The Chronology of Plainsman Literature

Joined: July 22nd, 2011, 4:46 am

September 14th, 2018, 6:08 am #1

When I posted my collection of Plainsman literature some time back, without thinking about it, I just loaded them in the order that they were scanned. That order was not chronological and this appears to have misled some collectors. I apologize for the error. 

Here is my Plainsman literature collection, again, but this time in, what I believe to be, proper chronological order.

1) circa 1948/1949 Challenger Arms, Eagle Rock. The inclusion of the shotgun is what would make this a 1948/1948 version of their catalog. This is a copy obtained by a Plainsman collector in California; pretty sure that he only had a copy too. This is the only known piece of literature to carry the Eagle Rock 2767 W. Broadway address. There are no Plainsman Eagle Rock magazine ads known of. 

Healthways006.jpg

2) October, 1949, Magazine article showing clear interest in producing CO2 guns by Challenger Arms, same Eagle Rock address.
Healthways004.jpg

3) October, 1949, letter from Healthways to HP White indicating that Healtways had acquired exclusive rights to the Plainsman line and that the flyer inclosed was published in the fall Sporting Goods Dealer magazine.  From fall 1949/1950 on, it is the Healthways version (walnut, etc) that are built by what appears to be a new manufacturer. 

Healthways001.jpg
4) Shows the same lineup as the earlier Eagle Rock flyer with some minor but distinct changes to the guns.

Healthways002.jpg
5) 1949 Ad seen in American Rifleman. With so few Plainsman magazine ads, the one we do have seems a bit odd, with apparently an individual pushing the new Plainsman shotgun.
Healthways011.jpg 6) Circa 1950/51. Hard to be specific about dating this one. To my knowledge, this is the only mention of Challenger Arms Corp. in Sherman Oaks. Healthways005.jpg

7) 1951 American Rifleman ad for CO2 pistol, still Challenger Arms but now Challenger Arms Distribution. Same price as Sherman Oaks flyer.

Healthways008.jpg

8) 1954 Goodenow Manufacturing Co. advertisement in American Rifleman magazine for CO2 pistols and rifles.

Healthways007.jpg

9) 1954 flyer for CO2 pistol, now Challenger Arms Co. 

Healthways009.jpg   
10) 1954 flyer for CO2 rifle, Challenger Arms Co.

Healthways010.jpg




 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 9th, 2018, 1:14 am

September 14th, 2018, 1:32 pm #2

Here we go again. You are guessing on the dates of the first and last flyers in your chronology! The only dated flyer is the date HP white received the Healthways fllyer. That means the Heathways flyer which is currently published in the Sporting goods Dealer. To publish something, it has to be submitted months ahead of the publish date, and then the publish date of the "current magazine which may be a month or two before the HP White receive date.Do the math, the heath way ad is a lot earlier than the HP receive date. The Healthway ad being first is supported much better by the example evidence.  And now the Challenger Arms CO2 ads are now from 1954 which coincidentally is Goodenows Small magazine ad date. You obviously are manipulating the dates to fit you pet theory. You'd have us believe that the cheaper stock material plainsmans which we have determine from the the examples in collectors hands, make up the great majority of Pneumatics was all made first prior to Healthway Ad and Walnut stock Plainsman. I figure the actual Healthway ad may be up to 6 months older than the HP White Receive date. That would mean 90 plus percent of the pneumatic were manufactured in a couple of months at the start of production and when Healthways came in, they produce 10% over the next three years. You just like to argue and disagree for the fun of it even when your point is senseless.... all in defence of your Goodenow Theory. First you say only CO2 have walnut stocks and that must be because goodenow made them. I survey actual owners and Walnut stock California guns are found disproving your contention. And now I actually find the documented proof of the walnut stocks in the early Healthway ad that undoubtable show the first version of the gun and you try to insert an obviously later ad with the cheaper stocks in as the earliest version of the gun even though it doesn't match with the physical evidence. 

Need I remind you that "Plainsman " is Heathways trade name and Guns with that name cannot be produced without an agreement in place. The heathways ad is first, followed by the one you think is first, and the other ads are in correct chronological order, just the 1954 dates on the last flyers are ridiculous and unsubstantiated.. This Numerich catalog page from 1949 matches the 1949 Paul Heismann ad which matches the Flyer you purport to be 1948. Your flyer actual comes after the heathway ad. The healthway ad is the introductory ad. You'll notice that the Eagle Rock flyer Guns have the 2 ring hammer knobs, you can clearly see it on the pistol. This is the same as the late 1949/50 magazine/catalog ads ( Paul Heismann, Kleins, Numrich, and the CO2 shotgun article dated Oct 1949.) The two ring knob carried all the way to the end on the Pneumatics. Also the Pistol in the Eagle Rock Flyer has the embossed tiny diamond grain texture on the pistol grip. This diamond grain pattern  carried into the CO2 line. Early pistols had linear lines running up the grip as the texture pattern. And your justification for placing the Eagle Rock Flyer first is ridiculous. Your quote: .
 "The inclusion of the shotgun is what would make this a 1948/1948 version of their catalog."
Did you bother reading the other ads?? The Healthway ad list the guns in the same order, Shotgun first, then rifle, and lastly pistol. So the Healthway catalog flyer "INCLUDES" the shotgun. So that negates your justification for putting the Eagle Rock Flyer first.

Quit muddying the water and trying to put out confusing information. You don't have dates on most of the flyers other than the HP white stuff, and it's obvious you manipulate the order it to fit your pet theory without trying to see if it fits the physical evidence. You have to connect the paper to the physical evidence we find. We have just produced more examples to help with this than ever before. Don't ignore that, use common sense connecting the dots. Remember the early guns don't have the eagle rock logos. Come up with scenarios that make sense.
1949  Shotgun Numrich catalog late 1949 - 1950 style.jpg
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 9th, 2018, 1:14 am

September 15th, 2018, 2:51 pm #3

This August 1951 CO2 Plainsman advertisement uses the PO Box 11835 Wagner Station Los Angeles California address. That verifies all California addressed CO2 advertisements with that address are from 1951. Your last two California flyers need to be move up on your chronology from 1954 to 1951 three years before the Goodenow ad. You'll notice the price is the same for the pistol in small magazine ad and the Wagner Station Challenger flyer and the Magazine Ad says its the "new" low price..
1951early CO2 pistol Aug 1951 .jpg
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 22nd, 2011, 4:46 am

September 15th, 2018, 11:50 pm #4

 "That verifies all California addressed CO2 advertisements with that address are from 1951."

No, it doesn't.  Not sure why it could be assumed (you do a lot of that) that just because one date for an address is found that all other occurrences of that address must be around the same time. For instance: The Goodenow instruction sheet for the CO2 rifle and pistol is dated January 1, 1954, and it also has this same Wagner Station address. Plus, there is no mention anywhere by anyone --except maybe in another of your made up stories-- of a Plainsman bulb CO2 rifle prior to 1954. edit: added "bulb" CO2,


***Also, note that this 1954 flyer for the CO2 pistol shows the second version of the front sight assembly, so, no matter what you think, it's later (1954) than the 1951 ad.***

Correction: the flyer does not show the 2nd version of the pistol front sight. Apparently there are no marketing materials that show the 2nd version of the pistol. So, could this flyer be from 1951? Sure. I put it at 1954 because it matches in style the 1954 rifle flyer.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 22nd, 2011, 4:46 am

September 16th, 2018, 5:02 am #5

Should add. That we are now able to clearly identify the Healthways versions of the pneumatic rifles is a major accomplishment. Your work is what has made that possible. That you're confused on the chronology of Eagle Rock does not distract from that accomplishment. And, like I said, I apologize for the poor presentation of the Plainsman literature.

If you are determined to establish a later (i.e. post 1949) Eagle Rock operation, you need to find a piece of paper (such as an advertisement) that is so dated.  Till now, nothing like that has surfaced. Everything I've ever seen or heard puts Eagle Rock in the immediate post war 40s. However, except for that one copy of a catalog page, we have nothing.  But important to note: having little interest in Plainsman/Eagle Rock I've never tried to track anything down. Especially since I knew that another collector had interviewed a former Eagle Rock employee.  There's sure to be more info out there. Track down Jon Jenkins, he may have come up with more stuff and he lives in the area.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 9th, 2018, 1:14 am

September 16th, 2018, 7:08 am #6

Were these comments necessary. "Not sure why it could be assumed (you do a lot of that)"  "except maybe in another of your made up stories" 
Well having the Wagner Station California address on the Goodenow instruction sheet just verifies what I thought all along. They just copied the instructions from one of the liquidated guns and had their price list added to the back. I'm sure you were hoping the Instruction sheet would say "Manufactured by Goodenow" . I'd appreciate if you'd post it for study. 

There are just to many things that don't work with the Goodenow story. I'd wish you'd see that, but you seem to be unswayable in your belief. 
Disagreement is fine, just be civil about it. I plan to post my findings on Plainsman soon and if you read it I hope you will have an open mind. Sure there are some theories on things that may have happened but I believe they best fit the facts. I'm not sure you should read it because I list Goodenow as a reseller, and if that's going to bug you, then I advise you to avoid it. And thank you for your last post, it was civil and informative.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 22nd, 2011, 4:46 am

September 16th, 2018, 7:43 am #7

 "Well having the Wagner Station California address on the Goodenow instruction sheet just verifies what I thought all along. They just copied the instructions from one of the liquidated guns and had their price list added to the back. "

Completely and utterly wrong. 

"There are just to many things that don't work with the Goodenow story. I'd wish you'd see that, but you seem to be unswayable in your belief."

Unswayable? All you are giving is your opinion. Why should anyone be swayed by your opinion? For one thing: In effect, you're calling WHB Smith a liar. And you're basing this on exactly what again?   For another: you can't seem to get the Plainsman chronology right. Nobody but you has Eagle Rock in operation post 1949. Nobody.  That's not to say you're wrong but there is absolutely nothing supporting your opinion other than your opinion. Sorry if I'm not swayed but I'm not even impressed.

But to reiterate. Great work on the getting folks to show their guns. It made all the difference. We now know how to precisely ID a Healthways model. That's real progress.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 9th, 2018, 1:14 am

September 16th, 2018, 5:33 pm #8

I'm am basing this on the WHB Smith statement, when he said Goodenow marketed and sold Pneumatic plainsmans.
If Goodenow is already known to be selling another manufacturers product, he is by definition a reseller. We know Goodenow did not manufacture Pneumatic Plainsmans, 
unless you want to claim that now. So examining both statements, you see that Goodenow marketed or offered Plainsman Pneumatics and CO2 guns. 
Neither statement said Manufactured. We have Flyers that actual lists Challenger Arms as the manufacturer and then we have CO2 flyers that you contend are from 1954 
and list Challenger Arms in a big black box, yet you believe it is somehow connected to Goodenow who is the real manufacturer. Just ignore the name on the flyer with the California address. 

Read the Smith Statement from Gas Air and Spring guns of the World Chp 5 Modern Pneumatic Arms: 
The statement is regarding Pneumatic Air Guns in the Pneumatic Arms Chapter of the book.
 It states Pneumatics marketed by Goodenow who later "offered" CO2
Goodenow pneumatics .jpg



The Smith quote you always misinterpret: The statement says "Offered" 
You always equate "offered" as manufactured. Also he mentions the Tradename  "Plainsman" 
A tradename already owned by Heathways who is currently developing the new "Plainsman" and would not allow someone else to use it. 
Goodenow CO2.jpg


I don't think you ever address these points: Can you please give an explanation to these points.
1. Goodenow is a reseller of Pneumatics Plainsmans according to WHB Smith, what is it that you see in the small advertisement that elevates them to manufacturer. WHB Smith quotes only say "Offered" not manufactured.
2. How does Goodenow get away with using the tradename "Plainsman" for a newly manufactured CO2 line of Airguns when Heathways owns the Tradename and has it earmarked for their new CO2 pistol they are developing.
3. How do you explain the use of the same California address utilizing the Wagner Station branch of the US Post Office in your 1954 Goodenow instruction sheet and the August 1951 Challenger Arms Plainsman CO2 pistol magazine ad. 
This same address is on California Co2 instructions, and the box your CO2 pistol comes in matches the boxes from California in 1951. 
Why would a new manufacturer have a local supplier exactly match the boxes of the old manufacturer from 4 years prior.

 

Challenger distributing.jpg Plainsman CO2 box 5.jpg Identical to the Goodenow box in appearance minus wear and tear.

What happens using someone else's Tradename:
luger.jpg
Quote
Like
Share