QUESTIONS FOR COLLECTORS
 

Recently I came across an article in a 1935 Outdoor Life by Major Askins. In the article he outlined how he had ordered a Parker 10 gauge with 32 inch barrels that after time and changes in his physique, he no longer shot well on ducks. He wanted the gun lighter and with more open chokes. He wrote that he contacted Parker about cutting the barrels to open the chokes. Parker, according to Askins, told him to purchase another gun. Askins goes on to describe how he bought the equipment and honed the barrels himself after cutting two inches from them. He also cut off the steel butt plate (so, I assume this was at least a DH grade), drilled out some weight in the stock, and added a rubber recoil pad. Apparently he honed the barrels repeatedly and was happy with the results.

Here's my questions: If this gun was available for purchase, would it be more or less valuable than the originally configured gun (assuming condition the same with no changes)? And, a second question is, which would YOU value more: the documented, altered gun owned by a well known sporting figure; or the same gun in unaltered, original condition?

Cut barrels = destroyed value. Period.

The ONLY exception to this might be if it was documented as a factory rework.

Kudos to Parker at the time to shoot down the request to cut the barrels back. They believed in doing things right, all the time. I would be surprising though if they did not at least offer to recut the chokes to ones more open.

Originality appeals to me. Documented alteration is nothing more than an altered gun to me.

I have read where a few of these early gun “gurus” held themselves in pretty high esteem. Case in point here - he thought his opinion was more ‘well-advised’ than that of the best gunmaker in America.... personally, I think what he did to his Parker was very ill-advised and simply proves to me he wasn’t such a ‘guru’ after all.

Sure, it was his gun to do as he wished with it, but really - destroy it...???

Further, the (irresponsible) publication of that self-serving article probably served to encourage several more fine old guns to also be destroyed by their owners.






.

I want to be sure that I'm clear in my questions. First, from your position of expertise, which do you think that collectors generally would value more? The second question is which do you personally value more? So, I'm looking for two answers, even if they are the same from your perspective.

Thanks!

He could have sent it back for an extra set of barrels, at the time the cost would not have been that much. He ruined the gun and no just because it was Askins doesn't matter. He could have easily afforded another set of barrels, Parker would probably comp't them to him.

And no it doesn't add any value to the gun because he did it. Just another screwed up Parker!

There are some collectors who put provenance ahead of originality and condition but I think there are far more who put condition and originality first. I am one of the latter.






.

i only took a quick look, so may have missed it, but without a serial number, how would you know this butchered Parker with cut and honed :shock: barrels -- from any other hacked up Parker

i would not value it above any other parts gun

Well the No. 5E 16-gauge and No. 4E Magnum-Ten Ithaca NIDs that were originally made for Capt. Askins and then used and written about (including alterations) by Elmer Keith for decades, didn't bring a whole lot when the Keith family decided it was "time to monetize."


Capt. Askins did know a good bit about shotgun barrel boring, as he spent a summer at the A.H. Fox Gun Co. factory with Burt Becker and E.M. Sweeley, boring and testing barrels during the development of the Super-Fox.

Provenance is a great thing for an original gun, like Clark Gable or Gen. Patton who owned the gun etc. but even thoug he was a well known gun writer most of the majority of people probably don't know who he is, and if there is no paper work with the gun it's as Rick said a hacked gun worth for parts. Even if it had paperwork most collectors (unless they collect Askins guns) would view it as a non original gun and worth what a shooter would be worth.

Which Askins are we dissing? The cited Outdoor Life article was written by Major Askins in 1935. Capt Askins was the noted shotgunner and as far as I know he topped out at Captain rank.

Condition (originality) is king. Gauge is next in importance of value and maybe is exceeded by grade in certain situations. Provenance adds some interest but rarely does it increase value.

IMHO.

Apparently Charles Askins, Sr. was promoted to Major circa 1933. He is called Captain Charles Askins, Gun Editor of Outdoor Life into the 1933 Ithaca Gun Co. catalog. By the 1934 Ithaca Gun Co. catalog he is called Major Charles Askins, Gun Editor of Outdoor Life. He is called Major Askins in Elmer Keith's 1950 shotgun book as he is listed in the header of this column.

Thanks Dave, that clears it up.

Question: Does provenance add value?

Answer: Depends on who the buyer is.

what i find interesting is having that 3 1/2 inch chambered gun changed to 2 7/8 chambers...was it because of recoil or did the 2 7/8 chambers pattern better or what....i know major askins wanted to hunt with a 8 gauge with 2 3/4 ounce loads...but since they out lawed the 8 gauge for waterfowl he was partly the one who helped get the 3 1/2 inch 10 ga gun be made from ithaca in 1932 or so.....charlie

i read the chamber lentgh wrong it was 3 1/4 inch chambers....odd length for sure....but why shorten the chambers.....charlie

I see by reading the article, Askins had the gun shortened and rebored by Gladstone Blake Crandall of Woodstock, Ontario, Canada. Crandall was a gunsmith who had worked at the Tobin Fire Arms Manufacturing Co., Ltd. factory in Woodstock. From the end of The Great War until he retired in 1950 he advertised himself as "successor to Tobin Arms" and continued to assemble Tobin guns from parts. He also heavily advertised his "Super-bore" reboring shotgun barrels work. Seems like he was a Stan Baker of his day.

Crandall received a U.S. patent for a rifle sight in 1907. He is probably best known for his varmint rifles, getting a lot of press in C.S. Landis' book Twenty-Two Caliber Varmint Rifles.

Dave,

Aren't there two gun "experts" named Askins -- father and son? This article was by the son, yes?

OK, now I think this was the father...

I found this in a post regarding influential gun writers (for what that's worth).

"There were actually two gunwriters by the name of Charles Askins, one being Askins Sr. and the other Askins Jr. The elder was one of the foremost authorities on shotguns and wingshooting, as well as a Major in the US Army and eventually the shooting editor of "Outdoor Life." The younger Askins...had a much more colorful career. Charles Askins, Jr. started his career with a 10-year stint in the US Border Patrol, stationed on the US-Mexico border, at the same time as Bill Jordan. The border in the 1930s was a lively place, and he had some lively times; agents were involved in a gunfight every ten days on average. Askins Jr. was also quite the competitive shooter, winning a national championship and later being the chief instructor for the USBP in pistol shooting. He also went on to have a long career in the US Army, seeing action in World War II, the Korean war and also as a military advisor in the early days of the Vietnam conflict. He was also an avid hunter, having hunted on nearly every continent...though he insisted to the end of his days that his favorite quarry was bobwhite quail. Like Jordan, his experience and skill with a handgun in a combat setting were second to none, though he preferred something akin to Cooper's front sight press rather than point shooting. His articles in various magazines, including "American Rifleman" and others, were full of folksy wisdom, bits of Tejano slang and more than a little good advice on matters of concealed carry for citizens and officers alike, as well as on shooting and fighting guns. Askins is a controversial figure, and his autobiography "Unrepentant Sinner" reveals deeds that would almost certainly lead to a prison sentence today. He was, however, a man of a different time and like him or not, the man knew how to keep alive in a firefight.. Continue reading at: http://gunbelts.com/blog/9-gunwriters-you-should-be-aware-of/"

No, this 1935 column is by the elder. Chas. Askins, Sr. was the gun editor of Outdoor Life until Jack O'Connor got the job circa 1940. Chas. Askins, Jr. was a Border Patrol officer during the 1930s, quite active in pistol competitions, and didn't enter the U.S. Army until 1940.

Back when Askins wrote his article shooters looked on guns as tools first.To his mind he was making a better tool.Now we are more collectors and originality is most important.to answer the question,the gun would be worth much more in original condition today than in its altered state.The fact that it was owned by Askins is really not important because so few people know who he was.Most of the ones that do know who he was are older and when we are gone almost no one will know who he was. Then the gun is just another cobbled up Parker.

Thanks, John. This is always an interesting issue, and one that, in the end, the person who buys the gun has the last call on.

I will say, I cringed when I read what Askins did to his gun (and it's what inspired this post), and I was happy to read that when he contacted Parker Bros. they told him to buy another gun. Still, I see provenance as an important issue to many collectors. Maybe not Askins so much, although he is certainly an important individual to the history of shotgunning, but when we look at other figures, such as Annie Oakley, Czar Nicholas, Nash Buckingham, and Teddy Roosevelt (all more prominent than Askins, for sure), it certainly seems to be the case that (a least some) collectors value provenance.

I don't like single triggers or beavertail fore arms, but I understand they are desirable features and bring higher asking prices. I also know that certain provenance, maybe not so much with Askins, also calls for more interest. I remember reading recently of how some of our members thought that the DuBray hammer gun should have sold for more than it did because of its provenance. DuBray and Askins are arguably not in the same Parker collector category, but I think it would be supportable to say that a well documented gun from Askins had more value than the same gun without this gun's history...but NOT the same as the same gun in original factory condition.

I unabashedly admit that I was one of those who believed the duBray AA hammer gun should have sold for multiples of the figure it did sell for. I had handled the gun and was privy to a lot more pictures and associated provenance than was included in the Parker Pages article on the gun. Oh well, shows ya what I know....





.

Dean,

I, too, was surprised at what the DuBray gun sold for, but I also believe that if it comes up again in another year, it might go much higher. There are so many vagaries to what guns sell for at auction at any given time. I can guarantee you this: the gun would have gone for a higher amount if I'd had the money at the time!

I don't care who owned the gun and wouldn't pay more for one because somebody "famous" had once owned it.

I would prefer originality vs cobbled up by anybody famous or not.

Personally ownership history is interesting. I like knowing the history of the Parkers I own. But to me that history doesn't have a thing to do with how I value a gun. A nice original gun with zero history can be just as valuable to me as one that I know a lot of its history.

I once was the owner of a V grade 12 gauge that was originally 30" It was 28" when I bought it The Parker letter said that it was sent back to have 2 inches cut off the barrels add a ivory site and make a set of 20 gauge twist 32" barrels for this gun, I remember that the frame was #2 the twenty gauge barrels were swamped to say the least, but what was interesting was Parker just cut the barrels no line on the rib, so if you find a gun with no line on the rib it may be factory work, just saying Gary

It's interesting that Parker would cut the barrels from the gun you mention, Gary, and not for Askins. What year was your V grade sent back for the barrel work?

Not to me personally, but there are pllenty of gun guys who chase guns attached to Askins Jr or Sr. In 1935, it is entirely possible Jr. had already started ghost writing for his father in outdoor life.

Anyway, I would argue that for the askins folks if the gun could be verified as the correct gun, it would bring a nice premium over a gun he had just owned that was original.

Heck, just look at a few of the colt border patrols that have sold on occasion that were documented as having been modified by Jr when he was the armorer for them.

I would imagine it in part had to do with Parker needing to sell guns in 1935.

DuBray isn't a name with broad recognition. Charles Askins, Jr or Sr, crosses a lot of different areas. Gun writer, Colts, Parkers, Law enforcement, brownings, military. Plus both are far more well known regarding their work with shotguns then Dubray is in the mainstream gunworld. I could post Dubray on most gun forums I go to and no one would know who he was, just about every foum I go to has had discussions about Askins jr or sr.

I'm getting the feeling you guys just don't have a proper appreciation for Askins the elder or the noted gunsmith Gladstone Blake Crandall. One of the longest running threads ever in the Browning section of Shotgunworld.com was on Major Askins Browning Superposed --

http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/view...?f=53&t=124719

Of course Parker Bros. told him to buy a new gun, they wanted to move some product! I know from the collectors point of view these modifications old Chas. had done are abhorrent, but the gun just could be a great shooter and have some great stories with it.

Bill,

A very reasonable assertion as far as I can see. Askins did a great deal of consulting with some of the double gun makers, at least as he tells it. History has an odd way of valuing individuals, and is quite fickle over time. I wonder if Askins might be on par with, say, McIntosh, a hundred years hence. McIntosh's guns were available after his untimely death, and as I recall there was a bit of a mark-up for his having owned and written about them.

On the Colts; I know absolutely nothing about them, but over the years of attending Rock Island auctions where they frequently have lots of Colts, I am very intrigued with the prices they command and the obvious interest in them. I still have a Colt double barrel shotgun on my "list" to buy. I'd sure like to sit by someone like you at an auction and learn a little more about them as they sell. Guns are fascinating fragments of history.

Indeed. Those guns which have been owned by the various characters of history are, to me, the most valuable. Otherwise they are more or less commodities.

Thus, to ME, a gun modified by Askins is imbued with a story about the hands and times of a great shooter. It's a part of America's sporting heritage. More so than a perfect gun in pristine condition. To ME, perfect guns are merely a time capsule of production standards.

To cite but a few, I've owned double guns once in the collections of President Theodore Roosevelt and Sir Winston Churchill's father. They were far more than guns. They were tactile connections to great men and great times. Men who held these very guns in their storied hands. And they were not perfect. The guns, nor the men.

But they were HISTORY!

Nash Buckingham's famous BoWhoop started life as an HE-Grade Super-Fox with XE-Grade wood and engraving.

Attachment 68632

Attachment 68633

By the early 1930s it had been worked over and restocked by Burt Becker to more nearly match his "Bartholomew" gun 33059 (lower gun in the above pic).

Attachment 68654

When found, BoWhoop's Becker stock was broken, and it was subsequently restocked and still sold for big dollars.

Cutbarrels
 

Garry, here is a copy of the letter with the aforementioned gun, It has been a while since I owned it and was wrong it is not a 12 ga it was 16 gauge

Do not know why it is sideways maybe someone can fix that, Gary

Oh I don't know squat about suctions. I just know what I have read. Regarding the askins border patrols. He modified and adjusted all of them they received while he was armorer. Some of the ones that can be linked to his time as armorer bring big bucks if still in correct condition. It probably also helps that many people don't seem to realize that col and maj askins are a son and fsther as opposed to one long lived individual.

As to the point on McIntosh, I have gotten a great deal of pleasure from his writings and while I could never afford it, I would love to own a parker that was his...or Rutledges or Buckinghams.

Just as I am certain Dean would rather own Burt Spiller's parker than a similar grade in factory mint condition?

Gary,

Thanks for posting the letter. I always find the letters interesting, especially when they chronicle guns returned for some kind of work. I still wonder about Askins reporting that Parker turned down his request to cut the barrels. I'm sure there's a bit more there than "meets the eye."

BTW, are you still in Floyd? I grew up in the Williamsburg/Yorktown area, and then lived in Mechanicsville for some years before leaving Virginia for good in pursuit of an education...and a job. I still miss Virginia.

Thanks again for taking the time to post that letter.