinance guns. Perhaps he's worried that it may blur the distinction and affect the value of his cherished collection of "True" Thompsons? Woe is me !!

My opinion from reading the thread, not second guessing what happened decades ago in some business deal.

Please feel free to fire away, I can take it.
  • 0

#49 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 February 2006 - 01:45 PM

QUOTE (ClevelandShooter @ Feb 13 2006, 01:08 PM)
Arty, All that I have surmised from your postings on the lineage of the Thompson name from you has been speculation. No fact, No documentation period. At this time Kahr is using the Thompson name with reference to the Great Col. Himself. Yet you do nothing about it. That being the case I consider it closed. Thanks for the great time ARTY.
BILL OUT

I am not the one doing the surmising. It is those who imply any connection with the pre 1945 AOC with Trast's 1975 "Auto-Ordnance Corporation" who are doing the surmising.

An excellent example of surmising is that you surmised Colt and Savage/AO sold defective Thompson's to civilians, PD's and the military, and then corrected the problems post sale. The fact is that never happened. But because that is the way WH and Kahr operate, you "surmised" that is what went on in the 1920's, 30's and 40's.

If Helmer could not uncover any documentation after spending years researching the history of the Thompson smg, then it is you who are going on faith, not facts. The proof is in the lack of documentation, not the presence of documentation. If Trast had proof of his exclusive ownership of all things "Thompson," why did he not show them to Helmer when there was a cloud of suspicion that he in fact did not own the rights?

Kahr makes reference to General John T. Thompson and that is supposed to have any relevance to their semi-auto .45 rifles? Since the original Auto-Ordnance Corporation never made a semi-auto (the AOC 1927 Model was modified from the original 15,000 Colt TSMG's), there ain't a whole lot of association with John T.

  • 0

#50 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 February 2006 - 01:53 PM

QUOTE (Lancer @ Feb 13 2006, 01:22 PM)
QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Feb 13 2006, 11:39 AM)
The only "proof" of what went with any of the three sales is the crated assets. There is no "proof" of any other transfer of Thompson name, Auto-Ordnance Corporation name (which the Maguire family still owned as late as 1982),  or patents. 

Arty
I don't see hard evidence on either side. The lack of hard evidence on one side or the other proves nothing.

How do you know that the Maguire family still owned the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name as late as 1982? Can show hard evidence of this?

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

AOC stayed with the Maguire family's COMPONENTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA.


  • 0

#51 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 13 February 2006 - 02:35 PM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Feb 13 2006, 01:53 PM)
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

AOC stayed with the Maguire family's COMPONENTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA.

Well I went to the New York State, Department of State, Division of Corporations web site and did my own search(link below). The State of New York say that the Auto Ordnance Corporation that dates back to AUGUST 25, 1916 is now known as COMPONENTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA.

I have to say that this is the hardest evidence I've seen from either side of this debate. Arty you've got me about 99% convinced. I not sure it's much of a victory, like I said, it didn't matter much to me in the first place.




http://appsext5.dos....ty_search_entry
  • 0

#52 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 13 February 2006 - 10:53 PM

QUOTE (colt21a @ Feb 13 2006, 12:08 AM)
art we still have the child above you posting.it's not worth it...we took care of all of those type's in high school...or maybe it was kindergarten.t.c.ron
wink!

I'm the child? Who pulls the entire post when he gets called out? This is a great forum for discussing Thompons Mr. Kovar, so why don't you discuss them instead of using the board as an advertisement each time you decide to dump off your wares on board members...

Back on topic...



biggrin.gif

  • 0

#53 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2950 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 February 2006 - 11:09 PM

Wow - this has really grown. I am glad I now know where Arthur considers the break in the line of succession of the Thompson Submachine Gun. It is really hard to pin down someone when they post all over the place. Of course, I disagree with Arthur's ramblings on this matter. To illustrate one point of this sinking ship Arthur is riding in, let's look at the following quote:

QUOTE
If Trast had proof of his exclusive ownership of all things "Thompson," why did he not show them to Helmer when there was a cloud of suspicion that he in fact did not own the rights?


Can anyone remember a cloud of suspicion over the Thompson lineage from 1963 through 1969 when William Helmer was doing his research for “The Gun That Made the Twenties Roar.” I believe we have some older members on the board who were collecting Thompsons during that time period. Tell us, what was a Colt Thompson selling for in 1963? Or 1965? Or 1967? Or 1969? Was there a big time Thompson lineage conspiracy or debate underway? Arthur is very knowledgeable about many things Thompson. Actually, he is more knowledgeable than I in many areas. Unfortunately, when someone disagrees with his mantra, he comes up with claims like in the quote above. A “cloud of suspicion” involving the Tommy Gun in the 1960’s – right! The facts show that what started in Cleveland in 1916 by General Thompson has traveled all the way to Kahr Arms in Worchester, MA. It is as simple as that.

If you believe differently, I welcome you to post your thoughts on this subject. If we stay on topic and avoid all the useless posting that do nothing but cause confusion to the newer board members, we may actually accomplish something. Please don’t get into what George Numrich may have, could have, should have, was supposed to have - done. George Numrich’s business operation is still in operation after 55 years. That in and of itself speaks volumes for me.

Oh, you may be interested in this. I researched the New York Department of State on Auto-Ordnance Corporation, Maguire Industries, Inc (and Incorporated), and Components of America Corporation some time ago. I learned that “INACTIVE” status means no longer in use and available for use upon proper application. There is nothing on file that indicates the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation, New York, New York, has been associated with the Maguire family. You see, you would have to abide by some yearly filing requirements, paperwork, registered agent requirements, fees, etc. Now I ask you, why would anyone want to do all of that when they sold off everything related to the Thompson Submachine Gun in 1949?

  • 0

#54 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 February 2006 - 11:36 PM

TD,

If you are going to quote at least attempt accuracy:


QUOTE
If Trast had proof of his exclusive ownership of all things "Thompson," why did he not show them to Helmer when there was a cloud of suspicion that he in fact did not own the rights?


I did not say Numrich in the 1960's. I specifically said Trast in 1975. Helmer's 1969 book was updated to include the West Hurley replicas in the final chapter after 1975.

I appreciate that you continue to concentrate on my posts, even if you do selective reading, but there are others on the board who do not follow your "stay on message unbroken chain refrain." You could have worked in the Clinton West Wing.

They have already chimed in, but perhaps it is better if you continue to count the bristles on your broom while the tide washes away your sandcastles.

Why is it so important for you to imagine this bizarre connection in the face of so much overwhelming evidence to the contrary? DId you make a solem oath to Numrich's widow to keep the eternal flame alive?

Funny you researched the Components of America Corporation "some time ago," when this has been posted numerous times on this board. You netter re-read Cox's book since he documents that Maguire's family did indeed still own AOC under CAC back in 1982.

Try to answer why Numrich didn't call his business Auto Ordnance Corporation back in 1951 when he supposedly bought all the goodies in and out of the crates?

  • 0

#55 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2950 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 February 2006 - 07:20 AM

Again Arthur, Helmer was not doing research in 1975 on the Thompson for his book, “The Gun That Made the Twenties Roar” This book was first published in 1969 by Macmillan. The added chapter came later (Gun Room Press edition) and it was authored by George C. Nonte, Jr. - not William Helmer. But more importantly, there was not a cloud of suspicion over the Thompson lineage in 1975 either. But you know that!

I only concentrate on your posts concerning the Thompson lineage because they are misguided. You have been posting your mantra way too long. I want everyone to see the entire story. The conclusions the readers make are theirs alone.

Original research on this subject may be a lot of things, but "funny" is not one of them. Keep hanging on to that story line of what George Numrich may have, could have, should have, was supposed to have - done. Personally, I find it amusing - given all George Numrich has done for and with the Thompson Submachine Gun wink.gif To begin your lesson on this appreciation, may I suggest a tour of the West Point Museum.

  • 0

#56 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 "Torque and Recoil"

Posted 14 February 2006 - 02:58 PM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Feb 13 2006, 02:35 PM)
QUOTE (ClevelandShooter @ Feb 12 2006, 08:08 PM)
.....HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO SETTLE IN THE COURTS WHAT YOU CANNOT SETTLE HERE...

...AS MY ABOVE POST ASKED WHY NOT SUE KAHR FOR FALSE ADVERTISING???????? C"MON ARTY STICK TO THE SUBJECT...

...TD, Arty must be a lawyer he always evades the question and brings up any other thing he can find. I pose the question why not sue Kahr for Cease and desist on there ad's and he posts my posting from Subguns...

...NEW NAME FOR ARTY ; SMOKESCREEN ARTY!!!!!!...

Well, no, how about if you stick to the subject. Here are a few guys exchanging some thoughts on what they seem to think is an interesting, albeit controversial, subject, and they do it in what I read as an intelligent, gentlemanly, and articulate way. And you come stomping in with a bunch of whacked out airhead comments, with lots of all-caps nonsense about lawyers and court challenges and settling things once and for all.

How about a new name for Bill, while we're at it? But I might not be the most objective person to suggest one.

Going back over the thread, I missed where you had anything intelligent to contribute, either here or on the other board.

I guess every stew needs a turd for seasoning, but we are blessed with more than one. wink.gif Some even proudly wear their humorous labellings as badges of honor.

TO PhilOhio
Sorry I ruffled your feathers Phil. However I was sitcking to the subject in as much as You brought up that even today Kahr advertises lineage to The General with there product. I felt that this was a way to prove yours and Arts Theories right or wrong. And when I asked that question Art goes off building smokescreens unseen since WWII destroyers. So yes I used caps however I never used any language that would be offensive to a catholic nun.
Please review my posts and rethink yours. Have a terriffic day!
Bill OUT
  • 0

#57 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 14 February 2006 - 03:11 PM

QUOTE (John Jr @ Feb 13 2006, 10:53 PM)
QUOTE (colt21a @ Feb 13 2006, 12:08 AM)
art we still have the child above you posting.it's not worth it...we took care of all of those type's in high school...or maybe it was kindergarten.t.c.ron
wink!

I'm the child? Who pulls the entire post when he gets called out? This is a great forum for discussing Thompons Mr. Kovar, so why don't you discuss them instead of using the board as an advertisement each time you decide to dump off your wares on board members...

Back on topic...



biggrin.gif

e-nuff foolery. get back to the bizz.t.c.ron
  • 0

#58 1921A

1921A

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 543 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 February 2006 - 05:05 PM

Guys

Don't stop now - this is gettin' entertaining. You know, it just occurred to me - A.O.C. didn't make the model 1921 Thompson - the low bidder did. So, model 21's aren't real Thompsons either..... wink.gif
  • 0

#59 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 16 February 2006 - 09:52 AM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Feb 15 2006, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE (ClevelandShooter @ Feb 14 2006, 02:58 PM)
TO PhilOhio
Sorry I ruffled your feathers Phil. However I was sitcking to the subject in as much as You brought up that even today Kahr advertises lineage to The General with there product. I felt that this was a way to prove yours and Arts Theories right or wrong. And when I asked that question Art goes off building smokescreens unseen since WWII destroyers. So yes I used caps however I never used any language that would be offensive to a catholic nun.
Please review my posts and rethink yours. Have a terriffic day!
Bill OUT

O.K. Bill,

Apology accepted. And I'll offer mine. Before associating anybody or anything with questionable matter floating in stew, I guess I should first determine whether he, she, or it is a registered Democrat. wink.gif

Now, let's all get on with the important business of finding some reason to pick on the Repected Ron. This "respect" thing has just gone on for entirely too long. wink.gif

phil yes humor and joke's are all great......but sometime's i have a serious note...very seldom however it doe's happen.

and sometime's a slight pain arise's when anybody think's they know you and what the purpose of any post maybe, they assume and most time's are wrong.

however most that think that way i found out do that themselve's to people in life.so they just figure because they are full of deceit,and dishonest and crooked everybody else is...

and lately i am not going to bother to post or reply to b.s.here or anyplace else for that matter.

when they give respect they will get it...and most in life talk about class.after dealing with them, found out they know nothing about it and never had it...

and this is the net, so really in the whole scheme of life... whats it all about "Alfie"??

have fun stay safe.and go on with the fancy discussion. what was the heading again?? wink! take care, ron
  • 0

#60 Grey Crow

Grey Crow

    RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1077 posts
  • Location:North Central Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Thompson Submachine guns, computers, reptiles.

Posted 16 February 2006 - 11:45 PM

A thought.
At what point, if ever, does a trade name, or mark become reusable?

Is it possible that Numrich/Trast/Kahr, simply used these because they WERE available. Making good use of a name that was cast aside. The name was never purchased or traded as part of any package. Simply let go until some sharp marketing person decided to capitalize on the history of the company.

Has anyone considered contacting Kahr to find any history?

Numrich recently purchased the remaining stock of Dan Wesson.
What would prevent them from selling what they have in say 10 years, and someone starting the company up again using the same name and DW logo?

It would certainly explain the breaks in the lineage.
  • 0