I just noticed an advertisement (https://www.trapshooters.com/thread...ch-vent-rib-barrels.906828/#post-8751072) for a Parker upgrade with side clips. I can't remember ever seeing a Parker with side clips, or for that matter any American shotgun with side clips. If the gun was not originally made with side clips how were they added?

jlb

inta resting...

The first Invincible was completed in August, 1923 but was first cataloged in 1926. It was offered at the princely sum of $1,250. Over the years the Invincible has taken on a shadowy mystique and was more of an unfounded rumor than fact. It has only been in recent history that the Invincible has come to be seen and photographed.
In addition to being more lavishly engraved and checkered than the A1 Special, the characteristic Parker recessed hinge pin is not present. There are gold birds inlayed on the sides and bottom of the frame, combined with fine scroll engraving. Unique to the Invincible, the frame has barrel side clips on the bolsters and was rebated so the stock fit behind the frame to prohibit splitting of the stock head. The checkering and engraving patterns are superbly executed.

Invincible serial number 230329 is a 16 ga. and the other two are 12 ga.

There were three Invincible Parkers produced*.


This was copied from the Parker site, I guess the Invincible had side clips.
Pete

The first Invincible 200000 --



The 16-gauge, the A.C. Middleton gun 230329 --



The Dr. Lyman gun 233565 --



They all eventually made it into the Petersen Collection and eventually into the NRA Museum. I've heard the Petersen estate has been moving to monetizing the collection so they may get out and about again.

I had not heard that the Invincibles were on loan to the NRA.

I had not heard that the Invincibles were on loan to the NRA. It's time for my visit to the museum to check on them.

What does that mean exactly, Dave?

Stanton....It means you better getting to selling those clunkers if want a chance to buy one of them.

In 1926 $100 equated to $1535.01 in today’s money (according to a google search), so in today’s money, the Parker Invincible would have sold for $19,187.63 which seems even low for what hi-grade guns are selling for today, imho.

[They all eventually made it into the Petersen Collection and eventually into the NRA Museum. I've heard the Petersen estate has been moving to monetizing the collection so they may get out and about again.[/quote]

The Petersen Collection has been in the process of being "monetized" for several years. It was absolutely massive in quantity and quality. Steve Barnett, RIP, has been selling off a large portion of it for at least 7-8 years, and Tony Galazan has been doing so as well. Steve had worked it out with the decision-makers involved to dribble pieces out in a fashion that would not overwhelm the market in order to get the best price for the pieces. The NRA Museum was collaborating with Steve when it all started, then Tony Galazan got involved into the deal and changed the the whole process. But it has been going on for quite some time.

I doubt anyone but the Petersen family/estate and the NRA museum knows how much is left to sell, and if these Invincibles will be available for purchase.
JR

That's all way different than the way I thought it went down. Let's hear more opinions, or maybe the whole truth.

This courtesy of Bruce Day on the Parker Gun Collectors Association site back in 2012 --

Here are the three Invincible Grade Parkers, which are fully owned by the NRA. While at one time they were held by the NRA as trustee, they are now owned. Two are straight hand grip, one is half pistol grip with a foliate or leaf carving.



So, I guess they will not be part of the Petersen estate monetization.

You can “monetize” something by charging exhibition fees or admission.
Lots of painting collections are preserved, protected, and promoted for enjoyment that way.
Cars too.

Several years ago when the Invincibles were displayed at the Annual Meeting of the Parker Gun Collectors Association on Maryland's Eastern Shore Phil Shrier told me the NRA Museum had been offered $4 million for the three Invincibles... No Deal was struck at that time.

Who is Phil Shrier?
JR

This Phil S. ?

https://www.facebook.com/phil.schreier/

so then the Invincible is the "Best" grade Parker gun....the other grades are just also rans.....price point guns....some are lip sticked up quite a bit...but they are what they are..??..

Im more of a Fox gun person....but they admitted that the only real difference between the sterlingworth and the high grades was lipstick.....

And some damn fine lipstick it was:
https://stevebarnettfineguns.com/ah-fox-shotguns-for-sale/ah-fox-xe-12-gauge
JR

I think you're mis-stating the reality of it. The Sterlingworth internals were kept to the same high quality as the graded guns. With A H Fox guns, the graded guns were offered years before the Sterlingworth was. Point is, the graded guns weren't of a lower quality internally, the Sterlingworth was just above average in internal quality, for guns of a competitive nature in other makes. Big difference.

I'm mostly a "Fox man" myself, but I can appreciate and enjoy Parkers. My latest acquisition is a DHE Parker 16/20 that may well become my go to dove gun, for later season birds.

Hey there Deano. You and your brother Parkeristas might enjoy the fine article on the Del Grego family and their unique history with Parker Bros-Autumn 2021 issue (40th. Anniv.) 0f Sporting Classics, very well written,IMO, byTom Kerr. Do you know this gent by the way- His research seems solid, and the fotos are a nice insight into the Del Grego shop-- But, like any fine article on "classic shotguns: Parlers and Model 12's- there is an error in both Mr. Kerr's article, and also in the John Madis M12 book. Are you astute and observant enough to spot them? Nothing like a challenge, right?? RWTF

Hey Runz, your post reminded me that you are the self-appointed editor of everyone's published work; so I have been extremely disappointed that you haven't already publicly exposed the error in my latest DGJ article? But for the record there is indeed a glaring typo in the caption on the very first page; Charlie Strawn died in 1901, and not in 1991 as stated in the caption. That error was made by the DGJ folks, not me; and for all I know there may be many others as I never read my published work, but that type does serve as a reminder that we are all human and therefore subject to mistakes and errors. And finally, if I have incorrectly assumed that you still subscribe to the DGJ and have read the article; then my sincere apologies.

Apology accepted, Suh. Only error I have found, except your mentioning the 1901-1991 mix-up, was a few years ago, in an article about a rare graded Smith, the author erred in the date of the sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-Boat--stuff happens. does it not.. Wanna take a shot at the Parker history article in the current Autumn 2021 issue of Sporting Classics?? RWTF By the way, if anyone wishes to check this out, DGJ Volime 22-issue 4= Winter 2011-page 119-- enjoy!! Foxist

No sir, don't have the article; and besides, I don't qualify as a Parker historian.

Neither do I topgunny- I am more a pre-64 Winchester man, with a smattering of knowledge of Colts and L.C. Smiths. RWTF