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

Bill: When I put my first announcement in Parker Pages almost 6 months ago, I anticipated going it alone, with Tom Rowe's help, doing the type setting and layout, and having Man at Arms or Dan Cote or Schlifflers publish it. Had this been the case, I thought I could get it done for Xmas 2007 (wishful thinking).

But when Collector Books got involved, much to my relief, they have a different schedule, which is geared for Xmas 2008, and involves getting it in print during Summer 2008, so it can be cataloged by distributors and dealers by Labor Day. Thus it should all come together like some big solar eclipse on or before Labor Day 2008. Meanwhile, I'm offering "true believers" the opportunity to pre-subscribe to the Signed 500 Limited Edition, not so much that it will sell out immediatly and serious collectors will be left out, because there's always the Trade Edition, but I want "Patron" names up front to memorialize the circa 2007 "Players," so the collectors of fine guns who follow us in ten, twenty, and fifty years will know the people who were most interested today. EDM

[quote=GregSY I dunno Ed - the book I read the most of all is yours - is that why I am so dumb?

Let's see...first you posted the strong position that Remington did not acquire the Bros name to avoid product liability.... I doubted that.... 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).... The idea that Remington in he 1930's avoided the Bros name for liability reasons just didn't pass the sniff test.... 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.[/quote]

GregSY: I don't think we disagree except on emphasis. Our back and forth has allowed the airing of Parker-related info, some fact and some conjecture. My reference to the common practice of acquiring assets rather than the whole entity is probably misplaced given that Parker Brothers was not an entity, but simply a name painted on the gun works building, and adopted by the gunmakers since June 1869, when they stopped marking Charles Parker Maker on barrel ribs and in their advertising.

The better point has to be that "Parker Brothers Maker" as stamped or engraved on barrel ribs since 1869, was of little or no interest to Remington/DuPont in that Remington was intended to be the "Maker" and not prepetuate the "Parker Brothers Maker" name. The acquisition of "The Parker Gun" was to enhance Remington's image as stated by Mr. Carpenter, who ran the operation.

My "strong" view is that Remington's executives and lawyers saw no value in the "Parker Brothers Maker" name, and, in fact, sought to distance themselves from The Charles Parker Company, Inc. so as not to dilute the newly acquired "The Parker Gun" trademark. Hindsight today is that Remington should have also acquired the "Parker Brothers Maker" trade name, thus requiring that TCPCo.,Inc. stop using it, but with the same hindsight one might second guess the buying of Manhattan Island for $24. However, the problem with the Island was few people had the opportunity and $24 at the time; with Remington/DuPont they had the money but not the motivation.

Your original point was that Remington didn't have the $$$, which seemed to echo Peter Johnson's theory that Parker Brothers was a valuable asset that Remington paid dearly for; Peter had no basis for his opinion. In fact, Charles S. Parker (in interviews taped by Louis Parker III) was critical of Peter not following up his letter writing research with some telephone or face to face interviews. I have a copy of CSP's letter to Peter stating his disappointment with Peter in this respect. When I interviewed Peter just before he pased away a few years ago it came out that he never actually spoke to any quoted source, but simply placed an ad in the Meriden newspaper soliciting anecdotes of persons with knowledge and relied on whatever they replied. Since then much more indepth research has uncovered facts published by insiders; the weight of the evidence is that TCPCo., Inc. unloaded a flagship liability and the "Parker Brothers Maker" issue just slipped in the crack. EDM

In a nutshell, acquisition of the Parker Gun Works by Remington-Dupont in 1934 can't be explained in any reasonable way, regardless of how many opinions and pieces of research material are thrown into the blender. Dozens of pages in my research file contain hundreds of columns of figures estimating future cost, sales, and income figures, all of which assume two things. The two things are: 1. Remington employees have the ability to manufacture a Parker shotgun. 2. Remington can sell a Parker shotgun. Number 2 was found to be fallacy from the week of acquisition in 1934 until the last items of inventory were finally liquidated in the fifties. My research implies that the number of guns manufactured during this period was probably exceeded by the number of guns returned for credit by dealers. The number of guns sold was equally insignificant. Number 1 was not discovered to be an incorrect assumption until the end of World War 2 when it was found that the machinery was inoperative and the skilled personnel force had largely left the employ of Remington Arms.

Bill: I think there are a disproportionate number of "cherry" Late-Remington/Parkers that go up for sale in virtually new condition. If you agree, do you think these guns might have been bought on speculation as future collector's items by savvy individuals who saw the writing on the wall, which apparently Remington didn't see or refused to acknowledge?

When you consider the 180,000 hammerless made from 1888, and 140,000 plus Parkers made from the turn of the last century till production ceased during WWII, and the fact that Remington made less than 1,700 guns in Ilion, the Ilion guns at about 1% of production are not too hard to come by if one is willing to pay the price. I like them as shooters, given the latter-day metals. The ones I have owned have all been masterpieces of the gunmaker's art; whether they cost more to make than the market would bear is problematical. Mr. Carpenter in that famous letter to the Remington Society said that the public no longer valued the old way of making double-fit fine shotguns. C'est la vie! EDM

Lots of good info guys...were still looking for the fAux Parker.

In the shuffle...Last dOllar slipped away without showing us the gun that started this thread.

Actually, the gun is still in Iowa. The boys will coming out to shoot some birds pretty quick, as soon as Tom is healed enough to travel, and I'll post a pic. I think I have figured out how. But, I think we can safely say, it aint a Parker...