Page 1 of 1

165 vs 163 WMDoll body

Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:51 am
by bratistuta
Hi,

I was doing the weekly wash, powder routine and decided to take some pictures of the bodies next to each other in case anyone is looking into either body at the moment.

165cm on the left in natural skin tone
163cm on the right in tanned skin tone

I like both bodies for different reasons and do not have a preferance on tone as I really like both to be honest.

Hope this helps.
2016-08-14 11.15.20.jpg
2016-08-14 11.15.20.jpg (865.29 KiB) Viewed 5024 times
2016-08-14 11.15.14.jpg
2016-08-14 11.15.14.jpg (913.81 KiB) Viewed 5024 times
2016-08-14 11.14.29.jpg
2016-08-14 11.14.29.jpg (927.11 KiB) Viewed 5024 times
2016-08-14 11.15.31.jpg
2016-08-14 11.15.31.jpg (832.44 KiB) Viewed 5024 times

Re: 165 vs 163 WMDoll body

Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2016 11:45 am
by windave
Thanks for this side to side comparison.

Re: 165 vs 163 WMDoll body

Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:34 pm
by amytyl
As a fellow 163 owner, does it seem like they just made the legs longer & skinnier and an added cup size, or what other differences do you see?

Re: 165 vs 163 WMDoll body

Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:31 pm
by bratistuta
For me I prefer looking at the 165 breasts when clothed as the cleavage is very alluring. The 163 breasts may look more realistic naked but do not fill out clothes/bras as well (more shape than size) or provide much central cleavage for me. The 163 breasts are very firm at the moment though so this may change as she softens. However in the hips department the 163 wins as she can fit lower clothes/dresses better and is more curvy where as the 165 is pretty skinny/straight from the beasts down. This may not be as obvious in the pictures but when clothed you notice.

Generally the 163 feels more solid, and as such is heavier. I have found the 165 much lighter now after having to lugg around the 163.

As mentioned above the TPE feels different as well, my 165 is softer compared to my 163. That might be an age thing or something to do with the different tone TPE I am not sure. I like the the soft feel.

When stood next to each other my 163 seems strangley taller than my 165 but really I think its the slightly bigger build just gives it that effect. There is very little in it as 2cm would suggest.

Obviously all my own subjective opinions there based on owning the two. As mentioned I like elements of both and the variation is nice as I would not want two dolls the same :D

Re: 165 vs 163 WMDoll body

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 1:34 pm
by amytyl
Thank you, that definitely helps.

Re: 165 vs 163 WMDoll body

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:12 pm
by DollAfficionado
Thank you for the comparison shots.

Re: 165 vs 163 WMDoll body

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:57 pm
by Booty Call Dolls
In fact, the 165 is actually lighter.

Re: 165 vs 163 WMDoll body

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:33 pm
by username321
What awesome photos! I'm looking into getting a WMDolls 163cm C Cup (need to sort the storage problem first!) and this is a good comparison. Do you have any more photos to share?

Re: 165 vs 163 WMDoll body

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:18 am
by MikeyUK
I absolutely love my 165. The 163 -is- more realistically proportioned, but I like my girls slender and the 165 hits all the right spot with me.

Can't stop staring at her boobs, and her ass in gym shorts is nothing short of eye popping.

Re: 165 vs 163 WMDoll body

Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:07 pm
by Booty Call Dolls
You can not go wrong with either
BCD