Forum Rules,TOS and Privacy Policy | By visiting this website and viewing the pages within, you accept and agree to be bound by and comply with our Rules Of Conduct, Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy
WM dolls was establish on 2012, we have own production base (located center of Greater Bay Area, Guangdong, China), which is one of the most professional and the biggest factory of realistic sex dolls in the world.
As pioneered TPE used and many famous brands' dolls manufacturer, We have been focusing on customer experience, and continue to work hard to develop new functions for dolls.
We have many patents and independently developed exclusive functions, Such as Breathing feature, Ball Joints Hand Skeleton, Real Oral Sex(ROS) Head, etc.
Website: www.wmdolls.com
After having carefuly examinated the dimensions and pictures of the two thin WM166cm models I decided to choose the 166B.
Altough her breast size (higher than world average at C) is still acceptable to me, I remain taken aback by the wasp waistline (53cm for a 84cm hipsline) of the 166C which dont cope well with the average silhouette of thin real women bodies.Had she got the 56-57cm waistline of the 166B then the 166c would have been more realistic.Too bad, because her private parts are better positionned and designed than the 166B version.
I choose head 76 but when the factory confirmed to me that this YL head was only 20cm from top head to chin (12-14 years old) I gave up as I have a large stock of Young heads of adult size (22cm for this thin doll of 166cm is enough)
Please find hereafter factory pictures (without head) where the realism of the dimensions and of the transition of hips to chest is perfectly visible.The skin color is light tan or medium.
HTB1Q4n3asnrK1RkHFrdq6xCoFXau WMdoll 166B.jpg (70.44 KiB) Viewed 1762 times
HTB1FNf4ayDxK1RjSsphq6zHrpXa7 WMdoll 166B .jpg (73.32 KiB) Viewed 1762 times
HTB17NnYaEvrK1RjSspcq6zzSXXaU WMdoll 166B body.jpg (83.06 KiB) Viewed 1762 times
Interesting.
I actually own a WM 168 A. Frankly I can't see any difference between the 166 B and the 168 A.
As an aside, they both suffer from the unusually long shins. It's perhaps the only part of my doll that I dislike.
I am glad to see you went with the 166b in the end, you will not be disappointed; the body is very realistic and feminine. I did end up posting some more photos of my 166b lady on this forum which you can find under my Yennefer post
Dollyman25442 wrote:Interesting.
I actually own a WM 168 A. Frankly I can't see any difference between the 166 B and the 168 A.
As an aside, they both suffer from the unusually long shins. It's perhaps the only part of my doll that I dislike.
Neither of which suffer from the long shin problem.
Hi Dollyman25442,
For reasons I have exposed many times I prefer dolls having a height in the range of the Western world average adult women height from the the last generation (165-170cm)
It is a coincidence that the first doll I bought (I will have 27 with this 166B counted in) was the WM 168A as I had been attracted by her skinny sexy aspect.I am still finding her very sexy but of course that is a fantasy body with overextended calves.
. Following the measurements I have seen here and there I dont expect overextended calves problem on the WM 166B.
I must remind you that the INNER THIGH LENGHT of the 168A is 93cm. WMdoll just took a 155cm body and Added 13cm in the CALVE lenght with some more improvements(skeleton, anatomical placements..)
Here the inner thigh legs lenght confirmed By luckykat65 measurements amongst other has the normal lenght of 80cm (13cm less than the 168A!)The rule for the inner thigh lenght is simple. The ratio ITL to height in the general population of women is 0.45 and the golden rule ratio (slender silhouette) is 0.48. Above 0.51 women start to look like grasshopers.The 166B has a ratio around the GOLDEN RULE figure (.48)
See the luckykat65 measurements here viewtopic.php?f=215&t=109447
As per the measurements SHE HAS PERFECTLY REALISTIC BODY RATIOS with a THIN DREAMBODY.VERY RARE opportunity in the sexdoll market.
I am glad to see you went with the 166b in the end, you will not be disappointed; the body is very realistic and feminine. I did end up posting some more photos of my 166b lady on this forum which you can find under my Yennefer post
LK
The pictures you made and the measurements you took helped me a lot because factory measurements are flawed very often. Thanks again.
Dollyman25442 wrote:Interesting.
I actually own a WM 168 A. Frankly I can't see any difference between the 166 B and the 168 A.
As an aside, they both suffer from the unusually long shins. It's perhaps the only part of my doll that I dislike.
Neither of which suffer from the long shin problem.
Hi Dollyman25442,
For reasons I have exposed many times I prefer dolls having a height in the range of the Western world average adult women height from the the last generation (165-170cm)
It is a coincidence that the first doll I bought (I will have 27 with this 166B counted in) was the WM 168A as I had been attracted by her skinny sexy aspect.I am still finding her very sexy but of course that is a fantasy body with overextended calves.
. Following the measurements I have seen here and there I dont expect overextended calves problem on the WM 166B.
I must remind you that the INNER THIGH LENGHT of the 168A is 93cm. WMdoll just took a 155cm body and Added 13cm in the CALVE lenght with some more improvements(skeleton, anatomical placements..)
Here the inner thigh legs lenght confirmed By luckykat65 measurements amongst other has the normal lenght of 80cm (13cm less than the 168A!)The rule for the inner thigh lenght is simple. The ratio ITL to height in the general population of women is 0.45 and the golden rule ratio (slender silhouette) is 0.48. Above 0.51 women start to look like grasshopers.The 166B has a ratio around the GOLDEN RULE figure (.48)
See the luckykat65 measurements here viewtopic.php?f=215&t=109447
As per the measurements SHE HAS PERFECTLY REALISTIC BODY RATIOS with a THIN DREAMBODY.VERY RARE opportunity in the sexdoll market.
Well this could be a game changer for me as I'm like you. I like taller and thin. Zoey, my 168 is certainly that but as we've both noted....the calves. I'm happy to hear your 166 doesn't have that problem! I looked at some images you posted, but I have a request if it's possible (either publicly or privately). Could you shown us some stock pictures standing full length both front and back with a soda can or something on the ground to give us comparative "feeling"? I would be very grateful!
