Your listed measurements are identical for over and under bust (76, 76). Besides, I highly recommend that you remeasure anyway, since the super-perfect shape is probably throwing off your measurements. Also, 8cm difference is considered a-cup, not 10. I don't mean to quibble, but there is no way my eyes are deceiving me that much. You could just try to put an a-cup bra on her and see how it fits.ILDoll wrote:Just as you say, 3 kg more is exactly for proper proportion. It would be kind of disappointing if any of you aim to less weight. She is not so thin as 150. But we consider 150 is too thin.Sino-Mike wrote:Thanks, Kevin, for your answers on the new 156cm model.
Please correct me if wrong, even if the 160 has longer legs, arms, bigger breasts, larger shoulders and waistline, the shorter 156 weights 3kg more because it has thicker arms and legs?
Therefore it is not really a "thin" model. This is disappointing as some of us were hoping for a lighter weight than that of the 160. Is the 27kg of the 160 with or without head?
From the specification, we consider the breast is A+ as the error of between bust and band is 10 cm. Maybe it will be your preference after dressed.Colonel Angus wrote:Yeah, I hate to say it, but those are at least a c-cup. And, to top it off they don't have any contour or appearance of gravity affecting them, so they look more "fake" or artificial/idealized, instead of like a real girl-next-door. Pity, I was eagerly awaiting a real a-cup from you guys.
Kevin
Also, any likelihood there will be a tweak to the labia design?