Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hi there,

as far as i know, the "standard" colors for Rickenbacker basses production are (and always been) Fireglo, Mapleglo and Jetglo.

They produced every year the same quantities of F M and J or the color choice was based on the customers requests ?
And if so what is the rarest between the three ?

Thank you

Mattia: A very good question and we can provide a reasonable estimate bassed on the data from the Register. After approximately 9,000 instruments posted Fireglo comes in at 28%, Jetglo at 23% and Mapleglo at 17%. Our sampling is biased in a number of respects but with this many data points I consider that we are fairly close to the truth with regard to answering your question.

admin wrote:Mattia: A very good question and we can provide a reasonable estimate bassed on the data from the Register. After approximately 9,000 instruments posted Fireglo comes in at 28%, Jetglo at 23% and Mapleglo at 17%. Our sampling is biased in a number of respects but with this many data points I consider that we are fairly close to the truth with regard to answering your question.

+1

As a scientist, I would expect the data in the Register to be a representative sample of the total population, within a reasonable certainty (e.g., maybe 90-95%).

doctorwho wrote: As a scientist, I would expect the data in the Register to be a representative sample of the total population, within a reasonable certainty (e.g., maybe 90-95%).

Maybe. IMO, the fact that the members aren't randomly chosen skews the data to some extent.

Without a doubt the bias is there, Dan. It raises some interesting questions. Are enthusiasts and collectors more inclined to purchase and collect one of the "big three finishes" or perhaps they want something different? Do our data over or under-represent the proportions of these finishes overall?

Perhaps it might be more valid to look only at the CI entries since these are probably more random samples taken from places like ebay...

Wouldn't it be Midnight Blue?


Okay... okay....

One would expect it to be MapleGlo, of the ‘standard’ colors, as it was actually considered a custom finish for many years.

IMO, just how much bias there is to the Register is not clear, so everyone is correct, depending on the initial assumption about the heterogeneity of the sample (Register entries) of the larger population (all Ricxklenbackers manufactured).

To me, it's the "glass half full/half empty" thing. Just a matter of perspective and opinion.

My vote would be for AZ Blue, but asided from the big three finishes, I've actually seen about ten basses in AZ blue, so it's probably not that rare of a standard color.

doctorwho wrote:IMO, just how much bias there is to the Register is not clear, so everyone is correct, depending on the initial assumption about the heterogeneity of the sample (Register entries) of the larger population (all Ricxklenbackers manufactured).

To me, it's the "glass half full/half empty" thing. Just a matter of perspective and opinion.

The glass the wrong size, and quite likely the wrong color, as well.

dpowell wrote:

doctorwho wrote: As a scientist, I would expect the data in the Register to be a representative sample of the total population, within a reasonable certainty (e.g., maybe 90-95%).

Maybe. IMO, the fact that the members aren't randomly chosen skews the data to some extent.

+1. Think of Jim Glen! Or me with 4 MG basses out of 5.

dpowell wrote:

doctorwho wrote: As a scientist, I would expect the data in the Register to be a representative sample of the total population, within a reasonable certainty (e.g., maybe 90-95%).

Maybe. IMO, the fact that the members aren't randomly chosen skews the data to some extent.

Well, I'm a scientist too (and I use statistics regularly), and I don't see how one can claim that the members aren't randomly "chosen." In fact, they are not chosen at all (which to me is irrelevant to this point); it is a voluntary thing that depends upon two factors:

1. interest in a particular brand; and
2. access to the internet.

Neither of these two population characteristics would seem to me to favor a particular finish, and further, neither would seem to favor a proclivity toward registering or not registering an instrument here. If anything, actually choosing a sample from the RIC population at large would be more likely to produce skew than would the voluntary joining of this website and registering one's instrument(s). To me, anyway.

I would agree that the members here who have registered their instruments may have a greater liklihood to own more rare finishes such as desert gold, azureglo, blue boy, teal, etc., but as to the big three, I think that our registry sample on these must be fairly representative of the population as a whole.

FretlessOnly wrote: I would agree that the members here who have registered their instruments may have a greater liklihood to own more rare finishes such as desert gold, azureglo, blue boy, teal, etc., but as to the big three, I think that our registry sample on these must be fairly representative of the population as a whole.

This is my professional assessment, too. Probably the rare finishes are even more oversampled among the collected items in the registry.

We seem to have ardent admirers of all of the big three, as well as people who were drawn to Ricks because of Macca (FG, later MG-ish), Geddy (JG), Lemmy (err ... MG, I guess?), Cliff Burton (BG), and many others ... I can't see any reason to assume systemic bias in the register when it comes to the major colors.

FretlessOnly wrote: Well, I'm a scientist too (and I use statistics regularly), and I don't see how one can claim that the members aren't randomly "chosen." In fact, they are not chosen at all (which to me is irrelevant to this point); it is a voluntary thing that depends upon two factors:

1. interest in a particular brand; and
2. access to the internet.

Neither of these two population characteristics would seem to me to favor a particular finish, and further, neither would seem to favor a proclivity toward registering or not registering an instrument here. If anything, actually choosing a sample from the RIC population at large would be more likely to produce skew than would the voluntary joining of this website and registering one's instrument(s). To me, anyway.

I would agree that the members here who have registered their instruments may have a greater liklihood to own more rare finishes such as desert gold, azureglo, blue boy, teal, etc., but as to the big three, I think that our registry sample on these must be fairly representative of the population as a whole.

In a real scientific survey, they would be randomly chosen. I'm just saying that anyone who extrapolates production totals from the data without knowing the effects of those variables is at risk of error. YMMV.