Parker w/Box

[Ed Blake]

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

[Mike Poindexter]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[GH-16]

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!!

[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?

[B. 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.

[JLoew]

Looked like a winner to me. Great gun IMHO.

[Opening Day]

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.