Lean years.

[sloop_john_b]

Brought on by a search to find my birth month Rick (YI XXXX) and realizing how few I've seen from '85 in general, I had a poke around the register to check out some production totals from the 80's. Looks like the decade started off strong, probably fueled by the fact that Rick basses were still extremely popular, but began to tail off a bit as mainstream musical tastes changed and players looked to superstrats and headless thingies.

1980: 213 instruments
1981: 173
1982: 132
1983: 71
1984: 62
1985: 100
1986: 136
1987: 143
1988: 197
1989: 248

On the other hand, we know that 1984/1985 was a transitional period at RIC as John Hall took the reins from dad Francis. During this period, we see a number of models fall by the wayside and a number of new models emerging, including the V series, the 350, and the 200 series. I wonder if these sweeping changes brought upon some dropoff in instrument production. Clearly it rose steadily every year after that (except for a bit in the mid 1990's).

I started to have a look at other years to look for patterns of production dropoff. As I suspected, 1969 was a low year - there are 135 instruments registered for '68, compared to just 40 for 1969. One could have a look at the number of players that were using Les Pauls and Strats by '69 and easily see why this number is where it is.

Things started to pick up again in '72, and by '73 we're at 260, fueled by 480's and especially 4001's. 264 in '76 remains the high number until the late 90's, and since then the number of registered instruments has remained at at least 300 per year.

[ken_j]

Didn't RIC move to the new factory in the mid eighties? This may have something to do with lower numbers.

[RIC_FACTORY]

If those figures actually represented real output #'s for RIC in those years, we would have gone out of business a long time ago!

[admin]

The instruments in the Register are but the tip of the ice-berg for Rickenbackers production. They provide a nice collection of the range of instruments produced and photos showing changes over the decades. Some times we get the feeling that all there is to know is found on the Internet, however, as we all know this information can be biased and misleading.

The Register is estimated to hold about 5-10% of the production overall. By way of example the Register has 96 out of a total of 1000 instruments made in the case of the Roger McGuinn Signature Model.

[johnallg]

John, you really want to get depressed, search the registry for 1952 basses......

[bails]

If those figures actually represented real output #'s for RIC in those years, we would have gone out of business a long time ago!

Sure, but don't the register figures at least give a relative idea of output?

One way to test this is to look at the highest serial number used in a given year and make an approximation on that.
1980: TL 5164
1981: UL 4502
1982: VL 3092
1983: WL 1654
1984: XL 1541
1985: YL 2350
1986: ZL 3534
1987: L0 7249
1988: L1 6051
1989: L2 5757

To see how representative the register is, we can verify the ratio of the 'total number in the register':'highest number in the register' (for each year)
1980: 213:5164 = 0.0412
1981: 173:4502 = 0.0384
1982: 132:3092 = 0.0427
1983: 71:1654 = 0.0429
1984: 62:1541 = 0.0402
1985: 100:2350 = 0.0425
1986: 136:3534 = 0.0384
1987: 143:7249 = 0.0197
1988: 197:6051 = 0.0326
1989: 248:5757 = 0.0431

This demonstrates that (apart from 1987) the register appears to correlate to about 4% of actual production numbers consistantly every year.

This implies that the registery sample is fairly represetative and therefore the statement that 'there were lean years' is most certainly accurate, even though our totals are clearly not.

Now the strange one... What is it about guitars from 1987 that is stopping over half the owners from registering them, or did the new number system mean that 7249 is not the approximate total output for that year?

[RIC_FACTORY]

My point is that these are not the actual totals for those years in case that was the interpretation... not whether those were the lean years or not.

Also, there is no way to apply this logic once the new numbering system took effect as 1050000 doesn't compute well, seeing as we are not liable to produce a million guitars this year, or even 4% of that number.

[libratune]

Now the strange one... What is it about guitars from 1987 that is stopping over half the owners from registering them, or did the new number system mean that 7249 is not the approximate total output for that year?

Mark, nicely done! Very interesting analysis.

On the 1987 question, I would note that 1986 ended the two-letter dating scheme (ZL being the last) that had been in effect since 1961, and 1987 was the first year of a revised year/month dating scheme, where first digit = month (letters A-L) 2nd digit = year (0=1987).

In that connection, I also note that the "highest number" for 1986 was 3534 and 1987 was 7249 or double that. I doubt whether RIC's actual production doubled from 1986 to 1987. There are more instruments from 1987 registered than from 1986, so go figure.

[JakeK]

On the 1987 question, I would note that 1986 ended the two-letter dating scheme (ZL being the last) that had been in effect since 1961, and 1987 was the first year of a revised year/month dating scheme, where first digit = month (letters A-L) 2nd digit = year (0=1987).

In that connection, I also note that the "highest number" for 1986 was 3534 and 1987 was 7249 or double that. I doubt whether RIC's actual production doubled from 1986 to 1987. There are more instruments from 1987 registered than from 1986, so go figure.

My 1997's serial number is ZL. Made in Dec. 1986.

[johnhall]

This implies that the registery sample is fairly represetative and therefore the statement that 'there were lean years' is most certainly accurate, even though our totals are clearly not.

Let me jump in here.

You simply cannot infer any statistical data from the register as the serial numbers ARE NOT SEQUENTIAL and have not been for many years. When I took over the company, I injected a random bias into the serial number system specifically to eliminate any possibility of such extrapolations, for competitive business reasons.

Prior to that, there were many years where there were irregularities, inconsistencies, and number wraps that make this type of calculation useless.

[admin]

John: Thanks for this reminder. The Register is a small sample of the total production of Rickenbackers and your points are well taken and sage advice for Rickenbacker sleuths.

There are many reasons why this data could be misleading and you have cited a few excellent examples. Sampling bias over the limited time period the Register has collected data and from limited sources also adds to the errors that may be expected when using the sample to make predictions about various aspects of the instrument.

The Register is a sampling of those instruments about which we know and logically offers us no direct information about those we do not. That being said, it is a labour of love that is most enjoyable for those of us who cherish these instruments and continue to marvel in their design and place in music history.