Book: Parker-America's Finest Shotgun

[Jeffrey Eley]

I came across this book found in my Dad's storage shed. Written by "Peter H. Johnson," I believe in the early 1960's. I going to begin reading it immediately. Anybody else familiar with it or know anything about it?

[Mills Morrison]

Yes , that is the first great book on Parkers.

[Dean Romig]

That book is one of the five or six ‘must have’ titles for a true Parker collector’s library of books dedicated exclusively to Parker guns.





.

[Dave Noreen]

Take it with a grain of salt. A load of better research has been done in the nearly 60 years since Peter's book came out, and a lot better books have been written.

[Brian Dudley]

Long on enthusiasm, short on facts.

[Dean Romig]

Take it with a grain of salt. A load of better research has been done in the nearly 60 years since Peter's book came out, and a lot better books have been written.


Agreed, and the illustrations in it are quite poor but it is still the first book published on the Parker gun and though it is lacking in fact, should still be in a complete collection of Parker titles, IMO.





.

[Randy G Roberts]

Jeffrey I agree with all the previously posted comments on this book and I have it myself as should any Parker aficionado. However if you want the proverbial Bible get yourself a copy of The Parker Story, It's going to set you back about $300-$350 I think unless you come across a used copy but it contains more technarcana and basic knowledge than even the best can consume in one reading, sort of like drinking from a fire hose if you get my drift, You will not be sorry. Good luck with your quest for Parker knowledge.

[Nick de Guerre]

Yes, this book is a stinker. In some ways I came away feeling like it actually detracts from the guns, because he has a sort of sycophantic way of illustrating his opinions, framing them in bandwagon platititudes rather than evidence. Only stupid people form beliefs thusly. Like a John Deere aficionado who when asked why they are the best can offer only that "they are green and yellow." Such halfwitted statements only detract.

Parker made fine guns, but no better than the best that several others offered. Their success as a BRAND was as much a function of the family's excellent marketing and name leveraging as it was the quality of the guns. No other American maker had such business acumen behind them. And this isnt to say anything poor about the guns themselves...just that it certainly mattered that they were made by a snooty CT merchant family who were already successful manufacturers even before they went into the gun business. Kudos to them!

Johnson comes off like a fanboy who is long on emotional investment and short on substantive knowledge. He writes as if every other make of American arms maker was "Crescent" quality. I found myself rolling my eyes as I read.

I cherish my Parkers. But so too, my Smiths, Lefever's, and others. Still haven't owned a high grade Baker, and I have seen two Tobins that nearly brought me to tears. Oh, and what about high grade Remington 1894's!

Johnson is 'that guy' who agrees with you that you'd rather have disagreeing...because he's just so disagreeable. I'll stick with The Parker Story, and Brophy.

NDG

[Jeffrey Eley]

Gentlemen,
Thank you for the Full Spectrum of responses! I will certainly finish reading the book knowing that there is much more decisive & conclusive literature still to read! Thanks again.

[Russell E. Cleary]

Nick:

That’s an audacious post of yours on this Association’s Forum. But I do appreciate that getting at the truth of a matter does not always call for “sunshine and lollipops”.

Not to dispute your facts or opinions (for now anyway), I respectfully ask that you direct me to the elements that form the basis of your “snooty CT merchant family" characterization.

Of the hard-bound Parker-dedicated books, I do have the subject book by Peter Johnson and the two-volume PARKER STORY. That could be limiting me, I understand.

[Brian Dudley]

The truth can hurt...

Read the interview with Peter Johnson that was written in DGJ years ago about his writing of the book and the extent of his research.

This is eye opening to say the least

[John Campbell]

Associate Nick de Guerre's rabid post piqued my curiosity.

So... I went to Amazon and searched for any book he's ever written. Gun book or not.

I came up with nothing.

Just sayin'...

[David Gehman]

The truth can hurt...

Read the interview with Peter Johnson that was written in DGJ years ago about his writing of the book and the extent of his research.

This is eye opening to say the least

What issue was that interview in?

[Bruce Day]

The Peter Johnson book was the first book on the Parker gun. It gathered together what was known and what was understood at the time about the manufacture and it’s history. As such it was a noble effort created by a fine and well intentioned writer. Others have followed; Baer, Muderlak and Mullins et al as book writers and many others as magazine article writers. Much credit goes to Peter Johnson as the first in the line.

Each author built upon his predecessors, correcting errors and adding facts as they became known. Isn’t this how scholarship usually works ?

I think it is a real disservice and a limited view to denigrate Peter Johnson and his efforts. I think it says more about the critic than the criticized .

[Nick de Guerre]

"Audacious..." "A disservice"... "Says more about the critic than the criticized."

My comments were honest, and offered as my own opinion...not a some generally accepted truth. Perhaps it's a sign of our current times that contrary opinion is met with rebuke, rather than simple disagreement?

I don't say a whole lot here, and I gave up on the Doublegun Forum long ago because I have no desire to engage in internet jousting, so I'm just going to disengage on this.

Suffice that my thoughts were genuine, if unfiltered. And they are informed of having read both that book, as well as all the others.

I will refrain from future comments which may strike some as frightfully independent-minded and nonconforming. I don't want anyone to be uncomfortable. *wink*

NDG

[Bruce Day]

I’m not uncomfortable in the slightest. It is clear that you have your views.

If you want to meet other people who enjoy the Parker gun and other significant American double guns, come to the next Southern SxS or to the Pheasant Fest in MSP in Feb. We’ll be there.




Colt
Lefever
Parker

[Garth Gustafson]

The Peter Johnson book was the first book on the Parker gun. It gathered together what was known and what was understood at the time about the manufacture and it’s history. As such it was a noble effort created by a fine and well intentioned writer. Others have followed; Baer, Muderlak and Mullins et al as book writers and many others as magazine article writers. Much credit goes to Peter Johnson as the first in the line.

Each author built upon his predecessors, correcting errors and adding facts as they became known. Isn’t this how scholarship usually works ?

I think it is a real disservice and a limited view to denigrate Peter Johnson and his efforts. I think it says more about the critic than the criticized .

One thing Peter Johnson does deserve to be denigrated for is his fashion sense.:rotf:

[Dean Romig]

Hey... it was the sixties!






.

[Michael Moffa]

First off, he wrote a book on a subject we hold dear when nobody else was inclined to do. I have all the books (and two copies of Mr. Johnson's). Have read them all and appreciate the effort it takes to write on a subject before the internet made every one a Dewey Decimal Card Catalog Ranger extraordinaire. So he waxed poetically on the Parker, BFD.

The gun stands the test of time on its own merits and is respected by the collecting community. The Works did something right because creating a
"Brand" in the late 19th century required having the goods to support the claims made in the advertising.

As an example of the "cachet" that Parker has, I was at Audley House a few years ago looking at the small bore doubles. I was with my boss and the Salesman was a little snooty until he asked what I used back in the colonies. When I told him Parkers his demeanor changed completely and we ahd a nice discussion on SLE's, BLE's, thoughts on why Parker never made a sidelock, the future of "Best" guns and other sundry topics. Interesting afternoon all because I used Parkers. So Peter J, spoke highly of the guns and took the time to write a book that started many of the members of this organization to learn about their own guns.

[Bruce Day]

Parker sidelock, this one an external hammer sidelock but we have previously posted photos of a Parker internal hammer sidelock.

The other Parker hammer sidelock is my light open choked 12 from 1881 that I use for a lot of hunting. This was made five years after Custer should have gone fishing since a stream was so close but didn’t. Where are all the other guns made in that time period? Still functional and in use?

[John Davis]

Peter Johnson is a member of the Parker Gun Hall of Fame, not because he wrote the definitive book on the Parker gun but rather because of the substantial contribution his book made to the Parker collecting world.

[Brian Dudley]

What issue was that interview in?

Forgive me, I do not know off the top of my head. The article was titled “An interview with Peter Johnson”. At least as I recall.

I do not have the first reader. It was not in the second reader. So it is either before or after the timeframe of the second DGJ reader/index. Maybe someone can check reader number 1 if they have it.?


Johnson’s major contribution was being “the first” to draw public attention to Parker guns in the form of a book. And to help kickstart the collector interest.

I have said before when the topic has come up in regards to the books on Parkers. For new people looking to learn and read about Parkers, In my opinion the best book for that person is Muderlak’s “Old Reliable”. It is affordable, has great photography and good information that is, for the most part, accurate.

Obviously The Parker Story is the definitive work. It is nearly 20 years old at this point and new things have come to light since that time even as well. So nothing is ever set in stone. But it is, and will be for a long time, considered the be-all end-all. But... it is expensive. Too much for the average beginner enthusiast to just buy on a whim.

Johnsons book is certainly a must read for a Parker collector, but Keeping in mind the time is was written and that it is loose on accuracies as we know them today.

[Garth Gustafson]

[QUOTE=Brian Dudley;285779]Forgive me, I do not know off the top of my head. The article was titled “An interview with Peter Johnson”. At least as I recall.

I do not have the first reader. It was not in the second reader. So it is either before or after the timeframe of the second DGJ reader/index. Maybe someone can check reader number 1 if they have it.

The Peter Johnson interview by Destry and Ed Muderlak was in the Spring 2005 issue of DGJ

[Brian Dudley]

Thank you Garth

[David Gehman]

Thank you

[Bill Holcombe]

I'll just say that when I got interested in Parkers about 10 years ago, the Peter Johnson book was by far the 1st and easiest to find book out there.

His facts are a little off and his research leaves a bit to be desired, but take a look at any other gun books out there? George Madis is considered The Resource on Winchester Rifles but his book is still full of inaccuracies that have come to light since it was written. Colt? There are so many errors and inconsistencies in the resources out there that it makes your head spin, especially in the books that try to cover more than one small time period. Browning? Schwing wrote a heck of a book on the superposed, but is still often derided by collectors for mistakes he made. Heck even the Parker Story, a very heavily researched book, contain errors/mistakes/omissions.

However, I will say Johnson wrote what to me is probably the most enjoyable and easy to read book on Parkers that is out there. Are his facts perfect? No. But his passion is there, and an easier to read cover to cover book on the subject of a specific gun (one that doesn't include talk of gun theory or hunting stories) you will never find. I have the Parker Story, and have read it twice through(both volumes) and while I love the gun section and the info it provides, it is still a very good but dry read. Ed's books are very good and have great illustrations and photos and Ed's experiences, but at the same time Ed has a tendency to try to beat the reader over the head with his opinions as facts at times. That isn't a criticism, Ed wrote well and I enjoy all copies of Ed's writing I can find. His work is much more researched than Johnson's but it isn't as quick or easy of a read, at least to me. Larry Baer is another good resource, but of the 3 I have mentioned so far his work seems the least necessary to me. I just enjoy the other 3 sources better. I am a huge fan of Michael McIntosh and enjoy his writings on fine guns, unfortunately when it came to Parkers he was brief but well written so he isn't really a prime source of info. Buckingham speaks of parkers from time to time but is more in the context of hunting than any true breakdown of the gun or it's history.

As for the discussion of quality of the Parker versus other American Made shotguns... I will refer you to the quote in my signature by a gentleman who would have had way more knowledge on the subject at the time than I ever will.

[Craig Budgeon]

Peter Johnsons book didn't just start the interest in Parkers, rather it was the catalyst for the double craze beginning in the 1960's. He was the single author and had few contributors providing knowledge for his book. The Parker Story has a long list of authors, and even longer list of contributors, and access to Remington's records.Peter Johnson is a saint to me since reading his book in 1971.

[Bill Murphy]

I owned, shot, and studied Parker shotguns before Peter Johnson's book ever hit the market in 1961. Many collectors and dealers were buying, selling, and studying Parker shotguns long before Johnson's book hit the market. Whatever information we were able to put together "by ourselves" was assisted by Johnson's book because we didn't work as hard at the research as Peter did. I knew Peter Johnson before he sent the book to market and found him to be an extremely curious person who knew how to ask a question about a shotgun. Garth's comment about Johnson's wardrobe would not have bothered him. He was an odd bird and he relished that reputation. As English instructors (professor, maybe) go, he was as odd as they come. He didn't own or drive a car, never married, etc. etc. However, he met and interviewed Parker people, from a distance, by mail, not in person, and came away with a bunch of information that we would not have if he had waited just a few short years to do his research. Larry Del Grego Senior and Robert Runge had much more information, but no one ever interviewed those guys for a book, then or later. That is one of the weak points in Parker research, but a few researchers or non researchers have the Runge and Del Grego tidbits in their brains and may share it some day.

[Craig Budgeon]

Bill, I wonder if Larry DelGrego would have found Johnson's book to have a positive influence on his business?

[Bill Murphy]

It got Parker people talking to each other.