GREAT BEHINDS #1

Post by **Booty Call Dolls** » Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:44 pm

As far as placement, what would you give her on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the best.
Jeff

Dees luver · Post by **Dees luver** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:02 am

9

Vagina looks perfect her anus should be a tad higher, further from v jay

gonestill77 · Post by **gonestill77** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:21 am

I would say 5.
I have seen worse, but both holes in that position should be further up.

68special · Post by **68special** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 12:56 am

Agree with gonestill77... Sum Ting Wong - Wee Tu Lo!

You're too generous DL! I'd only give this a 4...

Dees luver · Post by **Dees luver** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:13 am

68special wrote:Agree with gonestill77... Sum Ting Wong - Wee Tu Lo!

You're too generous DL! I'd only give this a 4...

Her big mound is deceiving but I’ve seen much much worse on many TPE dolls

Post by **Booty Call Dolls** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:40 am

And side by side to what many consider to be the best, the 6YE Amor.

gonestill77 · Post by **gonestill77** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:54 am

DashingDazzla · Post by **DashingDazzla** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 1:59 am

The Amor anus is positioned perfectly. Not sure why they went with the overly meaty gaping vagina (their other dolls have exquisite looking vaginas), but its reasonably placed.

Anung Un Rama · Post by **Anung Un Rama** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:23 am

It should be...I gave a lot of free time to 6YE on the Amor label.

the angle of insertion and attack is also correct as well!

Remember though, unlike a R/G (you could near make tires out that material) , these dolly's need extra fact/taint material to stop the sewer and the playground becoming the one mosh pit.

Anung

virgo44 · Post by **virgo44** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:35 am

Can we get a comparison on the WM166c and the 6YE Amor vag Please

DashingDazzla · Post by **DashingDazzla** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:49 am

Anung, thanks for your work on them. Im still keen to get one even if they're a bit meaty down there. Doggy must be superb with them.

Panther68 · Post by **Panther68** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:51 am

Hey Jeff

I am a bit bias with my Irontech 163. More of a realistic look. Horny1, I also have the WM 166c. Maybe I should do a WM 166c along side the Irontech 163c. photo shoot of the girly parts.

Anung Un Rama · Post by **Anung Un Rama** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:52 am

DashingDazzla wrote:Anung, thanks for your work on them. Im still keen to get one even if they're a bit meaty down there. Doggy must be superb with them.

yes, but with all things, the caliber of the rifle and the barrel length is paramount for straight shooting onto target

Anung

virgo44 · Post by **virgo44** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:05 am

Panther68 wrote:Hey Jeff

I am a bit bias with my Irontech 163. More of a realistic look. Horny1, I also have the WM 166c. Maybe I should do a WM 166c along side the Irontech 163c. photo shoot of the girly parts.

That comparison would be grate please

Panther68 · Post by **Panther68** » Thu Feb 28, 2019 6:11 am

horny1 wrote:
Panther68 wrote:Hey Jeff

I am a bit bias with my Irontech 163. More of a realistic look. Horny1, I also have the WM 166c. Maybe I should do a WM 166c along side the Irontech 163c. photo shoot of the girly parts.
That comparison would be grate please

Heading out the door for work. Will do it after I return.