Ya know what's weird is that #40 Dark Blue is classified as Uncommon, not even rare, yet I have never even seen one. How can you explain that one?
I can explain why he is labeled "uncommon" but not why he is harder to find than his tree-mates. The reason he and the other sculpts on his tree (
Part 13, Tree 2) are labeled uncommon in blue is based on the MUSCLEDB numbers. Apparently, the other sculpts on his tree have been reported in numbers placing them in the "uncommon" category -- off the top of my head, I don't recall what range of numbers URS and I decided, but I think uncommon was 5-15 figures recorded. (I can find out for sure as I have the documents saved at home. That's information that should definitely be made public -- something that I am working on.*)
Anyhow, as I was saying, this means at least one other figure on his tree has been reported in this 5-15 range, and since the entire tree was produced in blue at the same time, all the figures should share the same availability. If you want to know exactly how many copies of a figure are out there... you can't. However, your best bet is look the figure up on the MUSCLEDB. However, keep in mind that the MUSCLEDB only represents a relatively small pool of collectors, and those collectors are primarily American collectors.
Both the MCIA availability labels and the MUSCLEDB data should only be used as "guides" and not taken to be 100% accurate descriptions of the figures true availability.
*I'm thinking of re-doing the availability labels on the MCIA. 1) It's been awhile and the MDB data has changed slightly, 2) I'm only going to report significant splits. I'm thinking of three labels that reflect reported MDB numbers for each color per tree:
low (no sculpt on the tree has been reported more than 5 times for a specific color),
high (at least one sculpt on the tree has 30+ reports specific color), and
zero (no reports for a specific tree + color).
I'd love to hear feedback on this idea.
Edited by Soupie, 29 February 2008 - 05:57 AM.