LOPO Corporation Growth: 2002–2013 Archive Guide preserves a company timeline published in 2013 while separating historical narration from verified present facts. The old page mixed dates with “first,” “largest,” competitive, capacity, patent, acquisition, cooperation, base and product statements. They remain useful research leads, not current rankings or independently confirmed corporate history. Every material claim should be checked against dated company records, legal documents, patent files, partner or project records and present written confirmation.
How to read this company-development archive
A timeline can show how a business once described its growth, but publication on an old page does not prove every date, superlative or attribution. “First in China,” “world’s first,” “largest” and “competitive” require a defined category, geography, comparison set, date and evidence. Production capacity needs a facility, measurement basis and period. Cooperation can mean different contractual relationships, while a named project does not alone identify which product, entity or scope was involved.
Use each line below as a 2013 source note. Do not convert it into a current company profile, product claim, ownership record or partner endorsement without corroboration.
Archive boundary: all dates and claims on this page reproduce or summarize the former timeline. They are not present corporate, legal, technical, patent, capacity or commercial declarations.
Archived milestones from 2002 to 2004
The page recorded a foundation event in the Tangshan Industrial Zone and used largest and competitive language about the planned business. Those rankings and the precise entity, site and event require primary records.
It said the first extruded brick was made and a cultured-stone factory was established. “First” may mean first for the company, a plant or a broader market; the old wording does not resolve the scope.
The archive associated this year with cultured stone, multicolour products and handmade bricks. Current product continuity, manufacturing source and exact launch dates are not established by the timeline.
Company registrations, land or construction records, dated factory documents, product catalogues and contemporaneous photographs would be stronger sources for these early milestones.
Archived product and capacity claims from 2005 to 2008
The former page named a “flame colour” development. That phrase preserves an old finish or colour concept, not a current product, process or availability statement.
It named “metallic colour” and described it as first in China. Both the finish identity and national priority claim require dated product records and a defined comparison basis.
The timeline called the operation the largest production base, listed three lines and stated annual capacities of 4.5 million m² of clay tiles and 0.6 million m² of cultured stone. Facility, operational period, rated-versus-actual basis and units all need verification.
None of these historical fields proves present capacity, certification, output, product range or market position. Current enquiries should request a dated facility and capability statement for the legal entity and product involved.
Archived expansion and cooperation from 2009 to 2011
The page claimed a first handmade clay brick, a Changtai panel production base and cooperation with Vanke. The product priority, site identity, corporate entity, agreement and project scope each need separate evidence.
Financial Street and China Merchants were named in cooperation or project language. The timeline does not establish contract parties, locations, supplied products, quantities, dates or authorization to present those names as current partners.
The archive said FGM was acquired, the first panel was made and cooperation included Gemdale and other real-estate businesses. Acquisition, ownership, first-panel scope and each relationship require legal, company and project documentation.
Partner names should remain historical references unless the relevant organization and LOPO confirm the relationship and permitted attribution. A project image or logo cannot substitute for a dated contract, case record or written approval.
Read the duplicated 2012 entry and 2013 ellipsis carefully
The 2012 text described a lychee-shaped self-cleaning product and called it first in China. It also claimed the world’s first multifunctional floor-heating paving brick, mentioned a patent, listed several real-estate collaborations and used largest-producer language. Product identity, self-cleaning performance, priority, patent number and status, heating function, partner relationships and ranking all require current or contemporaneous primary evidence.
The old page repeated its 2012 paragraph. That duplication is a publishing artifact, not two independent sources or double evidence. A research note should record one claimed milestone and flag the repetition. The 2013 entry was only an ellipsis, so it supplies no specific event and should not be completed by inference.
Patent verification should identify jurisdiction, application or grant number, applicant, inventors, filing and status. Product and project attribution should separately identify the responsible company, exact product, date and supporting record.
Build a current corporate due-diligence record
For current use, request the legal company name, registration information, ownership or group relationship, facility addresses, operating scope, product directories, dated capacity basis, current certificates and any corporate-history document LOPO is prepared to stand behind. Ask for evidence supporting an acquisition, patent, factory, product launch, cooperation or project attribution before repeating it publicly.
Use the current product directory to distinguish today’s categories from historic launches.
Review current project references, then request attribution details for any case being cited.
Browse the architectural terracotta gallery for visual context without treating images as proof of contracts or priority.
Consult LOPO’s certificate page, while requesting the current document and scope directly.
Create a source register with claim, date, exact wording, entity, location, product, evidence type, issuer and verification status. Mark unresolved claims rather than smoothing gaps with the old narrative.
Request a verified current company history
State how the information will be used—for due diligence, a project submission, corporate profile, supplier review or historical research—and list the specific years or claims requiring confirmation. Attach the archive URL so LOPO can distinguish the old text from the requested present record.
Email roger@lopoterracotta.com or use the contact form. Ask for dated written confirmation and copies or references for the relevant company, patent, facility, capacity, partnership, project and product records.
Keep direct evidence, company statements and third-party records labelled separately. Record document dates, legal names, translations, limitations and permissions for partner references. If a claim cannot be verified, preserve it only as “stated on the 2013 archive page.”
This approach respects the timeline’s historical value without presenting first, largest, patent, capacity, acquisition or cooperation language as current fact. It also prevents the repeated 2012 paragraph and empty 2013 entry from becoming invented milestones.