repros
 

Are the reproduction guns by Winchester preferred over the other reproductions ?

If youre refering to such reproductions as Tony Galazan's Foxes and other reproductions, I would say no. Those guns are highly desirable but the beauty of the Parker Reproduction by Winchester is, not only the fact that it is nearly a flawless imitation of the original in terms of operation and aesthetics, but it is far underpriced for what it is in comparison to the guns I mentioned.





.

You wouldn't call the Utica Foxes reproductions.
Why do you call the New Britain Foxes reproductions?

I guess because the New Britain Foxes are contemporary guns manufactured to original specs but using modern materials just like the Parker Reproductions by Winchester. If I may be so bold, I also consider the $50k New Britain AHE Parker to be a reproduction for those same reasons... but that's just me - YMMV.





.

I don't get it.
So materials are the criteria for reproduction status??

If someone in Kansas other than GM was making what appeared to be Corvette three-window coupes, they would almost certainly be considered reproductions.

It is a very interesting philosophical debate.
I think its very unfortunate that the Skeuse Parkers that we all love were called Parker Reproductions. They were licensed by Remington who own the Parker rights. They were not really built by Winchester but by a plant in Japan that built Winchester.
My peeny little brain tells me that someone else also made LC Smiths, as did someone else make AH Foxes. They are not considered "reproductions' but are an evolution of the original with all the legal rights to be made by the owner of those rights.
All of these evolutions of original guns were no doubt made with more modern materials WHEN they were made. We know that the Ilion guns produced by Remington and labeled Parker were made a bit differently, for example barrel steel. I would never call my Ilion guns "reproductions".
To me a Skeuse Parker is in the same category as a Utica Fox. In fact I am going to start calling them Skeuse Parkers. It is unfortunate they have all the Winchester and Japan nomenclature on them.
But enough of my yapping....

Licensed, engineered, interchangeable parts...
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Skeuse Parkers has a very nice ring to it.

Bobby, I like your first reply better... the one you withdrew...

In any case, and without trying to be argumentative, to reproduce something (in this case) is to manufacture something that 'mimics' or 'copies' the original. The original may be considered a 'classic' (something that is honored as definitive in its field) and bears reproducing for this very reason. And the fact that these items are being reproduced in modern times it is just logical that modern (state of the art) materials be used in the manufacturing of the item.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the subject and as I stated before, YMMV.
And my mind can be changed by other opinions. I've never seen anything in print that defines what a 'reproduction' is in terms of shotguns so I guess everyone's opinion would have some validity on the matter.





.

Dean
You are not argumentative any more than I am. As I said it is a very interesting philosophical question.
I love my Skeuse Parkers. I think I will see if Tony Galazan will make me up some replacement case labels.
I know Gerry Addison and Kenny Graft will need a hundred each.