Parker w/Box

[Reggie Bishop]

Not often you see this-

http://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/shotguns/parker-shotguns/parker-vh-grade-20-gauge-double-shotgun-26-inch-barrels-very-rare-with-original-box.cfm?gun_id=100947912


Original box included.

Discuss.

[Reggie Bishop]

Sorry I meant to post in General Parker Discussions

[Brian Dudley]

A benchmark gun for sure!

[Paul Ehlers]

I found the ad this morning and probably spent 30 minutes or more looking at it. If this is truly a benchmark all original gun, it is amazing to say the least.

I do have some takeaway's from what you can see from pictures on the internet. These are just my observations for what they are worth.

1. The case colors have a lot of pinks/lavender/straw colors along with the typical blue hues. The frame polish seems to be inline with that similar to what I see of Turnbull's work.

2. The finish does seem to be an amber shellac with some shrinkage & crazing on the forearm.

3. The checkering panels appear to be finished the same as the rest of the wood without any darkening agents added to the panels.

4. The bluing on the barrels is to die for.

5. The trigger guard looks to be finished in the same manner as the barrels rather than nitre blued.

6. Forearms are thin fragile things. Even a low mileage gun like this can have possible cracks in the wood, if not the wood at least the finish.

This isn't picking the gun apart in any way. I've just been curious of what true original finishes for the various parts of Parker of this vintage should look like. I've been looking at my piggy bank all day trying to figure out how I could get my hands on this gun.

[Brian Dudley]

I have a few very minor nitpicks about it regarding details of fit/finish which i wont go into detail on, but i would chalk it up to it being a run of the mill V grade and not every one was “ideal” in every way.
But, in my opinion, it all looks right.

[Bill Murphy]

Nice gun and box. Anyone want to go partners on the purchase?

[Chuck Bishop]

A call to Turnbull with the S/N might answer the origionality question if your really interested.

[Dave Noreen]

According to the dating feature on our home page, 193435 would be a 1921 vintage gun. I'm surprised that the label states it was targeted with a load of 1 ounce of shot and 2 1/2 drams of smokeless powder. Remington had just introduced a 2 1/2 dram smokeless powder, 1 ounce, load that year for its new Model 17 pump gun. But, the Model 17 was chambered for 2 3/4 inch shells and Remington's 1 ounce 20-gauge load came in a 2 3/4 inch shell. There is no mention on the label that this gun is chambered for a shell longer then the then "standard" 2 1/2 inch 20-gauge shell. The "normal" heaviest 20-gauge loads in 1921 vintage North American ammunition catalogs were 2 1/4 drams of smokeless powder pushing 7/8 ounce of shot in the "standard" 2 1/2 inch shell and 2 1/2 drams of smokeless powder pushing that same 7/8 ounce of shot from the longer 2 3/4, 2 7/8 and 3-inch shells. The Western Cartridge Co. high velocity, progressive powder, load (Super-X) of 1 ounce of shot from their 2 3/4 inch FIELD 20-gauge shell came out in 1922.

[Mark Ray]

I must also say this.....a “Vulvan” 20 might indeed be special!!!

[Jerry Harlow]

The gun has some strange dimensions for a 20: drop of stock 1 1/2 x 3, length of stock 13 3/4, so could it make sense that in addition to the special dimensions it was also requested that the gun be patterned with the newer one ounce of shot shells. That would make sense to me.

[Ed Blake]

So Turnbull is now restoring the boxes as well? Genius.

[Paul Ehlers]

Fellows,
I never intended my comments to indicate I thought Turnbull restored this gun! I only mentioned his name because I felt the frame polish/finish is similar to what Turnbull's re-case hardening process looks like. I feel that this is probably a legit original gun.

There has been a lot of discussion here over the years about what original finishes should look like. My comments were meant to point out some of the features I am seeing in this gun. Not to suggest that it's a restored gun by anyone!!

[Mike Poindexter]

According to the dating feature on our home page, 193435 would be a 1921 vintage gun. I'm surprised that the label states it was targeted with a load of 1 ounce of shot and 2 1/2 drams of smokeless powder. Remington had just introduced a 2 1/2 dram smokeless powder, 1 ounce, load that year for its new Model 17 pump gun. But, the Model 17 was chambered for 2 3/4 inch shells and Remington's 1 ounce 20-gauge load came in a 2 3/4 inch shell. There is no mention on the label that this gun is chambered for a shell longer then the then "standard" 2 1/2 inch 20-gauge shell. The "normal" heaviest 20-gauge loads in 1921 vintage North American ammunition catalogs were 2 1/4 drams of smokeless powder pushing 7/8 ounce of shot in the "standard" 2 1/2 inch shell and 2 1/2 drams of smokeless powder pushing that same 7/8 ounce of shot from the longer 2 3/4, 2 7/8 and 3-inch shells. The Western Cartridge Co. high velocity, progressive powder, load (Super-X) of 1 ounce of shot from their 2 3/4 inch FIELD 20-gauge shell came out in 1922.



The shot size on the label appears obscured by a tear. I'm not sure what the shot tested would have been in 1921. According to a 1900 table of shot manufacturer's products, Tatham No. 7's go 291 to the ounce, while 8's go 399. According to current SAAMI specs, no. 7.5's go 350 while 8's go 410. Assuming Tatham 7's for the pattern test, 127/291=44% and 168/291=56%--a very useful IC and weak MOD. If 8's are assumed, we're looking at 32% and 42%--or CYL and IC. Still a useful pattern, albeit for close cover or pointing dogs. Wonder what the buyer had in mind? A letter would be interesting.

[Ed Blake]

Mike - my comment about the box was strictly a smartass remark and I do not doubt the authenticity of the gun, however, I have seen a number of Turnbull restorations that look awfully “original”. Caveat emptor as always.

[David Noble]

I noticed something that made me wonder about it's originality.
If you look at the closeup picture of the left side of the receiver and enlarge it a bit you can see that the zig zag engraving just below the lower edge has been reengraved over an earlier attempt. Now this is a lower grade gun and a lesser skilled engraver may have done this border engraving but I would think a better attempt of removing the errant engraving would have been attempted. Maybe it just slipped through inspection or the inspector just decided to let it slide since it is just a VH. What are your thoughts?

[Brian Dudley]

At least one Parker exists that has a 5 legged dog.

[James L. Martin]

Gun is sold, did someone here get it?

[Alfred Houde]

I guess what sticks out to me at a quick glance is how the tang screw appears worn yet the trigger guard and tang appear to be pristine. Images can be deceptive though. Glare, flash, etc.

Nice looking gun to a lucky owner, no doubt.

[Josh Loewensteiner]

Looked like a winner to me. Great gun IMHO.

[Eric Eis]

I stayed out of this, but if was very similar to my new in box skeet gun that many of you had seen at the meeting and it looked like it was correct to me.

[Brian Dudley]

The lack of wear to the bluing on the trigger guard is the only real thing that concerned me about the gun. Now... it IS in line with the condition of the rest of the gun, however with how much Original Parker guards wear, i am very surprised there isn't at least a little wear to it. Unless it is practically unhandled, which it may in fact be.

[Rich Anderson]

I stayed out of this, but if was very similar to my new in box sheet gun that many of you had seen at the meeting and it looked like it was correct to me.

Whats a sheet gun? Do you have a matching pillow gun as well?:rotf::rotf::rotf:

[Eric Eis]

I stayed out of this, but if was very similar to my new in box skeet gun that many of you had seen at the meeting and it looked like it was correct to me.

Happy now, Rich....:rolleyes:

[Richard Flanders]

You know he is Eric!

[Rich Anderson]

Ecstatic.:)