Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

The inacuracy of your register wich came up in another topic made me think of this:

i would sugest sending a request to all registered owners to review their items details and if no answer within a certain delay, deleting it or give it an "non verified" kinda tag....or at least some way of trying to get some input from current owners. This would give this register more acuracy, legitimacy & Credibility....

Thanks Bernard. I appreciate your comments. We do our best to be accurate but we can only rely on the owner and our best observations which sometimes fall short.

When we see the need owners are contacted to validate concerns that we have. Sometimes they respond and sometimes not. Unfortunately we have a very small team who are dancing as fast as they can to keep up.

I do not want to trouble members with frequent emails as a general policy but those passionate owners who read posts such as yours will, no doubt, strive to be more exacting.

I found another cache of collected Limited Edition data, including info on a 230GF . I have added four so far (a couple had incomplete info) and will be adding about a dozen more to the Register!

I've been cleaning out more paper while the slab leak was being addressed, and I found an old eBay auction for a 331 LS that was not in the Register, so I added it.

While searching for 4 string 21 frets

http://www.rickresource.com/register/in ... celebrity=

This one doesn't come up, perhaps as the 21 fret suffix has been replaced by mod.

http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... lebrity%3D

I found another old eBay auction, for a 2003 620/6 FG back in 2004, that had the serial number in the ad, so I have added that one, too.

Thanks Gary. Sean, correction made.

Another 64 1999 RoMo to add to the list which at present comes under RM along with the other 370's.

http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... ecial%3D48

I found two more, a 4003 Tuxedo (incomplete serial number, but #94 in series), and a 4005 WB MG (with complete SN), so I have added those.

While checking the Register for the Tuxedo, I saw that there is a 4003 WHT BT from 1985 (serial number YA 1301) that is incorrectly listed as a Tuxedo.

On further review, there are additional incorrect entries as Tuxedos:

360/6 serial number J9 4783
360/12 serial number "15" [?], manufacturing date listed as 1970-01
4001 serial number PD 2613

I was looking through the register and trying to search on just a year. I noticed a few "interesting" years I could choose from the drop-down menu:
192
1003
1005
1044
1046
1056

Now, I know Rickenbacker was the first real player in the electric guitar market, but I have serious doubts that they were actually producing ANY instruments in 1056 or earlier.

Anyway, searching on those dates brought up nothing for 192, 1003, and 1005, but 1044, 1046, and 1056 brought up the following:
http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... lebrity%3D
http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... lebrity%3D
http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... lebrity%3D

I suspect that these should be marked 1944, 1946, and 1956, but since these are before the dates that the RIC Serial Number Decoder understands, I'd like to be sure they really are from those dates.

Anyway, it would probably be good to fix these and then get rid of the menu items for those dates before Rickenbacker existed. Perhaps the registry entry form could be set up to not accept dates that are too early and give an error...

I've been wondering what's the proper listing for the finish on the 4001c64s:

I listed mine as Natural Maple, but have noticed many are listed as MG.

I think MapleGlo generally refers to the more modern clearcoat finishes, after the switch to Conversion Varnish in 1958. The "Glo" part is said to stand for "Gloss" and CV finishes are quite glossy compared to some of the older finishes...

cjj wrote:I think MapleGlo generally refers to the more modern clearcoat finishes, after the switch to Conversion Varnish in 1958. The "Glo" part is said to stand for "Gloss" and CV finishes are quite glossy compared to some of the older finishes...

Which leads me to believe the reissue c64s 4001's are incorrectly listed as MapleGlo. I think they have a clear coat finish referred to as Satin or Matte, to simulate Sir Paul's finish after the psychedelic refin was removed.

rickyfricky wrote:

cjj wrote:I think MapleGlo generally refers to the more modern clearcoat finishes, after the switch to Conversion Varnish in 1958. The "Glo" part is said to stand for "Gloss" and CV finishes are quite glossy compared to some of the older finishes...

Which leads me to believe the reissue c64s 4001's are incorrectly listed as MapleGlo. I think they have a clear coat finish referred to as Satin or Matte, to simulate Sir Paul's finish after the psychedelic refin was removed.

Yeah, but the whole "gloss" issue gets really confusing. AutumnGlo is (at least sometimes) a matte finish, the glossy version being called Walnut. So, I think the "Glo" part is probably more of a pre-CV vs. CV designation.

In reality, the onl "correct" thing would be to use what the actual color/finish designation was/is in the Rickenbacker catalogs. I know some of the older clear finishes were apparently referred to as "Blond." I've got a '58 Console 700 that's definitely finished in clear nitrocellulose lacquer. In discussions with John Hall, he thought that maybe the 'B' in the serial number referred to "Blond," but didn't really know for sure...

http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... lebrity%3D

Can this Laguna be corrected to 380, it's now listed as 360