How many DO they make a year?

[gibsonlp]

This is actually pretty interesting.

Up to the late 90s It was pretty easy to tell how many were sold as the serial number itself was unique per year.

Having the register allows us to get some pretty close estimate:

1961: not enough instruments in the register, rough estimate: under 1000 pieces (600 were build until Aug)
1962: ~700
1963: ~1100
1964: ~900
1965: Unknown, numbers seem to be randomly provided, less than 1000 though.
1966: ~4900 (big jump!)
1967: ~4900
1968: ~1800
1969: Not enough data, numbers seem to be random.
1970: Not enough data, numbers seem to be random.
1971: ~850
1972: Some jumps in the middle, but all in all around 1800 instruments
1973: ~7700 (big jump, again)
1974: ~7700
1975: ~8600
1976: ~8100
1977: ~5500
1978: ~8000
1979: ~6000
1980: ~4000
1981: ~4600
1982: ~3100
1983: ~1700
1984: ~1600
1985: ~2400
1986: ~5700

From here the serials go down from 9999.
1987: ~3000
1988: ~4000
1989: ~4700
1990: ~6100
1991: ~6200
1992: ~6500
1993: ~4900
1994: ~3400
1995: ~5400
1996: ~6900
1997: ~6300
1998: This is the serial transition year in which some instruments were marked with the old system and some with the new (98 and then the week number)
1999: Another transition year
2000: From here the serials are really hard as the incrementing number goes up on a per week basis, making the statistical analysis almost impossible without having the full list of instruments, however, we can get some information, for example, in the first week of jan 2000 Rickenbacker manufactured around 700 instruments...

[8mileshigh]

700 in the first week of 2000? That can't be right? Should that be month rather than week?

[admin]

I think that it is important to consider the margin of error when making estimates based on incomplete information. As our Register sample grows, our understanding of the production of Rickenbackers will increase.

For now, there are interesting trends that we are able to see in the data, as Gil notes, which provide us with a window into the factory world of days gone by. The reader is cautioned, however, against making predictions that may be too bold.

With regard to the older data, there may anomalies of production or protocol that are not transparent to the observer. Some companies, Gibson for example, have repeated serial numbers when their alloted coding sequence was exceeded. In our case with such a small number of instruments accounted for, we may not have any way to know if this took place.

With regard to the newer data, the serials may not be assigned consecutively or in an orderly manner. A random assignment of the unique instrument serial numbers, for example, could lead an observer down the garden path with production estimates that are off the mark. Graham, this sort of assignment of serials could explain the 700 figure that you have questioned for the first week of January in the year 2000.

[chucksimms]

I recall somebody from Rick ballparked it at 25 instruments per day, and if memory serves that was multiplied by every day of the year, not just working days.

[admin]

Chuck: At 25 per day or 9125 per year, this estimate would not be that far off of the total noted for some years based on the serials that Gil reported.

[admin]

Gil: With regard to the estimates based on serial numbers, your comments are most interesting.

I think one must also consider that the algorithm used to assign serial numbers changed over the course of Rickenbacker history. Your comments about beginning at 9999 for unique serials and counting down do seem to be reasonable for some periods. During the earlier years, however, I consider that the assignment may have been different.

As but one example of this, have a look at 1965. Your comment that the assignment of serials appears random and there was a production of instruments that approximated 1000 could be be explored further. Recall that in 1965 RIC was in the middle of producing instruments at the peak of the British Invasion. To that end, production was up substantially and so 1000 would not seem reasonable.

If you look closely at 1965 you will see that the unique serials for each instrument seem to begin at zero and are reset over the year each time they reach 999. This trend seems to hold even though we have incomplete data. Using this pattern I believe that approximatley 2400 instruments were produced in 1965. As partial validation of this estimate, I would refer you to the analysis of Richard Smith in 1987. His estimates based on the Factory invoicing has 2403 instruments manufactured. This may not be the whole story but I believe it to be closer to the truth.

[jwilli]

I believe that 1964 had closer to 2000 instruments built.

[admin]

John: I agree with your assessment of 1964. Recall that from the Smith analyses alone that 1601 instruments (including 656 Rose Morris) were identified from the invoice data. It you look at the serial data from the register it is possible that the unique instrument numbers were on their second cycle of 1000 by the end of the year. It is possible, adhering to the invoice data that upwards of 1800 instruments could have been manufactured that year. So 2000 is real close by a couple of estimates. Three estimates including the JWilli analysis.

[RIC_FACTORY]

I know the answer to this (at least for the past ten years). I won't reveal it, but I will say that all the guesses I have seen are WAAAAY off...

[gibsonlp]

Peter: my bad, I didn't notice the numbers reset in the middle of the year at 999...
You are right...


Ben: That's the whole thing - there is currently NO way for us to know how many were made in the past 10 years and if you'll look at my post - I stopped at 1998... which is... 10 years ago...

[admin]

Ben: Thanks for your comments. From an historical perspective, I find collecting the data provides interesting information with regard to general trends. I am only interested in getting a large sampling of the data for this reason. I am less taken by the number of instruments that are made within any given period. I do very much appreciate feedback from the Factory, especially when we are way off.

[johnhall]

Totally erroneous data posted here. You can't tell from the serial numbers, by design.

[admin]

Thanks John. I appreciate your comments.

I recall from your comments some time ago now, that your serials were changed at some point to keep such information private. Knowing the number of instruments manufactured is no one's business other than RIC. Any estimates or trends made from the limited data that we have here may be taken with a grain of salt.

They are offered, however, out of a genuine interest for and a love of the instrument. For that reason alone it is a fascinating look at what type of models and finishes have been manufactured over the years.

I am grateful that you have set the record straight.

[guitar-murph]

See this link...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... cation=rss

This the closest thing I have seen in terms of numbers being released regarding the annual production of instruments......around 10,000. But this includes ALL instruments.......basses, 12-strings, and those products which are shipped overseas.....which I believe is a fairly significant part of Rickenbacker's market.

Still speculative, but it does give you a 'ball park' number to consider.

[jingle_jangle]

From the lips of Officialdom (Big Cheeze Dept.):

"Between 8,000 and 12,000".

Heard on Thursday at NAMM.