Fireglo/Autumnglo

rob · Post by **rob** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:06 am

I saw in the Registration Page a picture of what is called an Autumnglo finish on a 1977 4001.
I matched mine up, and looks just like it.
I always thought my 4001 was Fireglo.
How do I tell the difference?

Rickenbacker Registration Page.htm (1.0 k)

rob · Post by **rob** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:10 am

Ooops.
I guess I goofed.
It's when you go to the Registration Page, go to Updates, and it's the top one. 1977 4001 Autumnglo. It looks like the same color as mine.
But, so does my 330, and that's Fireglo.

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:13 am

Robert, I'll check the picture out, as well as take a side-by-side picture of a c. 1974 4001 Walnut (gloss version of Autumnglo) and a 1975 4001 FG and post it here later.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 5:06 pm

Rob: I would seem to me that you have an autumnglo, at least based on the photo you referenced from the Rickenbacker Registration Page. You will see red, in varying amounts, in the fireglo finish. Some of the photos on the internet are, however, misleading.

rob · Post by **rob** » Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:49 pm

I do have a minor colorblindness in almost very close shades of certain colors. I always thought that what was on that picture was Fireglo. I thought that Autumnglo was much more distinct than that. Maybe I was thinking of Walnutglo?

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 9:47 am

First, here's a direct link to the 4001 Autumnglo refered to:

http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/mccorp/774001autumnglo.html

Second, from my readings here in the Forum and elsewhere, Walnut is the gloss version of Autumnglo, which is a satin finish.

Third, I agree with Peter that digital pictures can be misleading. Experience with my Olympus D-400Z digital camera has shown repeatedly that reds are not always accurately rendered, depending (in a convoluted way) on the ambient lighting, use of flash, and exposure compensation used. Saying that, here is a picture of Walnut and Fireglo 4001's side-by-side:

This was the best exposure out of about six taken, with and without flash; this one was with no flash, no exposure compensation, ambient indirect lighting (mix of natural and incandescent). The Walnut looks almost identical to its actual color, but the Fireglo's color looks a little pinker than its actual color.

jeff_ulmer · Post by **jeff_ulmer** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 4:59 am

You may also have to account for how the finish ages. I don't know how it is for Rics, but Gibsons can change color quite drastically over time, especially in the reds. My favorite look for an ES175 is a faded cherry burst, which goes almost honey brown with age.

rob · Post by **rob** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 7:31 am

My 4001 looks the same as the one on the bottom of the picture. But to me, the Autumnglo on the Registration Page also looks exactly the same. So, I'm confused.
Oh, well. I'll just keep calling it Fireglo for now, untill I do see an Autumnglo 4001 in person to match up.
Thanks for all the help.

doctorwho · Post by **doctorwho** » Wed Jul 30, 2003 11:28 am

I agree with Jeff. Also, the finish will fade dramatically on a guitar that's been left in the sun for extended periods of time.