The LHO Escape -- Panic and Shock

[Martin Weidmann]

This is exactly what you've been saying the whole time. And now you claim you didn't say it?

Back in the day, this was done by mail order houses to differentiate between different ads. If you dig around Klein's ads in different publications, and different issues of each publication, the department number on each ad was unique. And it always appeared on the order blank part. Doing this allowed the marketing department to determine which ads brought in orders, and which did not. In turn, it allowed Klein's (or any other contemporary mail order outfit) to target their advertising spending efficiently.

Back in the day, this was done by mail order houses to differentiate between different ads.

I don't believe it. How would you even know this? Unless you can actually show evidence for this absurd claim, it's pretty obvious you just made this up. What reason would they have to differentiate between ads?

By law, the serial number of the firearm had to be carefully recorded when it was sold. But Kleins sold any number of other items besides firearms --scopes, parkas, canoes, and lord knows what else, that did not require such careful recordkeeping. So the base order form didn't need a specific field for serial number or control number, since those were only used for firearms. But you notice that the stamp/autotype detailing order of a C20-T750 has specific fields for control number and serial number and includes the item description. But not for the ad's "department" number (assuming that's what it is). The department number, if that's indeed what it is, is randomly squeezed into some free space between two lines of text in another section of the order form. It's not associated with the line item representing the rifle.

By law, the serial number of the firearm had to be carefully recorded when it was sold.

True, and not only that. There needed to be a registration of any weapon being sent in the mail. So, where is that paperwork for the rifle?

But not for the ad's "department" number (assuming that's what it is). The department number, if that's indeed what it is, is randomly squeezed into some free space between two lines of text in another section of the order form. It's not associated with the line item representing the rifle.

More selfserving flawed made up nonsense.

[Charles Collins]

1927 — Congress passes the “Nonmailable Firearms Act of 1927, making it illegal to use the U.S. mail to ship “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person.”

A typical rifle would not be considered concealable. Pistols, etc could be sent via private carriers. “Registration of any weapon sent in the mail” wasn’t a part of the legislation.

[Mitch Todd]

Back in the day, this was done by mail order houses to differentiate between different ads.

I don't believe it. How would you even know this? Unless you can actually show evidence for this absurd claim, it's pretty obvious you just made this up. What reason would they have to differentiate between ads?

Because this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades. If you don't want to believe it, that's not my problem. But, really, I've actually had good acquaintance with people who perform what is now called "analytics" for pre-ecommerce catalog sales, and found out about this independently of my interest in the JFKA. Big ads in national publications weren't cheap, so the advertiser needed a way to know which ads brought in orders and which did not. This, in turn, influenced future advertising buys.

By law, the serial number of the firearm had to be carefully recorded when it was sold.

True, and not only that. There needed to be a registration of any weapon being sent in the mail. So, where is that paperwork for the rifle?

Nope. The only firearms that would need to be registered were/are NFA items like short-barreled (i.e. <16") rifles, machine guns, and silenced weapons. Carcanos did not fall under any of these categories.

But not for the ad's "department" number (assuming that's what it is). The department number, if that's indeed what it is, is randomly squeezed into some free space between two lines of text in another section of the order form. It's not associated with the line item representing the rifle.

More selfserving flawed made up nonsense.

If it was that flawed, you'd be able to point out the flaws in my statement.

[Martin Weidmann]

Because this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades. If you don't want to believe it, that's not my problem. But, really, I've actually had good acquaintance with people who perform what is now called "analytics" for pre-ecommerce catalog sales, and found out about this independently of my interest in the JFKA. Big ads in national publications weren't cheap, so the advertiser needed a way to know which ads brought in orders and which did not. This, in turn, influenced future advertising buys.

Nope. The only firearms that would need to be registered were/are NFA items like short-barreled (i.e. <16") rifles, machine guns, and silenced weapons. Carcanos did not fall under any of these categories.

If it was that flawed, you'd be able to point out the flaws in my statement.

Because this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades.

So you haven't got any evidence and are just making hollow statements... Got it

But, really, I've actually had good acquaintance with people who perform what is now called "analytics" for pre-ecommerce catalog sales, and found out about this independently of my interest in the JFKA. Big ads in national publications weren't cheap, so the advertiser needed a way to know which ads brought in orders and which did not. This, in turn, influenced future advertising buys.

True, but you have not demonstrated that this has anything to do with Klein's. You just assume it has, just like you assume that this was the only purpose of the Department number.

If it was that flawed, you'd be able to point out the flaws in my statement.

My past experiences with you make it clear that it would be futile.

[John Mytton]

Because this ground has been trod over many, many times before over the decades. If you don't want to believe it, that's not my problem. But, really, I've actually had good acquaintance with people who perform what is now called "analytics" for pre-ecommerce catalog sales, and found out about this independently of my interest in the JFKA. Big ads in national publications weren't cheap, so the advertiser needed a way to know which ads brought in orders and which did not. This, in turn, influenced future advertising buys.

That's right, Mitch. A Dept. No. was merely a unique identifier in the order coupon to identify what magazine the coupon originated from. Sometimes there would instead be a small-sized code in a corner of the order coupon and not in the coupon's mailing address, that did the same thing in terms of tracking.

I wonder if Klein's provided its own ads or simply relied on the art departments of the magazines. The larger magazines had substantial art departments and some would include "free" art for larger ad buyers. If magazines were providing the finished ads, Klein's needed only to sent pictures of new products, and changes in order nos. and prices. The ad department at gun magazines might have a collection of line art or photos of guns they could draw from, so Klein's wouldn't have to send pictures.

Klein's would have to approve a pre-publication printout of their ad. Klein's might only check the changes in order nos. and prices, and any new illustrations, particularly the more-expensive "featured" rifles. They were the bread-and-butter.

Yep!

If Kliens wanted each variation of Carcano to have a unique Item Number then they would have easily assigned a unique Item Number, one would be C20-T750 and the other would be C20-T751 or some close variation. Simple as that!

The very thought of the complications of having to cross reference hundreds of Item Numbers with each and every Dept Number across a multitude of Sporting Magazines is a CT's wet pipe dream.


Huge 1965, 160 pages sporting goods catalog: rifles and shotguns, gun cabinets, fishing equipment, archery equipment, golfing, etc. etc. Very good condition. Seller Inventory # 020504
https://www.abebooks.com/KLEINS-SPORTING-GOODS-CATALOG-NO-700/30586644077/bd

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Yep!

If Kliens wanted each variation of Carcano to have a unique Item Number then they would have easily assigned a unique Item Number, one would be C20-T750 and the other would be C20-T751 or some close variation. Simple as that!

The very thought of the complications of having to cross reference hundreds of Item Numbers with each and every Dept Number across a multitude of Sporting Magazines is a CT's wet pipe dream.


Huge 1965, 160 pages sporting goods catalog: rifles and shotguns, gun cabinets, fishing equipment, archery equipment, golfing, etc. etc. Very good condition. Seller Inventory # 020504
https://www.abebooks.com/KLEINS-SPORTING-GOODS-CATALOG-NO-700/30586644077/bd

JohnM

If Kliens wanted each variation of Carcano to have a unique Item Number then they would have easily assigned a unique Item Number, one would be C20-T750 and the other would be C20-T751 or some close variation. Simple as that!

Classic LN "logic"; "I think what Klein's should have done and since they didn't, my argument is correct". Hilarious!

Never considered the possibility that Klein's had the same Item Number for all Carcano rifles and pin pointed the one that was ordered by the Department number?

The very thought of the complications of having to cross reference hundreds of Item Numbers with each and every Dept Number across a multitude of Sporting Magazines is a CT's wet pipe dream.

Those complications would have also existed if they used the Department number only for the purpose of advertising analysis.

What is still lacking is a credible explanation why Klein's would also copy the Department number on the "Order blank" form, when, as the LNs insist, it has nothing to do with the actual order.

[John Mytton]

If Kliens wanted each variation of Carcano to have a unique Item Number then they would have easily assigned a unique Item Number, one would be C20-T750 and the other would be C20-T751 or some close variation. Simple as that!

Classic LN "logic"; "I think what Klein's should have done and since they didn't, my argument is correct". Hilarious!

Never considered the possibility that Klein's had the same Item Number for all Carcano rifles and pin pointed the one that was ordered by the Department number?

The very thought of the complications of having to cross reference hundreds of Item Numbers with each and every Dept Number across a multitude of Sporting Magazines is a CT's wet pipe dream.

Those complications would have also existed if they used the Department number only for the purpose of advertising analysis.

What is still lacking is a credible explanation why Klein's would also copy the Department number on the "Order blank" form, when, as the LNs insist, it has nothing to do with the actual order.

Give it up Martin, you are starting to look a desperate Fool!

JohnM