[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
