james m Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 (edited) I was pleased to see a Thompson display at the SAR unlike any other I've seen. On display were two 1921 Thompsons,serial No. 134 and serial No. 135. Yes! sequentially numbered. The story I got was that these were shipped to the Thompson Rep. in England in the early 20s. They subsequentially ended up in a private collection for 40+ years until purchased by the current owner. Unfortunately he would not allow any pictures to be taken but they are in super condition and have probably not been fired since the 20s. Jim Edited December 7, 2009 by james m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLansky Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 I spoke with owner's assistant before the show opened early on Saturday and he allowed me to closely examine both guns as he was setting up his display and I was allowed to take pictures of the guns and the displays. the guns came out of a collection in Idaho. both guns, including the wood, have been refinished. also, they are both dewats (I later confirmed this with Gordon as he had looked at the guns before they were sold to the current owner). Lastly, neither of the buttstocks are colt buttstocks (no anchor proof, no dimple on the butt plate and blued steel hardware). All this being said, it was still a very nice display. When I get a chance (and get the camera back from my daughter), I will try to upload the pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james m Posted December 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 (edited) You were obviously given a lot more information than I was plus you apparentely were allowed to handle the guns. Refinishing was not apparent to the metal and I am surprised to hear this. Do you have any information as to why these would have been turned into Dewats? My impression was that they had been in this Country for a long time so it would have been easy to register them as live guns. Jim Edited December 7, 2009 by james m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt21a Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 did these ever go through Curt Earls book's. I remember a pair dewatted ending up in calil years ago. and the same numbers or close to it. would be funny if the same guns'.Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 #134 & #135 were once in the possession of the notorious Curtis Earl back in the late 1960's. They were dewated while in the possession of a S.F. Cali guy by the name of Daryl Litchefield. After original owner Cpt. Pollard, the Britisih arms expert, the West Virginia State PD got hold of these two TSMG's. That explains why they might need a refinish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkeye_Joe Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 I have a question,...are they registered Dewats? If they were dewatted way back when, are they "grandfathered" in as legal to possess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colt21a Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 yep same pair that Don Snowden was working on to get out of the guys estate over eight years ago.Earl dewatted them for the guy he sold them to in cali. in Don's travel's in cali. he came across the deal. but for whatever reason could not get them out of the estate. he did havea paperwork trail. that is why when I saw them at the show I said um!now this guy has them.{ since at the time.} Don asked if I wanted to buy them.if the deal went through for him. history. Ron p.s. yep getting up there, but the Thompson memory is still working a little. thanks ART Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLansky Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Here are the pictures. I apologize for the poor quality. Although it does not show up well in the pictures, the guns are somewhat black in color--it is a flat black as opposed to the unique colt blue that glints in the light. http://i771.photobucket.com/albums/xx359/C...olts2009005.jpg http://i771.photobucket.com/albums/xx359/C...olts2009004.jpg http://i771.photobucket.com/albums/xx359/C...olts2009003.jpg http://i771.photobucket.com/albums/xx359/C...olts2009002.jpg http://i771.photobucket.com/albums/xx359/C...olts2009001.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james m Posted December 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 (edited) Well: It sounds like we have a real interesting story here. Apparently the guns resided in Arizona if Curtis Earl once owned them. Can anyone else add more information here? I would also like an explaination as to why Curtis Earl was "notorious"? I know he was a large machine gun dealer/collector here at one time but that's about it. Jim Edited December 7, 2009 by james m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLansky Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 A number of my friends had dealings with Curtis. They report that Curtis had a reputation for changing things and creating things. For example, he would show you a nice 21AC, all correct, but when your paperwork cleared, it would have savage internals and a 28 military buttstock. or, he would simply trade out the nice wood on your gun for more worn wood on another. if you compalined to him about it, he would tell you the price you paid was for the gun only and the colt internals and fancy wood did not come with the gun and were extra. Also, he was known to put reporduction replacement parts (notably compensators) on guns and swear up and down they were original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoscoeTurner Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 I would also like an explaination as to why Curtis Earl was "notorious"? I know he was a large machine gun dealer/collector here at one time but that's about it. On a good day he was a seller with very few ethics, on a bad day he was simply a crook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Curtis Earl was the most widely known MG dealer of the mid-1960s to mid-1970s. He advertised in the glossy gun magazines, became a favorite of the writers and editors, and promoted himself and his business most vigorously. Because of this, he was the MG dealer most newbies knew about and went to. And I agree, based on my experience he had no concience and operated with an if-you-don't-like-it-what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it demeanor. Oh well... Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkeye_Joe Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 No one wants to answer my question?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Hawkeye_Joe, I am not sure I understand your question but I will take a stab at it. These guns are most likely registered since they went through the hands of several well known Class Three dealers. The fact they are dewat machine guns is only important regarding the amount of tax due ($0 to $200 apiece per transfer to individuals) at transfer (and possibly some states only allow dewat machine guns???). Dewat machine guns sold legally in this country when registration was not required had to be registered at the end of the Amnesty period in 1968 to be legal today. There is no grandfather status. A dewat machine gun is either registered or is contraband - even if acquired legally years ago when registration was not required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkeye_Joe Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 That's basically what I wanted to know. If these were dewatted way back when then they were not dewatted to current specs and if not registered could be taken and cut up. It would really be silly to be displaying them if they weren't but people do silly stupid things all the damn time. Hence the question about "grandfathering", although I was pretty sure of the answer. If they are registered, which it looks like they could be, then does anyone think that re-watting them would be the thing to do?? Would they be worth more de or re- watted??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james m Posted December 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 (edited) The SOP as I know it for dewatting a Thompson before 1968 was to either weld the chamber shut or weld a rod in there and then to tack weld the barrel to the receiver. Any one who was fairly handy could cold chisel the tack welds off pull the barrel and replace it. That's why dewatting in this manner was outlawed and the ATF went to the other extreme and essentially required destruction of the receiver. It unfortunate IMO that they didn't take the medium ground of deactivating as they have in much of Europe. Jim Edited December 7, 2009 by james m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 I don't know that "dewat" is the operative word here. Years ago DEWAT was an acronym that stood for DEactivated WAr Trophy. But the ATF never used it. If you look at the transfer forms a gun is considered to be "serviceable" or "unserviceable". As TD says the only difference is the amount of transfer tax you pay - $5 for unserviceable, $200 for serviceable. I have never seen specifications for "dewatting" a gun. I have seen unserviceable guns that were welded shut or plugged in a variety of ways, but I have also seen guns listed on their forms as unserviceable due to damage - but all were registered. Before 1968 I believe you were able to purchase a deactivated machine gun with no paperwork - if you look at the old gun magazines they offered "Dewats" at what would now be considered very low prices, and you just sent in the money and they sent you the Dewat. But when the Amnesty came along in 1968 those Dewats had to be registered. If they were, they are on the registry and valuable and transferable. If not, they are contraband. I personally have never known the ATF to check the integrity or thoroughness of a "dewatted" gun. This could be because what counts with them is that the gun is registered, not its serviceable or unserviceable status. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLansky Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 there was recently on the boards a dewat 1927 semi auto thompson out of a new jersey police department that the owner filed a form 1 on, paid the $200 tax and reactivated. apparently, the method the police department used to make it "unserviceable" did prevent removal and restoration of the original barrel when the gun was reactivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james m Posted December 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 I didn't know the ATF never used the term "DEWAT". However this terms been used to describe unservicable automatic weapons for well over 50 years. There are no current regulations that I know of here for making"unservicable" full auto weapons as anything not currently registered in this category would be contraband. Back when I was a kid you could buy a Thompson "Dewat" for under $100. I have seen some over the years and the had been made unservicable as I described above. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photonance Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 there was recently on the boards a dewat 1927 semi auto thompson out of a new jersey police department that the owner filed a form 1 on, paid the $200 tax and reactivated. apparently, the method the police department used to make it "unserviceable" did prevent removal and restoration of the original barrel when the gun was reactivated. I seem to vaguely remember that gun, wink wink! That dewat 27A was originally registered on a form 5 in the early 60's. Steve Karnes in California took the original barrel and removed the weld, and rechambered the barrel. My Savage 28 was deactivated in the same way, but I decided just to rebarrel it with a parts kit barrel. From what I can tell, it is rare that dewats before 68 were registered. Was it possible for a dealer back then to take a registered gun, deactivate it, then re-register it on a form 5? I'm just wondering if some collectors/buyers would want that due to the transfer tax? 0 dollars compared to $200 in the 60's would have been a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james m Posted December 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 You would think there would be a lot of unregistered Dewats floating around as the period to register them in 68 was short and not well publicised. I have run across exactly one over the years and it was a Sten. I told the owner what the situation was and I have no idea what action,if any,he took. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 (edited) You do not find them often, but an unserviceable machine gun that was registered during the amnesty can be legally reactivated into a shooting gun. I guess the logic is that the gun is already registered and activating it is not the same as manufacturing a new gun which as we all know is not allowed. I talked to a guy recently who bought 2 Dewat Thompsons - a M1928A1 and M1921 back in the 1960's when he was a young man. He registered them in 1968, and they are, according to him, grandfathered in as he lives in California. Even though they are Dewats they have considerable value since they were not cut. Bob Edited December 8, 2009 by reconbob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 Years ago I was speaking with Roger Cox on the telephone and he told me about having to deactivate a Colt Thompson for sale to a buyer that lived in a state that only allowed deactivated machine guns. I believe it was Illinois, but I could be wrong about that. Roger told me he had deactivated several Colt Thompson's over the years for sales to buyers that had to have or just wanted to have a deactivated Thompson. He also mentioned deactivating Thompson's for buyers in foreign countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z3BigDaddy Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 You do not find them often, but an unserviceable machine gun that was registered during the amnesty can be legally reactivated into a shooting gun. I guess the logic is that the gun is already registered and activating it is not the same as manufacturing a new gun which as we all know is not allowed. I talked to a guy within recently who bought 2 Dewat Thompsons - a M1928A1 and M1921 back in the 1960's when he was a young man. He registered them in 1968, and they are, according to him, grandfathered in as he lives in California. Even though they are Dewats they have considerable value since they were not cut. Bob My 28 I reactivated is a Kalifornia Dewat... ATF, the person I talked to anyhow, said registered dewats are the same a live guns as far as they are concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkeye_Joe Posted December 7, 2009 Report Share Posted December 7, 2009 My 28 I reactivated is a Kalifornia Dewat... ATF, the person I talked to anyhow, said registered dewats are the same a live guns as far as they are concerned. And so are unregistered dewats of course.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now