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.

The new one is kinda like a “Reply Reproduction”.

I would suppose that the emotional and financial investment that some make in their
“Originals” seems to call out for some type of differentiation.

So what is it really?

I cant believe it’s the geographic parameters during production i.e.Philly vs. Utica Foxes.
I dont believe it’s continuity of production i.e. Superposed production during WWII.
Use and history? NIB/unfired 100 year old specimens begs that question.
Soul? Maybe those of you who shoot both can answer that.

Don't forget Greg Baehman.





.

Oh, BTW.... Your Mileage May Vary...(for George's benefit ;))





.

This is an interesting discussion.

Are the CSMC Foxes and Parkers given serial numbers associated with the original numbering scheme and sequence?

Did the Skeuse's have to use "Reproduction" on their guns?

Ken

There is a summary about the Parker Reproduction that addresses this information in the "Grades" page.... follow the "grades" link off the main parkerguns.org page and scroll down the that section.

Here is the text from the "Grades" page for you:

In 1984, under the direction and encouragement of Jack Skeuse, the President of the Reagent Chemical & Research Inc, teamed up with the Winchester Arms Company and revived the Parker shotgun. But, because the Remington Arms Company holds the rights to the Parker Brothers brand, they labeled it "The Parker Reproduction by Winchester". Originally introduced in the DHE grade, it was later expanded to limited production of BHE and A1 Special grades. Production continued until the owners of the manufacturing company in Japan closed their doors in 1989. Sales continued while supplies remained but that ended sometime around 1997. On September 17th, 1999, a flood destroyed all remaining inventory, including parts and most of the factory records. Today, parts for these guns are difficult to find because the insurance company destroyed what was recovered in the flood to avoid possible future liabilities.

The first batch of 28 ga guns that were ordered from Japan had an F on the lug where normally the frame size is found. They came that way from the manufacturer probably because they misread an accounting code that was used as a computer codes.

The Steel Shot Special model was produced to address the water foul hunters concern shooting the required steel shot shells and the damage they may do to the barrels and their chokes. The chokes are slightly longer than standard chokes on the other Parker Reproductions models. It was observed that longer chokes patterned steel shot more evenly; all tests were done with 3" 1 5/8oz steel #2 shot. The barrels were chrome throughout, unlike the standard Parker Reproduction which didn't have chrome in the choke area. The choke area chrome was added because no one knew at that time the long term effect steel shot would have on the choke area.

The Sporting Clays Classic model were the only Parker Reproduction's offered with factory screw-in chokes. You cannot tell by looking at the choke tubes themselves to determine if they were original factory or not. But, you can positively identify a Parker Reproduction Sporting Clays Classic model with factory screw-in chokes by looking at the barrel flats; it will be marked with an "ISC" stamping (Internal Screw Choke).

Some Parker Repro serial numbers on the barrels have an extra "0" that the serial number on the frame does not have. Example: serial number on frame 20-XXXX, serial number on barrel 20-0XXXX. There was an anticipation to manufacture and sell many more Parker Reproductions than were actually produced. The extra digit to the action number was made in anticipation of future needs.

Production numbers:

DHE 28 Gauge 4,203
DHE 20 Gauge 5,800
DHE 12 Gauge 2,137
DHE 12 Gauge Steel Shot 350
DHE 12 Gauge Sporting Clays 125
DHE 410 Gauge 33
BHE 28 Gauge 7
BHE 20 Gauge 100
BHE 12 Gauge 100
BHE 410 Gauge 9
A-1 Factory Engraved, All Gauges 150
A-1 Custom Engraved, All Gauges 300
A-1 28/.410 Combo 16
Plus 500 16 Ga barrel sets that fit on the 0 frame 20ga DHE

I can answer to the "soul" question having toted both originals in the uplands as well as my "Skeuese Parkers" - My original Parker Bros. guns have it - it's just there right between my hands - but my "Skeuese Parkers" don't....yet. :bigbye:






.

I was told that when Remington tried to revive the Parker in the 1970's (?) that the lawyers made them redesign the safety system in order to pass the "slam test" which was apparently an industry standard. If true, were the Winchester reproductions modified?

Robin,
In regard to the Production Numbers, corresponding with Geoffroy Gournet recently, he indicated to me that only approximately 80 A1 Customs were made
during his 15 years at Reagent Chemical/Parker Reproductions. Approximately
only another 80 have been done since Parker Reproduction closed in early 2000
and he became an Independent Contractor. We can only assume several in-the white A1 Specials were lost in the flood and the remaining few survivors were sold to Tony Galazan for distribution. Consequently the 300 number of A1 Customs is a high number.
Bill

Personally I don’t consider a Parker reproduction a “Parker”, and that’s nothing against them, I love them for what they are.. But they’re not part of the original continuous production. I’ve had this same discussion about about US WWII firearms. I have a February 1941 M1 Garand and a December 1943 M1 Carbine. Both of these guns are still being produced and the parts interchange, but would you consider them original?

Yup.





.

As a guy that started a business as a dumb-ass kid (machine shop) with a whopping eight hundred bucks, no house, junk vehicle for me and a slightly less junky (but safe) vehicle for my equally young and dumb (but graciously beautiful) young wife (and a shorthair) to believe in me, sink or swim. No equipment, no customers, no contacts, no shop but for a rented dirt floor and a single light bulb that showed light through the walls..literally. I'm not ashamed to say Tom Skeuse is a personal hero of mine. It's a great story in the history of gun-making in my view and, not such a shabby pc of hardware that feels pretty darn good in the hand.

I like 'em, Reproduction, or not.

Yeah, if you’re in the market for a side by side you won’t get more for your money buying anything else.

We've "been there, done that," on the reproduction issue for sure, but just think how we might view this if the later production Parkers had [I]never[I] been called reproductions in the first place.

As I recall, when Remington produced a couple of prototype Parkers in the 1980's(?) with a few variations from the originals, they named them the "Parker Reintroduction" and I wonder why they weren't simply called a 'Parker'?





.

Didn’t they start at 242,500 or something like that?

I have an original paper order form for that reintroduction.
http://parkerguns.org/forums/showthread.php?t=20018&highlight=remington

It was offered from "Parker Gun Works, a Division of Remington"

I couldn't open that... but now that I've modified it, I can. Click above link.





.

Dean thanks for the help
Now, if I could figure out how to invert the photos

Correction on this statement
 

The original person who got the parker Reproduction was my father Thomas Skeuse Sr. not my brother Jack. Just to clarify. Thanks gentelmen.

Thanks Richard.
I am enjoying my Skeuse Parkers.

Skeuse Parkers
 

I'm sure Dad is having a laugh at the Skeuse Parkers name. I know I am, in a proud way

If you happen to channel him, tell him thanks from all of us for his wonderful project.

I'm going to have to thank him from afar for you...,For now anyway. He passed into the happy hunting grounds in 1989. Ill pass it along in my thoughts,Thanks guys

Correction has been made, Thank you!

Credit where credit is do.

Where do I write to order those 100 labels!

Thanks to Bill Mullins for attempting to clear up the "A-1 Special Custom" riddle. No, Mr. Gournet did not engrave 300 Repros to A-1 specifications. If the "300" total were to be anywhere near correct, the "300" should include all unengraved guns released. To what level these guns were embellished, no one knows. I have seen A-1s, Invincibles, and totally unengraved examples. Only Mr. Gournet knows how many he engraved to A-1 level.

I thought that was an obvious observation that I never thought of :banghead: so I asked him ....... 80 was the answer for production and about the same for the ones in the white. I updated the tables based on his response.

As long as we're talking about updating the Parker Reproduction Production Chart . . . there are only 9 BHE .410 shown in the Production Chart. Here is a pic of a B .410-0052. This would seem to be factual evidence that there were at least 52 produced -- and likely more.