Talk:List of oldest companies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| List | This article has been rated as List-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Budvar?
Is it just me or does the Budvar entry seem rather questionable? In fact, a lot of the brewery entires seem to have pretty tenuous histories if you go more than 300 years back.
Every brewery entry added states either on their product or their website when they were founded, or since when they existed. We cannot call each company a liar if we feel their history webpage is lacking. Most companies do not have the resources or inclination to put up fancy in-depth historic information. Gunter 18:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Guinness
I moved Guinness from UK to Ireland. It was prior to the Act of Union. ClemMcGann 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Forham
Removed. The company was founded in 1995 reusing a name they claim belonged to a brewery from the 1700s. Doesn't meet the criteria for this list Toddstreat1 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Losing #1?
I know nothing about it, but Kongo Gumi says it went under and was bought out... :( -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 12:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, sad. But the company still exists, it is just not family owned anymore, so it stays #1 :) Gunter 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- If it loses the name, it would be like the JPMorgan example in the intro... -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- The name is still there. SYSS Mouse 16:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- If it loses the name, it would be like the JPMorgan example in the intro... -- RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- But no decision has been made. Is it to go or not? statsone 15:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
It stays as long as it's name remains Gunter 19:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name Changes
Does anyone know why there is the rule regarding corporations that have changed names? After all, JP Morgan Chase may still be effectively the same company, even after the name-changing merger.
Under this rule, if Bob's Metalworking, Inc. changed its corporate form, sold all its assets and trademarks to another company, and went into another line of business - but kept its name - it would remain on the list. (Or if it changed its name from Bob's Metalworking, Inc. to Tim's Metalworking LLC, it would remain on the list because it kept part of its name.) Or if Bob's was purchased by Mega Holding Corporation, and liquidated - but Mega Holding Corporation changed its name to Bob's Metalworking, Inc. to capitalize on Bob's goodwill - it would remain on the list, even though the only thing surviving of Bob's was the corporation's goodwill.
But if Bob's changed its name to Tim's Smithing, Inc. without changing anything else, it would be pulled from the list.
A better test might be harder to construct (for example, and I haven't thought this through - maybe it could ask whether the company has been liquidated or so subsumed into another company as to effectively no longer exist - i.e. they no longer have distinct operations, brands, etc.). --38.112.184.20 04:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
There has to be some sane criteria to govern entries on the list. Most companies on the list have retained their original name for over 200 years, the few companies that do change their names are usually non-family run and have no respect for their own tradition. In a sense if they change their name they no longer are the same company. There are only a couple of companies like this and i don't beleive it is worth the time it takes to find them. Gunter 10:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I certainly agree that there needs to be some sane criteria, and (since I'm not volunteering to maintain this list) I'm certainly sensitive to the desire not to spend infinite amounts of time trying to track down companies which have changed their names.
Nonetheless, I think name is a poor proxy for age. While I respect your position, I don't think the list should be about whether a company respects its tradition or is family-owned - to me, old is old, and if the company still exists it should remain on the list. Indeed, that's the biggest problem for anyone maintaining this list - how do you identify whether a company still exists? On day one there was a company founded by a group of people, with certain employees, certain assets and a certain line of business. 200 years later all the owners and employees are dead, the assets have all been sold (and new ones bought), and much of the business has changed. Throw in a few mergers and spin off a few divisions (which most companies will do at some point), and it becomes a tough question - but I think it is answerable, and I think we should at least try to answer it.
So why am I bringing this up? Well, two things. First, I think that when, going forward, people need to decide whether a company will remain on the list after a merger, maybe they should consider more than just the name. Take Kango Gumi - if it turns out that the company exists in name only, and is otherwise just a shell or holding company, should it stay on? (I'm sure there are plenty of others - for example, is A1 still its own company, or is it now made by Kraft?)
Second, I think we should consider whether JPMorgan Chase should be on the list somewhere. JPMorgan Chase is the Bank of Manhattan. It has some of the same assets, and is in the same line of business. Its ownership changed, it merged, and it expanded - but the company is still there. Why shouldn't it be on the list if it still does what it always has done with some of the same assets it has always used?
Or, to put it another way - why was the triggering event that made the company cease to exist the name change to JPMorgan Chase?
In 1955 the Bank of Manhattan (founded in 1799) acquired Chase (founded in 1877) (I'm getting this all from their wikipedia entries). It became Chase Manhattan.
In 1996 Chase Manhattan was acquired by Chemical Bank (founded in 1823), but the company chose to keep the name Chase Manhattan (sounded better than "Chemical Bank," I guess).
In 2000 Chase Manhattan (which was really Chemical Bank) acquired JP Morgan (founded 1895) and changed its name to JPMorgan Chase.
So what would the 1996 acquisition have done to this list, if it were around? It's strange, because Chemical Bank acquired Chase Manhattan - but it would have been Chemical Bank (not Chase Manhattan) who would have lost its status as one of the oldest companies (1823) because it changed its name. Chase Manhattan, which was acquired, would not have.
Then in 2000 the same thing happened - when Chemical Bank (which now called itself Chase Manhattan) acquired JP Morgan and became JPMorgan Chase, it wouldn't have been JP Morgan (which was acquired) that lost its status - or Chase (acquired in 1955), or even Chemical Bank (which had already lost its status). It would have been the Bank of Manhattan - which was acquired in 1996, but lost its status in 2000.
So now the company is called JPMorgan Chase. The oldest part of the name is Chase National Bank, founded in 1877. So by the rule, JPMorgan Chase was founded in 1877. But that's just wrong - Chase was acquired by the Bank of Manhattan in 1955, which was acquired by Chemical Bank in 1996. The only thing surviving of Chase at this point is the name. There's far more Bank of Manhattan, and even more Chemical Bank, in JPMorgan Chase than there is any "Chase." Indeed, the true surviving entity in the group is probably Chemical Bank (1823).
Now, maybe that's too hard to sort out - and maybe once a company merges like that, it just no longer exists because the whole is too different from the individual parts. But if that's true, then can't we go ahead and take Kango Gumi off, since it's been merged into a larger company?
In any event, thank you for your hard work on this page, and I apologize for being long-winded.--38.112.184.20 23:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
8) I agree it is difficult for certain companies like Chase, to decide the factors to justify listing. But as i said such companies are not that common, we can add Chase to the list, but the intro paragraph needs to be reworded. Take the example of A1. A1 started in 1824, all that is left now is the brandname (that's my it's listed), as it was eventually bought by Kraft. But you can't list Kraft at 1824 for that reason. My main criteria for adding companies/brandnames is a website or logo proving their founding date, of course there are exceptions, but this has turned out to be a good guide. It's the name that needs to be consistent either in whole or part. A1 then is A1 now. And Kongo Gumi stays :) Takenaka paid for the company, it exists, it is just not family owned anymore. Gunter 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed the intro has been partially deleted and JP Morgan Chase added under 1799. I still think a short intro needs to be added statsone 23:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Linkifying
I am working on the linkifying, and am stuck on a few. Please suggest. And if you don't like any of the ones I have already done, please do not revert - speak up here and I can easily change them!
Ceramics => Pottery Marine => ??? (like Trinity House) Offices => ??? (is John Brooke even the right link?) Champagne => Champagne (beverage) or Vineyard again (making wine = Champagne) Buttons => Badge as Buttons since not clothing?
(may edit and add more) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 01:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Biting off more than I can chew here. I've created a temporary page. Please help me! See User:Revragnarok/OldestCompaniesConversion. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Maruchan
Maruchan is attributed as 1649 establishment now. It is not a company name, just a brand name owned by Toyo Suisan, which is established in 1953. It must have been confused with Marukan Vinegar. 58.159.170.130 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you...corrected Gunter 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Being a watch guy, I need to add two old companies. Cortebert (1790) and Bovet (1822). The former does not have a site. In addition to make its own watches, Cortebert is famous for providing parts. Cortebert's most closely related customer/brand/subsidary company is Perseo (http://www.perseo-watches.com/), the official Italian railway timekeeper for a long time, since Fascist Italy. Notice that Perseo also lists themselves 1790, that is because basically Perseo *is* Cortebert, being the Italian branch of the company. Thus Perseo should not be listed. Cortebert is/was also the railroad timekeeper of Poland, Serbia, Turkey, and Egypt.
Bovet's website is http://www.bovet-fleurier.ch
[edit] Kikkoman
Kikkoman is said to have started in business in 1630. However, even its own website says the company was founded in 1917 under a different name. It was made up of family owned businesses that can trace their lineage back to 1630. Still, Kikkoman is a relatively young company - the fact there existed companies in 1630 is without dispute. But they are not in existence today and should not be on this list. I'm not singling out Kikkoman - Any company listed here is presumed active and should only date back as far as it was so. UPS was founded by Jim Casey in 1907. We don't say it was an offshoot of Casey business dating back to 1892. SSherris 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
A company is as old as it's oldest business entity. Changing the name after a merger does not affect the founding date. Gunter 17:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Too long list?
I terribly sorry about my bad English. English is a foreign language for me.
I happen do think that this list is too long and it should be shorten. The reason of that is this list contains offaly lot of mistakes (specially in the end) and I think that list what gives wrong information is not needed.
For example: in this list there is one Estonian company (Kalev) but in Estonia there are older companies than that and companies that are about same old and should also be included into this list. (oldest company in Estonia that I know is Leibur - started in 1762). 213.219.91.33 20:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes the list is long, but it should not be shortened, if anything it might need to be split into seperate pages to remove the scroll lag. There are no errors in the list that i am aware of, i check every entry that is added, almost all have their dates on their website. If you see a mistake, please correct it.Gunter 11:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] London Gazette
Should the London Gazette really be listed here? Certainly these days it's a government publication. David Underdown (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Since it started as a non-government publication, it should be included. Gunter (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked by the Spam Filter Notice
I tried to add the following entry to this article, but I was not allowed to save the page because the link http://www.tanners-wines.co.uk from another entry is in the blacklist. Can someone help me fix this? Mhwu (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
|- |1851 |[http://www.booksinc.net] |[[Books Inc.]] |[[USA]] |[[Bookselling|Bookstore]] |-
- OK, it's been fixed, but if you want to add the above company, i need a link on their page that states their founding date of 1851, i couldn't find anything obvious Gunter (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
