Parker by Peter Johnson - Page 2

Peter Harris · 08-01-2011, 01:06 AM

Thank you Gentlemen, I certainly did not want to prod a hornets nest.
I bought the book, which is in good condition, complete with dust jacket at a car boot sale yesterday for the princely sum of 50 pence (about 75 cents). I will settle down one evening and give it a read.
But moving on, and possibly giving the hornets nest a purposeful prod.
Why on Earth would anyone buy or obtain facts or literature about anything especially a collectors item or enthusiasts information and yet not share it? Seems very narrow minded to me. Surely knowledge is the food of invention and improvement?

Bruce Day · 08-01-2011, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Harris

Why... would anyone buy or obtain facts or literature about anything especially a collectors item or enthusiasts information and yet not share it? Seems very narrow minded to me. Surely knowledge is the food of invention and improvement?

That's a very good question to ask Bill Murphy.

As relating to the Johnson research materials and manuscript documents, as I said, I've seen them and they are not very illuminating. Moreover, the materials in several notebooks were sent to Austin Hogan and were in his possession for over a year for his examination. They were sent to Austin for his freedom to publish, use, write an article, whatever would be helpful, about the Johnson research.

So, when Bill Murphy talks about these Johnson materials as "secret PGCA research materials" nothing could be further from the truth. They are neither secret nor PGCA materials....he just hasn't seen them and isn't likely to get to see them. Moreover, they have been "outed", to use his phrase, to a responsible Parker researcher and writer.

Finally, Bill creates an improbable fictional character when he asks "Please let me know what is the deal with PGCA members who conduct great research at great personal expense and then bury it in their bosums and don't share it with others." I have no idea who he is talking about and others that I have talked to about his post have no idea either. I hope he is not talking about the renowned collector who stepped up to the plate and paid for the Johnson materials while others sat on their hands and fidgeted, because if he is, he is grossly in error.

Bill Murphy · 08-01-2011, 09:54 AM

My objections to PGCA sitting on interesting research material are well documented in comments made on this forum in the past. The "Black Hole of Curatorship" is alive and well in PGCA. The original poster is correct in his inquiry about why anyone would sit on good research material. Yes, why would one do that? I have never charged a dime for or have I held back any information that would assist another collector. When I had access to the records of a great gun company, not Parker, gun provenance was offered for a reasonable price. Fortunately for the gun owners, the information was relayed over the telephone and payment was never requested. I just couldn't bring myself to charge someone a fee for information that didn't cost me anything and was of great interest to the owner of the gun. And, in answer to Bruce's last post, I was not referring to the Peter Johnson material when I was mentioning PGCA research material locked in the "Black Hole of Curatorship". I am well aware that the Johnson material is in private hands. My offer to share my "stuff" refers to ten minutes after PGCA shares their "stuff".

Bruce Day · 08-01-2011, 10:15 AM

OK , I think I have it now. So when you were responding to a post about the Johnson book and specifically mentioning quote "the Johnson Research Materials" , you weren't really specifically talking about the Johnson materials, but rather continued grousing about you not being given access to the Parker gun records kept by the PGCA .

The so called "Black Hole of Curatorship" as relating to the PGCA is a figment of imagination and bears no resemblance to fact. You just haven't been given the access you want. Others, even including Muderlak, benefitted in legitimate research done by Mark Conrad for publication purposes. The Muderlak President Harrison gun article and the Hogan Czars gun articles come readily to mind. Those involved extensive PGCA records research. The PGCA shares their "stuff" all the time with legitimate writers and researchers who publish articles for the benefit of the Parker collecting community.

Bill Murphy · 08-01-2011, 10:26 AM

I think Peter Harris' statement is short and to the point. My statement is not short, but it is also to the point and I am sticking with it. Not too long ago, you replied to me with a similar statement, attempting to trap me into placing blame for the Black Hole on Mark Conrad. As I replied to you then, Mark Conrad has been nothing but extremely helpful to me for many years.

Peter Harris · 08-01-2011, 10:27 AM

Far be it for me to comment being a newcomer.
But Bill & Bruce are you not being as bad as the 'Curator of the Black Hole' if you have information that needs to be shared and yet you withhold it? Life is far too short to be petty.
As an interesting aside I was born and raised and trained in the gunmaking quarter of Birmingham England UK. This area was flattened in the 1960's to make way for 'progress' and many of the gunmakers retired rather than move to high rent new workshops. It was thought that their knowledge died with them, but fortunately thanks to the skills of people like David Dryhurst, Richard Tandy, Mike Smart, Tony White etc., and the bloody mindedness of myself to dig out secrets and deflate egos, the art of fine gunmaking lives on for us all to enjoy.
A note to everyone whenever a tradesman as told me they could not divulge their secret it made me all the more determined to find out.
In every case, when I discovered the secret I found it was more BS than skill, and there wasn't anything to be secretive about.

Bruce Day · 08-01-2011, 10:59 AM

There is no "Black Hole of Curatorship" in the PGCA. Its simply a self serving statement by a single person who doesn't get the access he desires while others get help. That's why I have been so out front in countering Murphy's comment. I think the PGCA is a fine organization, I have a lot of friends in it and we help keep alive collecting and user interest in an exemplary American article. There are always those who want to tear down an organization and its key people for their own reasons, and those people may collect a few cheerleaders along the way from those who don't know any better.

I personally don't keep any Parker collector information of general interest secret. I write, publish and give oral presentations several times a year.

Bill Murphy · 08-01-2011, 01:18 PM

My research material has always been freely shared, much of it on this forum, much of it on several other forums. Away from this forum, I will share with Bruce some examples of sharing and refusing to share research material over the years.

Researcher · 08-01-2011, 02:36 PM

Come on Murphy!! You've never scanned in a single page of any of your gun catalogues or research materials and posted it on the internet. We've yet to see a single picture of any of your guns on the internet.

Dave

Bill Murphy · 08-01-2011, 02:53 PM

Dave, of all people, you realize that I couldn't post a picture if my life depended on it. You know from personal experience that my guns are open for inspection at my house and on the skeet field. Next time you are at my home, how about giving me a block of instruction on picture posting. I will pay you back by giving you pigeon killing lessons.