The IL 156

HornedPear · Post by **HornedPear** » Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:23 am

Doll Master wrote:Well, this is what I was afraid of. That the new doll would have fantastic realism and would come so very close to greatness, but then fall short because of some design flaw that really never should have made it past the drawing board.

So, here it is. IL Doll 156. For those with a differing eye for love, this may be the one for you.
(my complaint is with the LHP -- it just doesn't look right)

It really is terrible to see this. So much potential is wasted when such amazing and beautiful care is taken to recreate every possible detail of a woman, and then at the final moment, the sex organs are just critically neglected. It really is amazing that a doll maker can go to such lengths to make a product with the highest standard of realism, and then just totally, and unforgivably lower that standard for the most important part of the doll.

I don't want to sound harsh but this really is tragic.

I really like these photos, she appears to have proportions closer to what I like than the way she appears in the other photos I've seen so far. I wouldn't say this doll is at the top of my list of possible future purchases but she is at least on the list.

Dr Gero · Post by **Dr Gero** » Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:22 pm

The LHP placement is maybe not 100% perfect but it doesn't look bad at all.
I think it's better than most of the doll we see these days.

Sino-Mike · Post by **Sino-Mike** » Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:41 pm

In another post ILDoll/Kevin wrote: "68 lbs is the general weight of 156. You may consider that... 156 will be lighter if you want."
Therefore the following questions:
1-What would be the weight of the lighter 156 ?
2-How is the weight reduction achieved, ie different silicone, less silicone and/or more foam ?
3-What does this entail in terms of look and usage ?

Post by **ILDoll** » Sat Aug 22, 2020 2:33 am

@Sino-Mike
1. It would be about 2-3 kg less.
2. I have no idea how it achieves. But from the product I can tell it is firmer and lighter.
3. Nothing special comparing with other silicone products.

Best,
Kevin

Sino-Mike · Post by **Sino-Mike** » Sat Aug 22, 2020 9:19 pm

ILDoll wrote:@Sino-Mike
1. It would be about 2-3 kg less.
2. I have no idea how it achieves. But from the product I can tell it is firmer and lighter.
3. Nothing special comparing with other silicone products.

Best,
Kevin

Thanks for that answer. This would then make the 156 weight=28kg at best. Which is same than that of the taller and larger 160cm. How can that be?
Given the following quote from your web site, are there 3 types of silicones whereby the slow-resilience type is the one for the lowest weight ?

1) Slow-resilience silicone: aims more on against dent and deformation but is harder sense of touching. This satisfies people who use and maintain it less often.

2) Fast-resilience silicone: also known as general skin-like silicone. Better sense of touching but more weight. This satisfies people use and replace it more often.

3) Weight reduction: strict weight control. Sense of touching gets harder increasingly when pushing. This satisfies people who aim to photos and appearance.

4) Super soft silicone (charge): softness enhanced but less durability, which means high risk of deformation and tearing. This satisfies people who stay by it more often but use it less often. Mostly he would be an experienced owner of it.

Post by **ILDoll** » Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:52 am

The third is lightest. The first is a bit lighter than the second. The forth is heaviest, even a bit heavier than TPE version.

Best,
Kevin

Sino-Mike · Post by **Sino-Mike** » Fri Aug 28, 2020 6:12 pm

ILDoll wrote:The third is lightest. The first is a bit lighter than the second. The forth is heaviest, even a bit heavier than TPE version.
Best,
Kevin

Therefore, each one of the 4 silicone model options use a different type of silicone material? Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, to avoid any confusion, what are the weights of the 156 and 160 for the 4 silicone options ?

Post by **ILDoll** » Fri Aug 28, 2020 9:24 pm

Sino-Mike wrote:
ILDoll wrote:The third is lightest. The first is a bit lighter than the second. The forth is heaviest, even a bit heavier than TPE version.
Best,
Kevin
Therefore, each one of the 4 silicone model options use a different type of silicone material? Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, to avoid any confusion, what are the weights of the 156 and 160 for the 4 silicone options ?

Let's go from the slow-resilience silicone as 0 point. Fast resilience is about 5% more. Weight reduction is 10-15% less. Super soft version would be a bit heavier than TPE.
160: As said, 27kg is third. So first is 30-31kg. Second is 31-32kg. Forth is 42-43kg.
156: As said, 31kg is first. So second is 31-32kg. third is 27-28kg. Forth is 40-41kg.
Please note 156 is always a bit lighter than 160 under the same circumstance.

Best,
Kevin

Sino-Mike · Post by **Sino-Mike** » Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:55 am

ILDoll wrote:
Sino-Mike wrote:
ILDoll wrote:The third is lightest. The first is a bit lighter than the second. The forth is heaviest, even a bit heavier than TPE version.
Best,
Kevin
Therefore, each one of the 4 silicone model options use a different type of silicone material? Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, to avoid any confusion, what are the weights of the 156 and 160 for the 4 silicone options ?
Let's go from the slow-resilience silicone as 0 point. Fast resilience is about 5% more. Weight reduction is 10-15% less. Super soft version would be a bit heavier than TPE.
160: As said, 27kg is third. So first is 30-31kg. Second is 31-32kg. Forth is 42-43kg.
156: As said, 31kg is first. So second is 31-32kg. third is 27-28kg. Forth is 40-41kg.
Please note 156 is always a bit lighter than 160 under the same circumstance.

Best,
Kevin

1-To be clear, with each one of the 4 silicone model options are you using a different type of silicone material?
2-From the above numbers, the weight of the lightest 156 is either equal or higher than that of the lightest 160. How can that be?

Post by **ILDoll** » Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:44 am

Actually four are different. Just choose your preference.
Besides the material, the structure is different.

Best,
Kevin

Sino-Mike · Post by **Sino-Mike** » Sat Aug 29, 2020 3:37 pm

ILDoll wrote:Actually four are different. Just choose your preference.
Besides the material, the structure is different.
Best,
Kevin

What to you mean by "structure", the skeleton? How does it differ from one option to another?

Post by **Booty Call Dolls** » Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:18 am

with my FAV face from them

Doll_Banger · Post by **Doll_Banger** » Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:47 am

the IL doll is on my list as well. i think the LHP is OK, as missionary is my favorite position todo with my dolls and maybe having the LHP a bit more forward makes it that much easier to enjoy. Very sexy doll IL, great job.

Post by **Booty Call Dolls** » Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:29 pm

Hi,
Thank you and those that do mostly missionary will like it being a tad off
Just like they might not like arching the butt off the ground with proper LHP as others that like doggie do not like arching her back the opposite way
Best,
Jeff

4Love10 · Post by **4Love10** » Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:05 am

Doll Master wrote:
Colonel Angus wrote:With the stink that has been going on lately, wouldn't it be prudent to include the doggy and spread eagle pics that will inevitably be asked for?
Well, this is what I was afraid of. That the new doll would have fantastic realism and would come so very close to greatness, but then fall short because of some design flaw that really never should have made it past the drawing board.

So, here it is. IL Doll 156. For those with a differing eye for love, this may be the one for you.
IL 156cm (A).png

IL 156cm (B).png

IL 156cm (C).png
(my complaint is with the LHP -- it just doesn't look right)

It really is terrible to see this. So much potential is wasted when such amazing and beautiful care is taken to recreate every possible detail of a woman, and then at the final moment, the sex organs are just critically neglected. It really is amazing that a doll maker can go to such lengths to make a product with the highest standard of realism, and then just totally, and unforgivably lower that standard for the most important part of the doll.

I don't want to sound harsh but this really is tragic.

Good review and nice thing to know for new buyer like me,IL Doll have lots of work to do