Breaking the MUSCLE Color Code Options

[Soupie]

Okay, back in January of 2006, I wondered if there might be a connection between MUSCLE colored figures and the Kinnikuman parts they originally belonged to. (I'm not claiming to be the first, only explaining my thought process.)

However, thanks to a recent discovery by Arforbes (who else?) I again began to consider the possible connection between Kinnikuman parts and colored MUSCLEs.

I decided to do a little experiment. However, as in January, I just couldn't make the final connection.

I was thinking, well, if they were molded in groups, maybe half of them are in Dark Blue, and half of them aren't. However, I wasn't sure how to find out for certain.

As you can see, Universal Ruler Supreme, using the information at the MUSCLE Database was sharp enough to bring it all together.

I have to confess though, I had to read his two posts several times before I realized what in the hell he was saying.

For those of you who are interested, I'll attempt to explain it in the following posts with some pictures.

(If you are reading this, please refrain from posting in this thread until I'm done.)

[Soupie]

First of all, you must know the history of MUSCLEs as they relate to Kinnikuman. If you're not sure how they are connected, do some research and come on back.

Okay, the first thing that had to happen, which URS did, was to look at the statistics of each MUSCLE figure in Kin Part One and compare their MDB statistics.

He compiled their statistics into a database, compared them, indentified patterns, and grouped them accordingly. (The groups he referred to as trees.)

Take a look at the attached MS Word document to see Kinnikuman Part organized by MDB statistics!

Attached File(s)

 Part1.doc ( 62K ) Number of downloads: 32

 

[Soupie]

There are two basic things to look for:

1) Colors that figures have not been found in.

2) How many figures have been found in a particular color.

Using this information alone, URS was able to find the patterns!

(Of course, if it wasn't for Arforbes discovery, we would not have known to look for colored patterns within each part. Would we have eventually? Perhaps, but who knows.)

This post has been edited by Soupie: Mar 25 2006, 04:02 PM

[Soupie]

Thanks to Arforbes' massive collection, I have been able to arrange images of MUSCLEs according to the patterns URS was able to find.

Let's take a look at Kinnikuman Part One and the corresponding colored MUSCLEs!

But first, remember that URS was able to find a pattern that divided Kin Part One into two "trees."

This post has been edited by Soupie: Mar 25 2006, 06:02 PM

Attached File(s)

 Part_One_Image.jpg ( 99.18K ) Number of downloads: 76

 

[Soupie]

Okay, and here is Kin Part One, Tree Two.

Attached File(s)

 Part_Two_Image.jpg ( 99.08K ) Number of downloads: 63

 

[Soupie]

I hope you can see the patterns, both in the Word document, but especially in the images.

What do these patterns tell us?

1) They tell us that we will not find MUSCLEs belonging to Part One, Tree One in the colors MAGENTA and ORANGE. And, likewise, we will not find MUSCLEs belonging to Part One, Tree Two in DARK BLUE.

2) Equally important, we now know that MUSCLEs belonging to Part One, Tree One can be found in every color except MAGENTA and ORANGE. And, again, likewise with MUSCLEs belonging to Part One, Tree Two can be found in every color except DARK BLUE.

How do we know this for certain, though? Because, as Arforbes' discovery showed us, the MUSCLE figures were molded in groups! That means all the sculpts in a tree will share the same exact color pattern!

Sorry, Arforbes, this means you are missing exactly 15 colored figures from Part One alone!



* Remember, URS determined the patterns based off of MDB data, not Arforbes' collection. Arforbes has told me that he is missing at least 60 colored MUSCLEs that Philly Madison (another collector) has.

This post has been edited by Soupie: Mar 25 2006, 05:24 PM

[Soupie]

URS has already decoded several Kinnikuman parts using MDB data. He is uncovering some pretty cool stuff, and there is the potential that even larger patterns will emerge.

If you'd like to take a look at the Web page showing Part One Colored MUSCLEs, here's the link: MCIA Kin Part One

(If you were wondering, yes, I can view all the figures on my screen at one time. That's why I uploaded images. I figured the pattern would be easier to see.)

Alright, I'm done. Hopefully, this discovery will encourage more collectors to attempt a complete colored MUSCLE set!

[arforbes]

This is awesome, you guys rule! I will continue to submit pics of muscle colors that I find. That way the database can be more complete and therefore, more accurate as we discover new ones.

Keep up the great work!

[Soupie]

According to the tree patterns for Part One established by URS, there are 15 figures in existence that I do not have images of.

Arforbes has been collecting for a long time... How likely is it that he would be missing 15 figures from the first part decoded?

I decided to "test" the Tree Code.

The established patterns for Part One predict that every figure in Tree One should be available in GREEN. This means figure 156 should exist in GREEN.

I figured I'd browse eBay to see if the prediction could be validated.



See the attached image!

This post has been edited by Soupie: Mar 25 2006, 06:27 PM

Attached File(s)

 156_GREEN.JPG ( 32.71K ) Number of downloads: 55

 

[arforbes]

According to the tree patterns for Part One established by URS, there are 15 figures in existence that I do not have images of.

Arforbes has been collecting for a long time... How likely is it that he would be missing 15 figures from the first part decoded?

I decided to "test" the Tree Code.

The established patterns for Part One predict that every figure in Tree One should be available in GREEN. This means figure 156 should exist in GREEN.

I figured I'd browse eBay to see if the prediction could be validated.



See the attached image!

But I have #156 in green. According to MUSCLEDB and my records, I have him. Do you have the picture of him that should be included in the pics I took for the MCIA Soupie?

[Beligerant1]

This is a pretty neat development. How soon until you guys churn out the patterns for other parts? I want to know about figures like green #002 (which there is a picture of on the muscle board game) does this pattern you guys have found predict that he exists? Also, with some of the rarer figures like #002 purple, #145 purple, #149 purple, #108 salmon, etc... Since we know they exist, if you put together the pattern for their particular part, they may show whether or not we should expect to find other figures equally as rare, in those colors, that havn't been found yet. And finally, if you figured the patterns for all 233 of our muscle figures, will we find a figure, or group of figures that should be possible to find in all colors? or one color in which all figures exist?

[Soupie]

But I have #156 in green. According to MUSCLEDB and my records, I have him. Do you have the picture of him that should be included in the pics I took for the MCIA Soupie?

Yes! Looks like I have some double checking to do. (I'm sure I've missed others, too.) Thanks for pointing that out.

And finally, if you figured the patterns for all 233 of our muscle figures, will we find a figure, or group of figures that should be possible to find in all colors? or one color in which all figures exist?

I'm sure URS will have his own ideas about these questions, but I'm thinking we will not find any MUSCLEs in all colors, but your second idea seems plausible, and pretty cool!

Attached File(s)

 156g.jpg ( 4.35K ) Number of downloads: 33

 

[Soupie]

Okay, lest any of you think I withheld 156 GREEN on purpose, I decided once again to test the Tree Code Patterns for Part One.

According to them, all the figures in Part One Tree Two should be found in MAGENTA. However, according to what I have of Arforbes' collection, he is missing 5 MAGENTA figures.

So once again, I went to eBay. However, I found nothing! I decided to check over the images given to me by Arforbes, just incase I missed 1 or two.



See the attached picture!

This post has been edited by Soupie: Mar 26 2006, 06:30 AM

Attached File(s)

 MAGENTA_FIGURES.jpg ( 17.81K ) Number of downloads: 41

 

[Soupie]

Once again, here is Part One, Tree One updated with 156 GREEN.

Attached File(s)

 Part_One_Tree_One.jpg ( 71.45K ) Number of downloads: 34

 

[Soupie]

And here, once again, is Part One, Tree Two updated with the recently found (doh!) MAGENTA figures.

And here is the updated Web page: MCIA Kin Part One

This post has been edited by Soupie: Mar 26 2006, 04:54 PM

Attached File(s)

 Part_One_Tree_Two.jpg ( 74K ) Number of downloads: 26

 

[Soupie]

So rather than missing 15 figures, it looks like Arforbes is only missing nine. (That is, unless I've made even more mistakes. However, I did check over all the SALMON and LIGHT BLUE figures he sent me.)

[Soupie]

However, considering the colored figure search process before the Tree Code, missing 9 figures is better than missing the 9 plus the 28 MAGENTA, ORANGE, and DARK BLUE figures that we now know don't exist.

[Universal Ruler ...]

How soon until you guys churn out the patterns for other parts?

Soon.

I want to know about figures like green #002

You will.

does this pattern you guys have found predict that he exists?

Maybe.

Also, with some of the rarer figures like #002 purple, #145 purple, #149 purple, #108 salmon, etc... Since we know they exist, if you put together the pattern for their particular part, they may show whether or not we should expect to find other figures equally as rare, in those colors, that havn't been found yet.

It should.

And finally, if you figured the patterns for all 233 of our muscle figures, will we find a figure, or group of figures that should be possible to find in all colors? or one color in which all figures exist?

No. Hope it doesn't bust anybody's bubble, but there will be no one figure in All Colors, There will be no Group of figures found in All Colors, And there is no color in which 233 figures will be found. Or Will We??? Hmmm.....

[arforbes]

I want to know about figures like green #002

You will.

He does exist based on the figures I have in green from that part. But he is rare.

[Universal Ruler ...]

I want to know about figures like green #002

You will.

He does exist based on the figures I have in green from that part. But he is rare.

Don't be so sure.

[Soupie]

Another aspect of colored MUSCLEs that the Tree Code will reveal is the availability -- or scarcity -- of each figure.

Of course we will need to rely on MDB data, so you may be wondering how this is any different from what Sirnate (a collector) has been doing.

For instance, a collector may look at the MDB statistics of figure X. The statistics say figure X has only been found in RED 4 times. This would lead one to believe figure X is rather rare in RED.

The power of the Tree Code is strength in numbers.

For example, lets look at imaginary Part A, which just happens to include figure X. Part A MDB data breaks down like this:

----------

# | DB | G | R

Z | 23 | 00 | 12

Y | 24 | 00 | 09

Q | 21 | 00 | 15

V | 25 | 00 | 08

X | 23 | 00 | 04

W | 24 | 00 | 11

----------

Again, because we known the colored MUSCLEs were molded in groups, they must all share a similar pattern! That means that figure X was produced in the same number as the other RED figures in its tree.

So, even though only 4 figures of X have been found in RED, we know that it is actually just as available as the other RED figures in its tree.

I will label the rows within each tree as either common, uncommon, rare, or not made.

MCIA Kin Part One

Because the pool of colored MUSCLE collectors is so small, this information will be extremely valuable in helping them make wise trading/purchasing decisions.

[jkaris]

Here's one for you guys to decode:
Re-Issues

This set was re-issued late 90's early 2000's. Are they from the same trees? If so, it might help you further define those trees.

[Universal Ruler ...]

I can tell you just by looking at them that they are all from the same trees. Not the same one tree, but they are from the same trees

for one thing, all 5 of the grape sculpts are in there.
second, #2's tree is in there. 100, 101, 102.

So the trees have definitely been proven.

[Soupie]

I've assembled several more colored MUSCLEs by Kinnikuman parts and another pattern of sorts has emerged. For those of you still skeptical about the Tree Code, see the links and explanations below:

First, take a look at Kinnikuman Part 3. You'll notice that there is one figure that Naochin has set apart at the bottom. Now, look at the MCIA colored MUSCLE Part Three, Tree Three. Notice that the figure set apart in the Kinnikuman Part seems to have a unique MUSCLE color pattern.

Next, take a look at Kinnikuman Part 5. Again, you'll notice that there are several figures that Naochin has set apart at the bottom. Now, look at the MCIA colored MUSCLE Part Five, Tree Four. Notice, again, that the figures set apart in the Kinnikuman Part once again seem to have a unique MUSCLE color pattern.

The best explanation is that the figures set apart in Naochin's archives ultimately indicate figures that shared a molding tree (though they were probably set apart by Naochin because they were released differently). This explanation is bolstered by the fact that the MDB data patterns discovered by URS indicate that the corresponding colored MUSCLEs should be arranged into trees that match the trees on Naochin's archive.

When we combine the above pattern, the MDB statistical data that URS used to originally divide up the trees, and the Kinkeshi reissue sets, it's hard to deny the veracity of the Tree Code.

[Universal Ruler ...]

Naochin's site will usually have a footnote at the bottom of the page if there is a split in the figures list. Almost all the footnotes, if translated, basically say that the bottom sets of figures were released later, after the above figures of that Part.

Also he only splits up the figure groups if they were released at different times, or belong to a subset (such as the versus figures). Basically none of his Part pages will have the figures seperated into the trees they belong to. This only occured like twice or so.

And for me, I knew it was cracked after I broke down the 28 pack info. There were alot more figures, 112 to be exact, and they coincided perfectly with my tree information. Here is the thread about the 28 packs.28 Packs
If anyone has anymore questions about any of this feel free to ask me or soups or just post it here or somewhere or anywhere........GO FIGHT!

And again! Great work on the site Soupie!

This post has been edited by Universal Ruler Supreme: Apr 14 2006, 08:52 AM

[Soupie]

Yes, I forgot about the 28 packs!

Also he only splits up the figure groups if they were released at different times, or belong to a subset (such as the versus figures).  Basically none of his Part pages will have the figures seperated into the trees they belong to.  This only occured like twice or so.

I didn't mean to imply that Naochin had the figures divided into trees for each part in his archive.

However, the fact remains that due to some Kinnikuman being released differently, and due to Naochin making note of this by listing them seperately, he has inadvertently shown us (more) proof that Kinkeshi were molded in "trees."

Check it out!

Kinnikuman Part 6

MUSCLE Part 6

In other words, we would not expect to see such a pattern within the parts -- and between Kinnikuman and MUSCLE -- if there were no trees.

[jkaris]

I don't think that there is any question as to whether they were molded on trees or not. The question is, how were the trees set up? Which figures were on which trees?

[Universal Ruler ...]

To soupie,
LOL! I wasn't implying that you were implying that Naochin's site was set up that way. But the way you said it could confuse someone, so I just made sure that anyone who may be confused would understand what you meant. Sorry if I made it sound like I was correcting you. I know you knew that.

This post has been edited by Universal Ruler Supreme: Apr 14 2006, 11:40 AM

[Universal Ruler ...]

I don't think that there is any question as to whether they were molded on trees or not. The question is, how were the trees set up? Which figures were on which trees?

Is it possible that In me and Soupies Tree rambling over the past month that we have failed to answer these questions??

We know Exactly which figures were on which trees, we just havn't posted the results since Soupie is doing so on his site at his own pace, and I wouldn't want to discredit his hard work. Also from Arforbes String find we know that there were approximately 2 of each figure on each tree. In some cases, such as 161 Atlantis, it is safe to assume there were probably 5 to 10 figures on his tree since he was made seperately.

The only figures that we cannot be sure of are the Non-Muscle sculpts. You will notice on Soupies Parts pages he list the Non-Muscle sculpts at the bottom of the page if it is unclear to which tree they belonged. Also as with Part one you will notice that Brocken, the only sculpt missing from that part is set to a tree, because it is believed that since there was an even number of sculpts in that part that there would have been the same number on each tree.

Does that make sense?

[jkaris]

I don't think that there is any question as to whether they were molded on trees or not. The question is, how were the trees set up? Which figures were on which trees?

Is it possible that In me and Soupies Tree rambling over the past month that we have failed to answer these questions??

Actually, my post was more in reply to Soupie's post which made it seem like he was still trying to prove that they were molded on trees. That was proven with Alex's find. The point of my post was to say that there is no question as to the fact of the tree molding process, but rather only that we (actually you two, since all the work is yours) aren't 100% on which figures were on which trees and which colors they were made in.

It just puzzled me that he would still be trying to asert that the tree theory is fact, when I was under the assumption that everyone already took it for fact. Thus, preaching to the choir, beating a dead horse, or however else we could analogize it. My point was tht his point was moot, since it has been common knowledge since the beginning of this research that you two have started.

[Universal Ruler ...]

Oh! I see your point. I was a bit confused at that myself, but maybe he keeps bringing it up because only a few members (mostly the vets) have shown dire interests in the subject.

Again (excuse me if I just beat the horse once more) we are exactly 99.9% sure of which "MUSCLE" sculpts were on each tree, and are at most 90% sure of which colors each were made in (we still need photo evidence of a good portion). We are officially 10% sure of where the Non-Muscle Sculpts go, if that.

Also I was sort of being sarcastic in the beginning of my last post, cause I was still unsure of what you were trying to get at. I understand now.

[Soupie]

Me beat a topic to death? That's unpossible.



In my defense, dammit, I was partially just excited to find that the figures Naochin had set apart matched the tree patterns URS had given me! I really wasn't sure if they would until I put all the appropriate MUSCLE images together. When it turned out they matched perfectly, I figured the most meaningful way to share the news was to illustrate how it fit into the puzzle.

The other reason I presented it that way is because of Tortle's latest post on his site:

Apparently, all the molds in a part were hooked up to a common injector which shot the plastic into the molds all at once. As discussed at AKIA, this may tell us which MUSCLE colors were available for which parts. For example, if a MUSCLE from Part 1 has been found in blue, then it may be inferred that all MUSCLEs from Part 1 were available in blue since they were all injection-molded with the same plastic at the same time.

I'm not trying to make a big deal out of the post, but I got the impression Tortle either doesn't completely buy into the Tree Code or doesn't completely understand it. I figured others might be in the same boat.

That's all. Well, that and the fact that I tend to be a little pedantic.

[Soupie]

Again (excuse me if I just beat the horse once more) we are exactly 99.9% sure of which "MUSCLE" sculpts were on each tree, and are at most 90% sure of which colors each were made in (we still need photo evidence of a good portion).  We are officially 10% sure of where the Non-Muscle Sculpts go, if that.

In regards to which colors each tree was made in, so far, there have been a few instances when the MDB data indicated a particular tree should have figures in, say, Orange, and Arforbes didn't have any in Orange.

Furthermore, the MDB only shows a few, 1 or 2, of these figures found.

Arforbes not having any in the tree in said color and only 1 or 2 being reported as found on MDB means they could very well be mistakes.

I've been on the fence whether to list these rows as "Rare" or "Not Made." It's kind of like choosing the lesser of two evils, cause it would be unfortunate to be wrong either way.

A good example is

Part Five, Trees 1 and 2.

Now, this isn't really a problem if several people have listed the figures as found -- earning the color an "uncommon" or "common" listing -- and arforbes doesn't have one in said color. I'm really just concerned about the colors labeled "rare."

Perhaps I'll make a new button called, simply, "Uncertain."

Any thoughts?

Also, I was placing the Non-MUSCLE sculpts at the end of trees where they seemed to fit. However, right away with part two, this became difficult because even if, say, there were two trees of 4 and two Non-MUSCLE sculpts, I could guess that each tree got one Non-MUSCLE sculpt... but I really wouldn't know which sculpt went with which tree for certain.

Thus, I figured I'd just list all Non-MUSCLE sculpts at the bottom and allow readers to use their own judgement. Does that maketh sense?

[jkaris]

I would put a "Not Found Yet" for ones that should be made in that color, according to the trees, but haven't been verified.

[TheOrgg]

You say there's usually two of a figure on a Tree, correct?

What if that figure didn't have the "thematic" element they wanted to be apparent, but still had the "cool" factor they wanted, or was a figure that had several other forms but wasn't "forefronted" on the packaging (like sunshine's top, for an example of both).

Why wouldn't they just plug one of the sculpts on the tree?

[Universal Ruler ...]

You say there's usually two of a figure on a Tree, correct?

What if that figure didn't have the "thematic" element they wanted to be apparent, but still had the "cool" factor they wanted, or was a figure that had several other forms but wasn't "forefronted" on the packaging (like sunshine's top, for an example of both).

Why wouldn't they just plug one of the sculpts on the tree?

Well the two figure thing is really just hypothesis, but Arforbes find gives us reason to believe so.

Also I don't think theme or cool factor was of any concern when picking and choosing sculpts for the Muscle line. Most of the Non-Muscle sculpts are quite unique. Also have you looked at the sculpts that did make it? There are like 20 Kinnikumans alone.

Also characters on the packages didn't have any significance either. They hadn't finalized the run yet apparently, because the back of the 28 pack has numerous Non-Muscle characters pictured such as Brocken and Black Kamfu.

All in all, if they even did use plugs, there had to be a very good reason why they didn't use some sculpts. Another possibility may have been that the plastic they were using wouldn't fill out the molds properly for some reason, and all the Non-Muscle sculpts we know of always or most of the time came out with defects. This may also explain why the 28 packs had posters with 400 figures on the back of them. Maybe they planned on using all the sculpts available, but the molds kept screwing up on them, so they said, "Screw just use the ones we can make." We will probably never know.

[Soupie]

Here's one for you guys to decode:
Re-Issues

This set was re-issued late 90's early 2000's. Are they from the same trees? If so, it might help you further define those trees.

I finally had an opportunity to look at these. Very interesting...

Bandai seems to have chosen 5 trees from four parts. Specifically:

Part 6 Tree 1
Part 7 Tree 4
Part 8 Trees 1 & 3
Part 14 Tree 2

What's interesting is that each of the parts these trees were taken from has 2+ Non-MUSCLE sculpts. Just as with the MUSCLE line, Non-MUSCLE sculpts do not appear...

Did they choose trees that only had MUSCLE sculpts? Were the Non-MUSCLE sculpt molds shot? Did they pick out the Non-MUSCLE sculpts for the reissues?

My guess is:

1) The Non-MUSCLE sculpt molds were shot.
2) The Non-MUSCLE sculpt molds don't work with harder plastic.

[jkaris]

My guess is #1. Bandai says that they don't have the molds any more. I tried to get them to make re-issue exclusives for me for the store a while back, and they said that they had neither the license or molds anymore.

[jkaris]

Here is a pic of a purple #56 from a YJP auction.

Attached File(s)

 jcncd752_img600x450_1147867790p1000403.jpg ( 19.73K ) Number of downloads: 33

 

[jkaris]

And another.

Attached File(s)

 jcncd752_img600x450_1147867801p1000404.jpg ( 18.92K ) Number of downloads: 25

 

[Soupie]

Perfect, thanks!

But why YJP, I wonder...

[Universal Ruler ...]

I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with this right now, but I picked one color in order to see how each other color would appear with that 1 color in each tree.

The test Color was Dark Blue.

32 of the 45 trees were made in Dark Blue, and 1 tree is uncertain. That means 12 or 13 trees were not made in Dark blue. Anyways heres what I got. Dark Blue is the Constant. (AW=Darkblue appears with Color x number of times) (DN=Darkblue Does not appear with Color x number of times) (UC=Uncertain)

AW/DN/UC
DB/R - 20 /12
DB/G - 20/12
DB/S - 22/ 9/ 1
DB/M - 15/17
DB/L - 20 /12
Db/O - 19/12/ 1
DB/P - 24/ 8

There appears to be a slight constant in some trees when it comes down to which colors will appear with other colors. I'll see if I can try out some other colors later. Maybe there is some sort of method to the colors afterall.

[Soupie]

Nice work! I'm anxious to see any future results. Another statistic to consider is Color + Total Number of Colors.

In other words, if a tree comes in Dark Blue, how many other colors does it come in -- 4, 5, 6, or 7.

It might look something like this:

Dark Blue

8 trees come in 4 colors

8 trees come in 5 colors

8 trees come in 6 colors

8 tress come in 7 colors

Total = 32 trees

I already have the numbers on how many colors each tree comes in. I'll break it down by tree colors some time this week.

Another pattern I've considered is Mutually Exclusive colors. In other words, if a tree is made in Magenta does that mean it was not made in Light Blue (or some other color). However, that does not seem to be the case. Trees appear to be made in any combination of colors, which is interesting in and of itself.

Still, if we organized the trees by shared colors and number of colors, a larger pattern might emerge. It's worth a shot!

[Soupie]

AW/DN/UC
DB/R - 20 /12
DB/G - 20/12
DB/S - 22/ 9/ 1 (Dark Blue?)
DB/M - 15/17
DB/L - 20 /12
Db/O - 19/12/ 1 (Orange?)
DB/P - 24/ 8

URS, of the two bolded combinations above, which colors are the uncertain?

[Universal Ruler ...]

Another pattern I've considered is Mutually Exclusive colors. In other words, if a tree is made in Magenta does that mean it was not made in Light Blue (or some other color).

This is the idea I had in mind when I started to do this, but as you said it wasn't the case. However it appears there may actually be a larger picture to it. After I go through the other colors we might see something of interest.

URS, of the two bolded combinations above, which colors are the uncertain?

Part 13 tree 2 Orange, and Part 14 tree 1 Salmon I believe.

I didn't include trees where Dark Blue figures were not made.

[Soupie]

Part 13 tree 2 Orange, and Part 14 tree 1 Salmon I believe.

I didn't include trees where Dark Blue figures were not made.

shizznit! That's right, there is a tree that is "uncertain" in Salmon.

In total, there are 5 trees with Uncertain colors, three of which have Dark Blue, and two of which you've apparently counted. So it looks like you may have missed Part 5, Tree 2, or did we get our signals crossed?

Also, how about the tree with Dark Blue as the Uncertain color?

P5, T1 -- Dark Blue (Other colors in tree: S, LB, R, O)

P5, T2 -- Orange (Other colors in tree: S, DB, LB, R, M)

P8, T4 -- Orange (Other colors in tree: S, LB, R, G)

P13, T2 -- Orange (Other colors in tree: S, P, DB, R, M, G -- every color sans LB)

P14, T1 -- Salmon (Other colors in tree: P, DB, R, M, O, G -- every color sans LB)

[Universal Ruler ...]

I must have missed pt5 tree2. Also since the DB was uncertain, I didn't count it since it may be more than likely that they weren't made in that color.

I wish Phillymadison would come back. I know for a fact that he has certain figures that you don't have pictured in your archive, such as Light Blue #20.

[Universal Ruler ...]

Here is Salmons results.

32 Trees made in Salmon, 1 Salmon is uncertain.
S/D - 22/ 9/ 1 uncertain DB
S/P - 27/ 5
S/L - 21/11
S/R - 24/ 8
S/M - 17/15
S/O - 19/10/ 3 uncertain Or
S/G - 19/13

[Soupie]

I'm slapping these one above the other for easier comparing. Interesting that both colors are found in 32 trees.

Doesn't really appear to be any big similarties between these two colors, except for the 24/8 which is pretty interesting.

However, if the Dark Blue and Salmon uncertains are included, they throw all the numbers off by one, although the 24/8 would become 25/8 for each color. Also, unless all the colors appear in exactly 32 trees, we may have to look at ratios, as opposed to actual numbers.

One way of visually seeing ratios would by to throw this info into pie charts.

Can't wait to see more!

DB/R - 20/12
DB/G - 20/12
DB/S - 22/ 9/ 1*
DB/M - 15/17
DB/L - 20/12
Db/O - 19/12/ 2
DB/P - 24/ 8

S/D - 22/ 9/ 1*
S/P - 27/ 5
S/L - 21/11
S/R - 24/ 8
S/M - 17/15
S/O - 19/10/ 3
S/G - 19/13

This post has been edited by Soupie: May 22 2006, 03:36 PM

[Ne]V[esis]

Soupie-
Is the list on your site completely accurate?
The reason I ask is this-

I have probably 7 of the colored figures you have a blank spot for..
I can give you specifics and pics of them later if you would like, I am at work at the moment, so I can't now.

Let me know