Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I've noticed a few incomplete and incorrect serial numbers, primarily from collected instruments, which can be completed thanks to the data within the register, but there is no method to do so other than contacting Gil or Peter at each occurance.

One example is a collected instruments entry from 1966, with the serial number FD?498. One of the great values of the registry, is that we now know that this serial should read FD1498. The problem is that it is a very slow process for Gil or Peter to update these one at a time, and probably not worth the effort.

Would it be worth the effort if there was a simpler way to perform the change? Possiblly a 'change entry' request webform, or similar with just the pertinant information and a quick justification? Perhaps scanning serial numbers to identify those that don't fit the pattern? (Using FD as an example, we can see that the highest FC so far is FC944 and the lowest FE so far is FE1562, so all FDs must fall somewhere between 945 and 1561. Can this knowledge be used to create a rule for logging entries, whereby the database looks at entries each side of the relevent entry and dictates the conditions that must be met?

As far a incorrect entires go, I've seen a few '7's which should be '1's, though this is only evident when you look at the serial numbers surrounding particular instances.). Once again a database rule might identify these errors.

I'm not trying to create more work for anyone, but just wondering if there are easy ways to correct obvious anomalies using the technology available to us?

Excellent ideas, Bails.

We have to be careful of interpolating, however, as the gaps in between given serialsmay not have always been completely filled.

Your point is well taken, however, and Gil and I will discuss this with a view to having entries earmarked for change.

Thanks for your observations and comments.

In the above example, analysing the registry cannot determine whether 945 will be an FC or an FD - it could be either one. In fact anything between 945 and one less than the earliest known FD (FD1063) could be either FC or FD. It does not show us the cutout point between month codes, but what it does tell us however, is that anything lower than the highest recorded FC (FC945) cannot possibly be an FD. Of note also, is that the highest recorded value of FC could change anytime a new entry is inserted, and would need to be reflected in the rule. This would by no means be a simple task to program.

This is the theory behind detecting anomolies in the database, unless, of course we are considering whether Rickenbacker had anomalies in their serial numbers at this time, in which case my logic is useless. Is there much evidence of this so far?

When we were adding the entries to the database, I received several entries with serial numbers that the owner either typoed into the email or maybe they just couldn't correctly read some of the serial numbers on their jackplates.

Mark: Once the RIC serial number system was in place beginning around the fall of 1960 it appears quite orderly. An inspection will reveal, however, that changes were made to this system over the years. Trends include counting up by year, counting down by year, resetting the serial at 999 and so forth. In the late 90s we see a change to the more random assignment of serials.

Sometimes one need the "whole set" of trading cards before speaking with confidence. I would like to resist the temptation of changing serials based on a theory that may not apply. You have underscored, however, the importance of obtaining all the characters in a serial number. Reporting only some, is helpful, but can be misleading.

In summary, if it walks and talks like a duck it might be a duck. Sometimes, however, it is important to know if it is Donald or Daffy we are looking at.

admin wrote:In summary, if it walks and talks like a duck it might be a duck. Sometimes, however, it is important to know if it is Donald or Daffy we are looking at.

Um, you forgot the AFLAC duck, Peter!

And let's remember, RIC numbers instruments in such a way that it is impossible to determine their production totals.

Why are production totals kept secret?

Kira: RIC is a private company and as such prefers to keep certain aspects of their organization to themselves. Production totals would be one of these areas.

admin wrote:Kira: RIC is a private company and as such prefers to keep certain aspects of their organization to themselves. Production totals would be one of these areas.

Some kind of marketing strategy, I guess. Fair 'nuff.