Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Here are a few this that seem wrong or could be up for debate:

*PH 6704 - This can get deleted because I own it, and it is PH 6074 which is in the registry as well. It was my fault though, i discussed it in a thread and did the typo there and it got added from there.

T1 6963 was recently added as v63, but seems be a v57. * Listed as V59

F1 729 should be deleted, its FA 729 *edit made F1729 deleted

P8 667 should most likely be PB 667

85C8134 shows up as a 1970-01 should be a 1958
85C7114 shows up as a 1970-01 should be a 1957
85C7106 shows up as a 1970-01 should be a 1957

V7854
V7422
V7206
V7152
All show up as 2004 and should be 1957 (well they might be 57-59 but who knows)

Well there's a start.

David: Thanks for the homework. Your efforts are appreciated.

"T1 6963 was recently added as v63, but seems be a v57. * Listed as V59"

Ron, yes 325v59. I had all those little V7 guitars on the mind.

I thought this guitar was a good deal, to who ever got it. New toaster covers are only about $25 each, and Fireglo. Very nice.

xcoyle wrote:... I thought this guitar was a good deal, to who ever got it. New toaster covers are only about $25 each, and Fireglo. Very nice.

+1

Also, good detective work, David!

Here's another correction needing attention:

CJ 390 should be pulled.

It is already registered correctly as CJ890

It is a 460 at Olivia's.

http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... 6order%3D6


Somehow a D6 has been built in 1983? Doubt it.

I see this quite a bit sometimes... People with SN's that start with 00 insisting that their guitars are from 1999.

Perhaps Gil can create a subroutine that flags these kind of errors. And asks people are you sure your E0 8xxx guitar is from 1975??

The other ones I see are lapsteels B689 for example. The registry turns this into a 1993.

Thanks Brian, the April 1993 instrument to which you refer has been corrected. You will see such errors from time to time. We appreciate you noticing and reporting any errors you see. To err is human, even for us.

Pre 1961 instruments should have their manufacturing date entered manually, otherwise the system will try to decode their serial as if they were manufactured post 1961. I'll see if I can do something about it.

Gil:

It would be great if every time you fed in a serial number it calculated a date and then asked the person entering it to confirm. "Is you guitar from August 1982 - Yes or No?"

Or that it flags a date that seems obviously wrong.. a 03 xxxxx number as anything other then a 2003 for example.

The pre 61 numbers, the duplicate 1958 and 1960 numbers, the duplicate J numbers from 1960 and 1970, the lap steels etc are a whole other issue and this is why there should still be the ability to correct the automatic dating codes. But the default should always pop up and the questionget asked if there is a conflct.

There are currently some really dumb errors in the registry such as...

999087 (listed as from Sept 2000) Most likely 99 09087 since it was entered in 1999.

0090931
0446911
R49771
R49657
P49657 All listed as being from 2001

There are lots more examples. I just picked 2001 at Random

Partial SN's that don't put xx's in for incomplete numbers are also a whole separate headache. VD 10xx (is clearly a partial SN) Vd10 is not. 04 3751x is clearly partial. 04 3751 is not. etc. Gil's suggestion to me was to put partial SN's in the comment field.

Not trying to be negative as I certainly acknowledge the hard work that goes into maintaining the registry!

But this seems a simple fix and reduces the possibility of human error

Brian: Your observations and suggestions are excellent. I see no negative comments, only ways to make things positively better. Thanks to the help of people like yourself "It's getting better all the time."

Can't get no grass??

Another error to fix

http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... 6order%3D7

SN is 0541222

not 054122

Correction made.

Thanks Brian, Please note that you can now edit any collected item yourself,
This entry, however was a duplicate of a previous entry (the previous entry had the right serial number) so I fixed it by removing the old entry and fixing the new one (the new one had images).

Another one that looks odd to me..

http://www.rickresource.com/register/vi ... 6order%3D5


BBR41229

Is really R41229