On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:04:15 -0500, retrowavelength
<retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 12:36:05 -0500, retrowavelength
>> <retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Dukie posted this from the set (unidentified then) in 2012.
>>>> She's almost unrecognizable between the two, but I'm pretty
>>>> sure it's the same model. I've seen her in a different
>>>> setting too, but I can't pick any distinguishing features
>>>> to pull her out of the noise. No name obviously, sorry.
>>>>
>>>> begin 644 dp62.jpg
>>>>
>>>> Attachment decoded: dp62.jpg
>>>> `
>>>> end
>>>
>>>Thanks for that info. I can now see that she's in set XXJ-26, C-436,
>>>C-403, and as you can see I think she might also be X-S-381.
>>
>>>begin 644 X-S-381 match XXJ-26_(girl15mymy).jpg
>>
>> Those were the ones! Thanks rwl, XXJ-26 is new, it was cut
>> off on Scan10187, I never noticed even the hint of it.
>>
>> Do you know the set id for the nylons version of X-S-381?
>>
>> She has kind of a horsey face. Not unattractive, just long.
>
>I had not sought the ID for that set but once I started hunting for her
>pictures I think I found a likely one in a folder of unsorted things. The
>background detail of the phone position match up.
>
>The first picture I found of her was kinda cute looking (also attached).
>She's not beautiful but she know's how to be sexy.
>begin 644 X-S-381 match X-S-386 numbnutts_0158.jpg
Yes, that's definitely it. Thanks!
RR
|
|
.jpg')){kind=link}