doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Faux Parker?

GregSY and others: You need to understand that Parker Brothers was making less than 100 guns per year in 1934, and was said to have twenty senior gunmakers doing make-work projects as sort of a Depression-era private-employer-funded unemployment/welfare program. Contrary to Peter Johnson's cheerleading conjecture, the Parker gunworks operation was not a valuable asset, but more a serious cash-draining liability. The machinery was old, some dating to the civil war and before.

Parker Brothers Makers was not an entity of any sort, but merely a "shop within the shop," according to the superintendent Walter King. There was raw inventory and some work in process, 30 or 40 skilled workers, mostly under- or unemployed, and the good will of the Parker name, which was advertised as The Parker Gun (not Parker Brothers makers).

It is a fact that The Charles Parker Co., Inc. continued to the use Parker Brothers name in connection with other lines of products; the trade name originated in June 1869 in connection with the factory being called The Parker Brothers Machine and Gun Works. And it's a fact that Remington rented the Parker Brothers factory building for three years, before moving the operation to Ilion in 1937/38. My job has been to find facts like these while reading as much contemporary literature as possible to exlclude the existance of conflicting facts; then string it all together and draw logical but not overbroad conclusions.

An affliction endemic to "gun cranks," then and now, is the imputing of too much twenty-first-century organized thought process into nineteenth and early twentieth century off-the-cuff transactions. The Parker Gun was known as The Parker Gun, and was produced by a non-entity called Parker Brothers Makers. Given that Remington was backed by DuPont, and The Parker Gun was a losing proposition in 1934, the idea was that Remington enhance its image by adding a fine side by side to its arsenal. John Olin had his Winchester Model 21; for the Du Ponts it was monkey see, monkey do.

This is all well documented, albeit in bits and pieces, in the literature of the day. No one then ever said that Remington sought to avoid products liability, but it was then and still is a common and prudent business practice. Yet it is probably more likely that Remington, to implement the Du Pont family's aspirations to level the playing field with john Olin, quite simply set out to acquire for as little as possible "The Parker Gun" trade mark, plus existig inventory, work in process, and tooling, with the ability to pick and choose among the skilled gunmakers who, truth be told, didn't have any options, given the state of the economy.

One could conclude that DuPont/Remington saw no value in the name of the old gun works painted on the factory in Meriden CT. Remington acquired Parker to enhance its own image as a gunmaker, and to inject "Parker Brothers Makers" into the fray would at best confuse the issue. Remington intended to be the maker! I say again, REMINGTON INTENDED TO BE THE MAKER. The idea was to enhance their own image, not prepetuate the name of an old factory in another city and state

If you would bring yourself up to speed by looking at the bunch of Parker catalogs now for sale on eBay at $4,200 to start, you will notice the product name is "The Parker Gun" (1908 Pine Cone) and "Parker Guns" (1929 Flying Geese); no mention of Parker Brothers Maker on the covers. Notice the ca.1907 postcard says, "The Parker Gun" as the trade mark, while mentioning Parker Brothers Makers in the subscript. The product was The Parker Gun. The fact that a shop within a factory at Meriden CT was called the Parker Brothers Gun Works was of little consequence when Parker Brothers had its own catalogs printed as early as 1908, and was of little consequence in 1934 when the 800 pound gorilla (DuPont/Remington) picked and chose what they wanted of a finincially challanged gunmaker in Meriden CT.

One way to get a grip on this stuff is to be well read on the topics that presented themselves as issues when the guns were in current production. By getting a nineteenth century street sense, many of the mysteries are easy to dope out or think through. Given that mention of Parker Brothers Makers was always subsidiary to "The Parker Gun" in Parker Brothers' own advertising, and given that Remington only rented the old Parker Brothers Gun works for a short time until it could remove the operation to Ilion NY, what purpose would have been served by Remington negotiating to acquire the Parker Brothers name in 1934? None that I can see. But 20-20 hindsight is that Remington might have had a leg to stand on when it sued the new Parker Bros Makers of the O/U.

Greg: None of this is in the context of knowing it all; some of us keep trying, however. One way is to seperate the wheat from the chaff by reading those "obscure" old books and comparing notes with others who do the same. I notice one tread about Damascus barrels that has 27,000 hits and counting; a few people on this website are up to speed on the esotheric barrel-forging issue.

The way we get educated is by asking questions and trying to get the best quality answers possible. Some questions are not directy answerable because the underlying facts went without saying at the time. Blacksmiths were almost by definition not literate, and did not write down their exact observations in re: selecting raw materials and banging out barrel tubes in the nineteenth century. Nor did the powers that be at Remington see fit to publish their inner thoughts upon acquiring The Parker Gun in 1934, yet there were retrospectives published over the years. But the idea that one would announce the legal considerations in 1934 and anything short of such official pronouncements not being sufficient for some web junkie in 2007; well, GregSY, you have set the bar too high. You shall go unconvinced.

It's pick and shovel work finding this stuff and time consuming to spit it out to those few who trive on such minutia. For one who announces that his main accomplishment in reading is to spill his chocolate milk on books, my advice is to stop reading. Meanwhile, I'd like to know the factual basis for your opinions if you don't read much or not at all.

I just received my royalty statement for the 6 months ended 6/30/07 from Safari Press, and my Parker Guns: The "Old Reliable" (Safari Press 1997, 2004 2nd print.) has topped 8,000 copies sold; meanwhile, orders for the Signed Limited 500 Edition of my new book, Parker Guns: Shooting Flying and the American Experience (Collector Books, Paducha KY, to be released summer 2008), are rolling in. It's gratifying that some people find me credible and still read books. EDM

Here's a nice Parker....

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=83482789

All of this is marginally interesting, from the discussion, I can conclude that the gun in question may or may not be a Parker, and if I continue to pursue this I may be the object of a product liabilty/patent infringement/trademark suit? And, Joe, I wasnt interested in buying a Parker, so what in H*** would I want to look at one for? Geeez!

Last Dollar,
Oh well. Post a question here; sometimes you get a chocolate bonbon and sometimes you get a smart pill.

And I vote along with Bill Schodlatz, it's probably a low grade Belgian knock-off.

Thought you might want to compare them....

Getting smarter with every bite!

Ed,

You may be a Junior Member, but you will always be my Senior when it comes to Parker and other American gunmaker research and related prose. Please email a confirmation for a limited edition, pre-release addition of your upcoming book. pmurphy@aol.com.

Phil

Phil: The first 100 pre-publication subscribers will see their names listed as "Patrons" on a page in the front, and the rest of the subscribers to the Signed 500 Limited Edition will be listed in the Appendix. I got this idea from Robin Chute's British bibliography, Shooting Flying. He lists and thanks his 168 pre-publication subscribers, and the readers of his book will forever be enlightened as to the persons most interested in British antiquarian shotgunning books.

I got to thinking how interesting it would be if Peter Johnson dropped some Parker-player names circa 1961, and if Larry Baer had done the same in the 1970s. So my deal with Collector Books has this written into the contract. Thus there is a price of admission; in other words, one needs to actually subscribe for the Limited Edition by paying $99.95 plus $7.50 S&H ($107.45 check only) to Old Reliable Publishing Box 4 Davis IL 61019.

The money goes into a sequestered account pending shipment of books next summer. This is not a "Vanity Press" or subsidized publishing project like most other gun books, but I do need cash in hand to submit names of actual subscribers to my publisher. Collector Books has paid me a royalty advance to bind the deal, and will pay royalties on books sold; they do it all, including the marketing of the Trade Edition that will be universally available in the big box and Internet stores and from gun book dealers. I say again, the $$$ go in a special account only to be disbursed as books are mailed.

I own the entire Signed 500 Limited Edition that will be only available thru my Old Reliable Publishing. The "Patron" page is more than half full based on my small ad in the last Parker Pages, and I'm getting ready to do a 2,000 flyer mailing; my full page ad will be in the next Vintager and again in the next PGCA Parker Pages, of course. My first book, Parker Guns: The "Old Reliable" (Safari Press 1997, 2004) sold out the 500 Limited Edition coincidental with release in August 1997. Don't be left out if the Limited Edition appeals to you; or if not, the Trade Edition is expected to be priced at $49.95. Your Baker Paragon is pictured with my "hand model," Destry Hoffard, holding it against his rather large background. (Sorry, Destry, sometimes I just can't help myself. Wink! wink!)

EDM

Is early publication and early shipment part of the Limited Edition or the "Patron Package"? How early?

"It's pick and shovel work finding this stuff and time consuming to spit it out to those few who trive on such minutia. For one who announces that his main accomplishment in reading is to spill his chocolate milk on books, my advice is to stop reading. Meanwhile, I'd like to know the factual basis for your opinions if you don't read much or not at all. "


I dunno Ed - the book I read the most of all is yours - is that why I am so dumb? I can unnerstand the big pictures real easy.

Let's see...first you posted the strong position that Remington did not acquire the Bros name to avoid product liability. I doubted that. Then, you mentioned lots of chocolate milk-stained books but never actually gave an answer. They call that the Texas Two-Step. I asked for evidence, Your Honor. Finally, you back-pedal and say that Remington really didn't buy the name because it had no real value to them - which is at least closer to what I suggested in the first place (non-legal reasons).

My opinions (and they are opinions, not fact, unlike your opinions which are fact) are based on common sense. The idea that Remington in he 1930's avoided the Bros name for liability reasons just didn't pass the sniff test. No further research needed as even an expert has ceded. I have a good nose and I am glad your years of research have lead you to the same place.

Go back and read my original post - the whole purpose was to point out there's nothing more foolish than a bunch of experts running around 70 years after the fact squawking "Never say never!" One can easily say 'never' when it comes to Parkers. You failed to see the satire in that and felt the need to spout off. Like most 'experts' you don't seem able to say "I think" instead of "I know".

The Parker gun is a success - but does it really need any more fathers....? I'm going to get some chocolate milk.