Not Mine, But It Made Me Cry - Colt Parts Kit $14k

[colt21a]

Contact Jerry at Recon Ord. i sold him a three digit numbered drum.and a no numbered NO drum with fifty round mill's with strap shoulder cases years ago. both in exc plus to mint cond.and the numbered one was matched. one might have been ser. 187 or something. or 287. heck too long to remember most of this stuff.and i have forgotten 50% of the 100% i did remember already, that is the third and fourth drum one you might be looking for. I am sure he still owns them,along with all the other Thompson stuff I have sold him over the last 25 plus years.including a new in wrap Spare parts kit.{ the only one i have ever seen since}the drum and the cases came out of a p.d. in pa. someplace.

the kit out of a Southern Il. p.d. who owned #5294.>Which i sold to Birmingham Pistol Parlor.WOW i did remember that much. Well............

I am sure if he is still sitting on them he can let you know and take pictures.I only have pictures left of about 30 to 40% of what i sold. I was in the tommy bizz. not the photo bizz.

 

one day it will all be just a blur. like most of us here.but the Iron will survive.just with some rust. he he.. everybody have a great fall season..Ron /Colt21a /M-4 M-203> in case of Thompson Zombies.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

'TD.' date='Sep 9 2011, 12:43 PM' post='109746']

Arthur,

Tracie Hill does not need anyone speaking for him. His works speak for themselves. There are many avenues open for you to discuss your observations with Tracie, but you choose to demean his work on this public forum for your own gratification instead of working to a solution.

 

That makes zero sense. How is bringing to the attention of owners of actual Stanley Works "NO" L drums that Hill's photos in all his publications of this drum depict the wrong front cover considered "demeaning" to Tracie Hill or his work?

 

If you don't have the energy or aptitude to write Hill a letter about something written in The Ultimate Thompson Book, don't whine to me.

 

The whining you hear is coming from your motor. If you don't quit revving it you will develop a ping.

 

I don't know his reasons for not participating on this Board. Perhaps, you can ask him that too. I do know he is very busy as a small business owner and father and puts a lot of time into the efforts of The American Thompson Association.

 

And it never occurred to you to invite Hill to check out this board? Really?

 

I do have access to Tracie because I perform original research and try to inject new information into the history of the Thompson gun. Our conversations do not normally involve rehashing known information unless new information has been uncovered that adds to the history - and I am interested in doing a story.

 

"Original research?" "Rehashing known information?" The only thing I can surmise from these attempts at "demeaning" my pointing out Hill's photo identification error in TUTB is that either you, and/or Hill, already know the photo in TUTB is a left over error from "American Legend.".

 

Anyone can read the works of the four authors you mentioned and come to different conclusion on any aspect of their writing. That is the benefit you receive when purchasing their books. What you don't seem to understand is new information based on original research will be necessary to change the current thinking. And that takes a lot of work - something you obviously don't care anything about.

 

What are you talking about, again? How much "original research" is required to come to the obvious conclusion that Hill made an error when he identified the photo in TUTB as the front cover of a Stanley Works "NO" L drum. All this huffing and puffing about a printing error is bizarre..

 

I do think you have the intelligence to perform original research. I am not certain about your work ethic. However, I will again help you with your observations so what you are saying can be understood by all that read this thread, to wit.

 

Did someone tell you that invoking the phrase "original research" ad nauseam is supposed to buttress your arguments? it just sounds pompous.

 

We need more examples of NO. drums to examine. The only pictures of a known NO. drum we have examined thus far is the one provided by Greg Fox (thanks Greg). I don't include Arthur's picture of a NO. drum because of picture quality - something Arthur chose not to fix. This makes me assume Arthur obtained these pictures off the internet and does not own a NO. drum. There has to be a few more NO. drums owned by members of the Board.

 

Is asking for more examples of "NO" front cover L drums your idea of doing "original research?" I couldn't care less if you include my L drum pic or not. You are working overtime to make this about me when it's about a printing error in a book that happens to be authored by Hill.

 

Now that we have two photos from board members of the front cover of Stanley Works "NO," L drums, excluding mine, and they do not look like the one in Hill's TUTB, how many more examples do you require before you grudgingly admit that, yes, even author Tracie Hill is not immune from printing errors in his publications.

 

Why don't you ask Hill how many Stanley Works "NO" L drums he looked at before committing to printing that photo in TUTB? Oh, I forgot. You don't speak to Hill about "rehashing known information."

[dalbert]

Arthur,

 

It's very possible you are correct about the drum misidentification. The drum aspect of Thompsons is something that I've never really tried to become an expert on. They're interesting, but other aspects of the Thompson hold my interest much more dearly. That's why I've stood on the sidelines on the specifics of this discussion.

 

I'm sure this will be discussed with Tracie soon, probably next weekend. He does not choose to regularly post here, although he has posted here multiple times. He may have some information regarding these drums of which we are not aware, or it may just be a mistake. There's not a gun book written yet that doesn't have mistakes. TUTB is by far the best Thompson book ever written.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[TD.]

I can tell Arthur does not want any help trying to do anything constructive with the history of the Thompson gun. What he does not understand is posts on the Internet don't have much of a lasting effect. In a week or two when this thread goes to page 2 and 3 and 4 and then to oblivion all will be moot. It is really a shame that Arthur continues to rant because I do believe there may be some merit to what he is saying. I was hoping he had the long-term work ethic to really accomplish something - not.

 

Again, thank you Greg and Brian for the time you took to post pictures of your NO. drums.

 

 

[Z3BigDaddy]

What he does not understand is posts on the Internet don't have much of a lasting effect. In a week or two when this thread goes to page 2 and 3 and 4 and then to oblivion all will be moot.

 

 

I have to disagree with that statement.. It may fall off this boards page one and move it's way down as post pile up about banks and gold but that doesn't slow down a search engine. Right now it is just a great bitch slap fest but it is also future reference material for anyone researching Thompson Drums. It is wrong thinking that all this is just between the group here. If you think everything you post just fades away you need to re-think your paradigm. I would wager more people will be reading these post than those reading the Hill books.... JMVHO

 

 

[bug]

What he does not understand is posts on the Internet don't have much of a lasting effect. In a week or two when this thread goes to page 2 and 3 and 4 and then to oblivion all will be moot.

 

 

I have to disagree with that statement.. It may fall off this boards page one and move it's way down as post pile up about banks and gold but that doesn't slow down a search engine. Right now it is just a great bitch slap fest but it is also future reference material for anyone researching Thompson Drums. It is wrong thinking that all this is just between the group here. If you think everything you post just fades away you need to re-think your paradigm. I would wager more people will be reading these post than those reading the Hill books.... JMVHO

 

 

Good point, Z. I just Googled Stanley works L drum and it brought me right back to this forum. It was Dec of 06 and you and AF were right in the middle of the debate. The stuff can be deleted though by the original poster and I assume it would then disappear from the search results. What a world...

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Arthur,

 

It's very possible you are correct about the drum misidentification. The drum aspect of Thompsons is something that I've never really tried to become an expert on. They're interesting, but other aspects of the Thompson hold my interest much more dearly. That's why I've stood on the sidelines on the specifics of this discussion.

 

I'm sure this will be discussed with Tracie soon, probably next weekend. He does not choose to regularly post here, although he has posted here multiple times. He may have some information regarding these drums of which we are not aware, or it may just be a mistake. There's not a gun book written yet that doesn't have mistakes. TUTB is by far the best Thompson book ever written.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

Dave,

The reason why the photo error is remarkable is because it is found in the current go-to authoritative source on the TSMG. But as you say, since there are no gun books that do not have mistakes, this error does not impugn Hill's book as untrustworthy, inaccurate, untrue, or unreliable overall.

 

That you, or someone else, will broach this subject with Hill, possibly next weekend, is reassuring. I look forward to reading Hill's thoughts on the subject as they are reported here on the board.

 

BTW: That Hill has posted on this forum "multiple times" is news to me and it must be news to TD as well.

 

[dalbert]

Arthur,

 

It's very possible you are correct about the drum misidentification. The drum aspect of Thompsons is something that I've never really tried to become an expert on. They're interesting, but other aspects of the Thompson hold my interest much more dearly. That's why I've stood on the sidelines on the specifics of this discussion.

 

I'm sure this will be discussed with Tracie soon, probably next weekend. He does not choose to regularly post here, although he has posted here multiple times. He may have some information regarding these drums of which we are not aware, or it may just be a mistake. There's not a gun book written yet that doesn't have mistakes. TUTB is by far the best Thompson book ever written.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

Dave,

The reason why the photo error is remarkable is because it is found in the current go-to authoritative source on the TSMG. But as you say, since there are no gun books that do not have mistakes, this error does not impugn Hill's book as untrustworthy, inaccurate, untrue, or unreliable overall.

 

That you, or someone else, will broach this subject with Hill, possibly next weekend, is reassuring. I look forward to reading Hill's thoughts on the subject as they are reported here on the board.

 

BTW: That Hill has posted on this forum "multiple times" is news to me and it must be news to TD as well.

 

Arthur,

 

I should see Tracie Saturday, and I'll ask him about it.

 

Tracie doesn't announce his identity when he posts here, but he does have a profile, and has posted here multiple times.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgeweh.com

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

 

Arthur,

 

I should see Tracie Saturday, and I'll ask him about it. .

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgeweh.com

 

Any update?

[bug]

It's back for 10K sans drum. Not you, Art, the Colt parts kit.

[dalbert]

 

Arthur,

 

I should see Tracie Saturday, and I'll ask him about it. .

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgeweh.com

 

Any update?

 

Arthur,

 

I was cursing myself after OGCA, because I forgot to ask Tracie about this. There were some other finds that we discussed that contributed to my forgetfulness. I have been meaning to forward him the link via e-mail to follow-up. My bad, but I'll still get his input as soon as I can. Sorry about that.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[21 smoker]

Wait,...A. F. is a ficticios name?.....I see the price is still dropping and I have a`NO` drum also if we need further pics.

[dalbert]

Arthur,

 

Tracie sent me a note about these drums. His perspective is based upon documentation that he has in his personal collection of letters about them. Here is what he said:

 

1.) The drum pics from bmarvin seem to show a Stanley body with a 1st gen. Worcester

face. This would be a common thing since you use the bits and pieces left over from

one production before you run new parts. And since Worcester was slow to get to full

production why not use anything you can to ship to a customer.

 

The reason I believe that this is a cross over between two productions is from the

letters back and forth between AO and Payne. There was only mention of one set of

tools made by Stanley to add the 1928 markings. Then the mood between Stanley and AO

became tense and no other money was paid to Stanley for new tooling.

 

2.) The images of the third and four gen Worcester cover markings are very similar to

the markings on the Stanley. However, when you place the two side by side it becomes

noticeable that the type font and stoke of the letters and numbers are different.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Arthur,

 

Tracie sent me a note about these drums. His perspective is based upon documentation that he has in his personal collection of letters about them. Here is what he said:

 

1.) The drum pics from bmarvin seem to show a Stanley body with a 1st gen. Worcester

face. This would be a common thing since you use the bits and pieces left over from

one production before you run new parts. And since Worcester was slow to get to full

production why not use anything you can to ship to a customer.

 

The reason I believe that this is a cross over between two productions is from the

letters back and forth between AO and Payne. There was only mention of one set of

tools made by Stanley to add the 1928 markings. Then the mood between Stanley and AO

became tense and no other money was paid to Stanley for new tooling.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

Dave,

Thanks for passing along Hill's explanation.

 

As to point 1, this is indeed a common thing , perhaps even exclusive, as it is not only bmarvin's Stanley L Drum cover that doesn't look like Hill's photo of a Stanley L Drum cover, but all other reported Stanley L Drum covers with the "NO" body as well. Since Worchester was slow to get up to manufacturing speed, we should then see many examples of Worchester using the left over Stanley cover (Hill's photo) as well as the left over Stanley body. Except we don't see that. What about examples of Worchester L drums using Stanley covers and a Stanley body?

 

As to point 2, Stanley would not require new tooling to eliminate the "NO" from the body. Since Worchester was slow to get up to speed, why would Worchester change or upgrade Stanley tooling for the front cover for their L drum as this would only slow down production? It would make more sense that the Worchester's first L drum cover would mirror the Stanley front cover.

 

As to the "similarity" of a Worcester L drum cover to Hill's photo of a Stanley L drum cover, they are not just similar, they are indeed identical. Doug Richardson's full photo Worchester L drum cover from his " Thompson Submachine Gun Drum Magazines" is identical to Hill's photo of a Stanley L drum cover.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Wait,...A. F. is a ficticios name?.....I see the price is still dropping and I have a`NO` drum also if we need further pics.

 

Yes, by all means please post pics of your Stanley "NO" L drum.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

"The drums with the blank are extremely rare. The third production was the standard and most common drum of the "New York" variety. This drum has the same markings as the blank number drum, but no place for a marking. These were made by Worchester Pressed Steel Co., Worchester, Massachusetts, for Auto Ordnance." Roger Cox, The Thompson Submachine Gun

 

 

While Cox was not aware of the actual manufacturer of the "NO" L drums, he was able to compare examples of "NO" L drums with the initial production of Worchester L Drums. Using his keen eye for Thompson minutia, he reported that these two L drums have the same markings front and back except for the absence of the "NO" on the Worchester L drum. Both Doug Richardson and Roger Cox are in agreement about the markings of a Staley "NO" L drum.

 

It is also apparent that the documents Tracie Hill has regarding Stanley L drum production do not contain any pictures or descriptions indicating what the stamping for the front cover looks like. Since Hill didn't mention any difference in the mounting rail of a Stanley L drum compared to any other L drum, we know that such a conclusion from the picture in "TUTB" is the result of poor photography.

 

It is a head scratch why Hill doesn't consider that the Stanley L Drum pictured in "TUTB" is the one with a "transitional" or mismatched front cover. If Hill does not have any Stanley document to support his contention that the front cover of the Stanley L drum in "TUTB" is the kosher all made Stanley L drum, and ones that don't look like his are "transitional" (combination Stanley and Worchester), then he is swimming against the current of other published TSMG experts and Stanley "NO" L drum owners.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Arthur Fliegenheimer

[bug]

Down to $7500 on Buddy's board....

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

I have a`NO` drum also if we need further pics.

 

Bring on the pics.