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

Hey....sounds to me like you're saying never, LOL!

No, I'm not saying never. But I'd bet a dollar to a dounut, that it's not a Parker Bros. shotgun. :-)

Yeah, I know what you mean.

I don't think the mystery is solved, but GregSY posits a new mystery: Who is this masked man? The "expert" who believes (1) Remington didn't have enough $$$ to buy the full Parker Brothers name; (2) Someone ordered a hammer gun in the late 1930s and Remington cobbled one together out of parts left over from the 1880s; (3) The mystery man has "records" showing that Parker Brothers "probably" made the barrels and they "may" shoot better than other types of steel. Isn't it 99.99% more likely that:

(1) Remington bought parts inventory, work in process, tooling, and the goodwill of the Parker name plus the right to make guns with the Parker name (but not "Parker Brothers"), which was a Trademark of The Charles Parker Company, Inc., of Meriden CT. Fact is that TCPCo., Inc. continued to market products under their Parker Brothers trade name after Remington bought the rights to make and market The Parker Gun.

(a) Companies almost always buy assets rather than acquire the whole business so as to avoid assumption of liabilities. (We arn't talking about mergers and acquisitions here, but the buying of a "nickle shop" making less than 100 guns a year during the Great Depression.)

(b) The last thing Remington wanted in June 1934 was to enhance their product line with the Parker name at the risk of being sued when one of a quarter-million Parker Brothers guns made made over 68 years by TCPCo.Inc. blew up in some numbnut's hands who plugged a barrel or overloaded a shell or shot someone because he thought the safety was on when it was off.

(c) By avoiding the liability issue in the 1930s and allowing TCPCo., Inc. to go on using their Parker Brothers trademark, Remington created a problem for itself three-score-and-ten years later when the new Parker Bros O/U was introduced recently. Remington never bought or used the Parker Brothers trademark, and the trademark fell into disuse when TCPCo., Inc. was acquired, absorbed, and liquidated long ago. There was a Remington vrs. Parker Bros lawsuit recently, but anyone who reads the magazines will see ads for an O/U made and marketed by a company in Meriden CT, not associated with Remington. IMHO (based on some direct knowledge) a trademark has to be used and vigorusly defended to remain the property of a claimant; to my knowledge, Remington never purchased, used, or defended the Parker Bros trademark. C'est la vie!

(2-3-4) As to a mystery "expert" with Parker records showing Remington made hammer guns in the late 1930s out of parts left over from the nineteenth century, and particularly Parker-made Laminated barrel tubes which were superior to other kinds of steel, I guess one man's unnamed expert is another man's red herring. Suffice it to say that:

(a) Tubes forged of "English Laminated" steel were once considered superior to other types because the tubes contained more steel, which was possible given a method of forging that involved less twisting. Laminated barrels were harder and wore better, but lost out to fashion when shooters came to value the spiral pattens of finest Damascus.

(b) Parker Brothers made some of its own barrel tubes starting in 1878, and likely ending in the late 1880s (according to catalog interpetations).

Finally, to answer the first poster's question: Both Sears and Monkey Wards sold cheap hammer guns ($11.40) at the turn of the last century, made in Belgium and clearly cataloged as such, marked T.Parker and T.Barker, and the ads proclaimed "500,000 Sold!" There were several other Parker names on cheap guns, and Thomas Parker was an old-time English maker.

Punch line: If it dosen't say "Parker Bros. Maker Meriden CT" on the barrel rib, and "Parker Brothers" or "Parker Bros" on the lock plate of an old wallhanger, it ain't a real Parker. Further EDM sayeth naught.

I'd be surprised to learn that in the 1930's anyone was concerned with product liability. I'd rather guess that they did not buy the Bros name to avoid overlap with all the other Parker Bros products still being produced. And, probably the Parker family had some say in the issue as well, pride being what it is and all. It's tempting to apply our wussy 2007 perspective to a 1930's transaction but I'd have to see it to believe it. In 1938 if you cut off your hand with a saw you changed your name to Lefty and made it a point not to contact the saw company in fear they would not sell you any more saw blades. In the 1930's we had not yet become a nation of victims and ambulance chasers.

As for the Parker O/U debacle, let's just say the old boys who put the finest name in American guns on that mule of a gun will have to reckon with their maker one day. Just because you are legally within your rights to wear a Speedo at the beach doesn't make it right.

I'd have to guess that an 1870's gun would wear out every other single part long before the tubes wore out. Given that I have heavy use 1880's Damascus Parkers with healthy tubes I have to question the need for a more hard-wearing material. I'd be more willing to accept that even in the 1870's people operated on misinformation, emotion, and hearsay rather than fact. As for Damascus being more pleasing to the eye - I'll bet there are plenty of members of this board who would drive a Lexus over a Toyota given the choice. Will people 100 years from laugh at them for choosing pretty over reliability?

It sounds like I'll have to go back to my expert and tell him the mantra has been revised to "When it comes to Parkers, never say never except sometimes it's OK to say never".

GregSY: I own every American written and American published shotgunning book from the first one published in 1783 thru WWI, and have read them all. I own 21 years of Shooting snd Fishing (1886-1906) and have speed read and/or gleaned all 100 million words (estimated). I have almost all the issues of The American Sportsman and Rod and Gun (published by Parker Brothers 1871 to 1876) and Forest and Stream from the beginning 8/1873 through the 1880s.

I spend time researching at the National Sporting Library in Middleburg VA, and have access to the rarest of shooting flying books in the temperature and humidity controlled rare book room, not to mention all the back issues of Turf, Field and Farm (1865 et seq), The Spirit of the Times (1831 et seq). I have owned, randomly, about 50 bound editions of The American Field and Forest and Stream--Rod and Gun up to the 1920s. In other words, I am well read when it comes to the Parker Gun.

Suffice it to say that the circumstances of the Parker sale are well documented in The Parker Story by Price, Mullins, Gunther and Parker; and in my Parker Guns: "The Old Reliable" (Safari Press (1997, 2004 2nd print.). Further, the DuPont Company magazine covered the sale, as did the Sporting Goods Dealer in the 1930s.

As to the absence of products liability litigation way back when, Americans have always been litigious, going back to the "peppercorn" judgments of the 1700s, where a contentious plaintiff would prove up his nominal point-of-honor and the jury would award one pepercorn damages. You will be surprised, so you say, that "..anyone in the 1930s was concerned with product liability." I cite a 1900 case in my new book in re: a well-used SxS exploding in the hands of an Italian immigrint, who sued the gunmaker, powder company, shell maker, and seller after he loaded his own shells with dense smokeless powder using a bulk measure. There's nothing new under the sun when it comes to numbnuts wanting others to compensate them for their mistakes. I should mention that I was a products liability insurance defense attorney until I retired from the law in 1981 to go sailing.

As to "victims of ambulance chasers," I can't help recalling the Pogo comic strip, where the sage possum says, "We have found the enemy and he is us." I had my fill by 1981, of silly plaintiff's attorneys making specious arguments and getting silly cases past silly judges to even more silly juries. By then we had lost our national identity of being a country of laws, and had become an anarchy of fact, every silly claim getting it's day, or week, or more likely, years in court. Sailing is a better deal for me, plus I can read about the old guns and the oldtime shooting flying, and write some of it down.

Don't be too hard on the new Parker Bros O/U people. I spoke at length to them at the Vintager shoot, and they are genuinely surprised at the negative feedback. Their idea was to "Honor" a venerable old name that had been out of use for three-quarters of a century. I knew about this project since the 1999 Vegas antique arms show, so it was many years from concept to fruition. I questioned the selection of name then, but now see the logic. In business--show biz or commerce or industry--the mantra is, "Call me anything, but not late for dinner." Well, no, not exactly this, but by calling the new gun Parker Bros there was an instant buzz, the gun got noticed, and now will rise or fall on its own merits. Think of all the foreign made guns with names that can't be pronounced or even spelled by ordinary people. Parker Bros has a nice ring to it; Whether it strikes a responsive chord with buyers remains to be seen; I mean buyers of trap/Sporting Clays/Skeet guns, not board games, if you get what I mean. EDM

GregSy, there's a great old Jim Croce song that has these lyrics in it:

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask of the old Lone Ranger
You don't mess around with Jim

I think in this case you are pretty much spittin' into the wind and tuggin' on Superman's cape. When it comes to Parker guns, EDM pretty much has the goods. Change that last line to read "you don't mess around with Ed."

So you have read in reliable sources that product liability was the reason the name was not part of the sale?

I don't mean to imply not a single person claimed product liability; I just know it was not nearly the issue it is today.

I'd be curious what the rate of product liability claims per capita is in 1934 versus 2007.

As a lawyer - I'm sure you can tell us if a contract could be written to include the sale of a name without incurring past product liabilities?

The Parker O/U guys, in my opinion, were simply banking on a famous name they had no part in creating. Did it make business sense? Perhaps. But much like the land developer who talks the city into condemning an old lady's house so he can buy it and build condos, there's more to the equation than what makes business sense. Parasites.

"Don't be too hard on the new Parker Bros O/U people. I spoke at length to them at the Vintager shoot, and they are genuinely surprised at the negative feedback. Their idea was to "Honor" a venerable old name that had been out of use for three-quarters of a century. I knew about this project since the 1999 Vegas antique arms show, so it was many years from concept to fruition. I questioned the selection of name then, but now see the logic. In business--show biz or commerce or industry--the mantra is, "Call me anything, but not late for dinner." Well, no, not exactly this, but by calling the new gun Parker Bros there was an instant buzz, the gun got noticed, and now will rise or fall on its own merits."

Mr Muderlak: For a Parkerian of your stature I think that's a very open-minded and magnanimous statement. The problem I have with the gun is not the name or design (though the design needs proving) it is its price tag. It looks a $6-$7K gun, not what they are charging. Neat, novel and perhaps even time-worthy but I saw none of the hand-finishing that justifies a stiffer price tag (see CSMC RBL v. CSMC Fox for comparison).

I look at it like this - if Parker Bros had intended there be a Parker O/U, they would have made one.


Chief, I'm not particularly arguing with Ed, just doing some questioning. I haven't met anyone yet who was smart who said they knew it all.

Ed mentions a lot of reading and obscure books I'd probably just spill my chocolate milk on but he didn't actually come and say, "I have read reliable accounts wherein the Parker family urged Remington to buy the Parker Bros name but the Remington folks were too wise for that and declined the name on grounds of avoiding product liability". If he says he has then I'll believe him.

"Expert" is a dangerous tag to hang on anyone....