Hey Guys
As mentioned a few weeks ago in Biffard's Class A Quick Reference Guide (here), myself and Biffard are now beginning to embark upon a project to review the currently acknowledged Class A MUSCLE Figures. We hope that the whole MUSCLE community will contribute towards this discussion and help bring some further information to light to help improve our understanding of the MUSCLE figure classifications.
We're not out to reinvent the wheel - fantastic work has of course already been completed previously (Soupie/URS), which led to the MUSCLE Classification Guide (available here), but we feel there are still some questions worth asking - and who better to ask than the people who know the most about the figures - the collectors.
It is widely accepted that MUSCLE figures, when made, were attached to Trees - and each tree would have a certain number of figures attached to it. The work done previously has established that certain figures were always part of the same tree, along with other associated figures, and so were created at the same time and in equal numbers. Each 'Part' (21 of them) could be made up of 1,2 or 3 'Trees'
The aim of this project is to look at each of the 21 'Parts' and assess whether our accepted understanding is still appropriate, given the information we may have learned over the last 5-10 years.
As expected, I would like to begin with Part 1 - http://soupie.little...ia/PartOne.html
It's made up of two trees, each tree contains what we might classify as RARE Figures.
Tree 1, has the following Class A's:
41p, 93p, 123p, 156p
156s
Bearing in mind what was said above about figures being made on the same trees each time, it's immediately clear that there's something up with this tree. For example, why are the Salmon variants of 41, 93 and 123 not Class A too?
And even if they were added, should we not then add in the Salmon and Purple variants of 27, 28, 39, 55 & 220?
Or perhaps it's time we stopped looking at 41p, 93p, 123p, 156p, 156s as 'Class A' figures. After all, why should they be Class A and the others on the same tree not?
None of the figures on this tree are particularly hard to find - I have been collecting on and off for 6-7 years and have seen multiples of pretty much all of these.
Let's move onto Tree 2:
It has a bunch of Light Blue Class A's (20, 23, 31, 33, 35, 36, 46, 60, 61, 82)
It also has a couple of 'random' Class A's thrown in too: 60p, 60s
The Light Blue Class A's are hard to argue with - they seem all to be genuinely hard to find (Rare) figures - certainly 23 and 60 fit this description. And although certain other figures seem to show up a little more often (20, 31, 61), it's possible that 23 and 60 are thought of as more rare because they're more sought after than the other figures in this tree. I am reasonably happy to accept the Light Blue Class A's on this tree as genuine.
My problem is with the other two random Class A's, mentioned above.
60p and 60s are Class A, but why?
If they are class A, then so too are 20 S/P, 23 S/P, 31 S/P etc etc.
My feeling is that they are not Class A figures. In reality, they are no harder to find than a Salmon Iwao or a Purple TerryMan (31).
According to the colours that each figure is available in, I would say that the trees are accurate, so it's hard to attribute the discrepancies to wrong tree allocation.
My initial assessment of part 1 is as follows:
Tree 1: No Class A Figures. 41p, 93p, 123p, 156p, 156s are Class B/C
Tree 2: Only the Light Blue figures are Class A. 60s & 60p are Class B/C
I look forward to hearing other opinions on this!
*Please note, we hope to create a new thread for each 'Part' so if possible, can you please ensure that this thread discusses only Part 1?
Many Thanks!
John
Edited by jmckinnon316, 29 October 2013 - 09:03 AM.