Irontech 163, Tale of the tape and review.

Dollsampler · Post by **Dollsampler** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:51 am

Panther68 wrote:Hey all,

Continuing the thread, dollsampler does make the point that doll heads can add height depending on variables. I have 3 Irontech heads. The Ayumi head is not much larger than the other two, but the depth of the neck connection is the shallowest. Next if the Miki head, measuring from chin to top of head comes in at 19.5 cm, like the Jane head. The difference is the depth and set back of the neck connection. The Miki connection gives her 1 cm more height due to the depth and setback. All this reminds me of setting my saddle in cycling, as height and set back makes a huge difference in power output.

I degress, here are photos, so one can kinda get the idea.

Hi panther68,
Very good pictures of the three heads together. AYUMI altough not much longer than the other ones is however the bigger head.This is due to the fact that she has a head of Asian origin whose shapes have in average more width than caucasians.
I just bought a forestry compass in order to measure easily all width related to a doll silhouette.

DashingDazzla · Post by **DashingDazzla** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:27 am

Hi Panther. Thanks for the detailed review especially tge naked body shots. You should cut off part of your legs to acces her doggy style; she us just too good bent over. I am purchasing two dolls one of them looks like being an irontech (163 or 168).

Panther68 · Post by **Panther68** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 6:08 pm

DashingDazzla wrote:Hi Panther. Thanks for the detailed review especially tge naked body shots. You should cut off part of your legs to acces her doggy style; she us just too good bent over. I am purchasing two dolls one of them looks like being an irontech (163 or 168).

I do have the new 168, too. Only one problem, I got her for photography, as she was DL2's doll. he got a replacement doll and I took on this doll. So if I bang her, DL2 and myself would be Eskimo brothers.

I see that you asked DL2 on his thread for doggie style photos, if he doesn't get you any today or tomorrow. I will get you some, maybe later today.

DashingDazzla · Post by **DashingDazzla** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:20 pm

Thanks in advance. Very kind of you. Eskimo brothers, lol.

Panther68 · Post by **Panther68** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 7:38 pm

DashingDazzla wrote:Thanks in advance. Very kind of you. Eskimo brothers, lol.

Just PM'd you with photos of the 168 goodies

DashingDazzla · Post by **DashingDazzla** » Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:09 pm

And they are goodies too. Thanks a lot for that. It confirms a few things for me.

Dollicious2 · Post by **Dollicious2** » Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:51 pm

DashingDazzla wrote:And they are goodies too. Thanks a lot for that. It confirms a few things for me.

I will snap some awesome pics after work tonight
10 hours work today so it's gonna be at 11:30 PM
DL2

avante · Post by **avante** » Tue Mar 05, 2019 5:30 pm

It's really great that some users do these reviews - well mostly the measureing! So yeah it always amazes me how far these can be off; 1cm I can get but the burs and underbust being 3-4cm off; that is just not excusable, and the weight man...that difference indeed means the world. This false advertising is really bad business, that's why we need guys like you posting these body stats...since unfort. manu. cannot be trusted to place the real ones sadly. That all being said, lovely gal; really like the head and pussy placement. Also do like her general figure with more in the legs,hips,ass, but the chest circ. and weight got me to downgrading her a bit on my everchanging next doll list

miles mcbroom · Post by **miles mcbroom** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 4:05 am

Dollicious2 · Post by **Dollicious2** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 5:12 am

I love the waistline and hips measurements on this doll for her tall height
Can actually shop for clothing and have it look great on her every time.

I believe the under bust measurements are done around her ribcage just under the breasts and not under the nipples...
DL2

avante · Post by **avante** » Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:35 am

I def. get the same feeling about the waist-ass; would be great to have damn near every pants/skirt/similar fit around her waist; that's often the problem with my current doll (and I bet this goes for ALLOT of you guys).

Not to be a total a-hole but the under-breast measurements look about right to me (it's under the bikini right), tho after looking again the bust-measurement I do get the feeling maybe that's not the widest part (well at least for my own doll that was at about nipple height, little higher). But okey to the measurements of underbreast, waist, hips and thighs are the most important ones so no worries!

P.s. know I've mentioned before, as have many other dudes one here, but it's really nice to get some numbers which are a hell of a lot more trustworthy than those on a manufacturer. Would be great if someone -other than me of course- had like a table her on 'certified measurements' lol. Since unfortunately it's common practice for doll manufactureres -for whatever insane reason- to wrongfully advertise a freaking cast dimension. Sorry this gets me mad 100% of the time.

Dollicious2 wrote:I love the waistline and hips measurements on this doll for her tall height
Can actually shop for clothing and have it look great on her every time.

I believe the under bust measurements are done around her ribcage just under the breasts and not under the nipples...
DL2

curious_person · Post by **curious_person** » Sun Sep 06, 2020 6:46 am

interesting thread. I started to consider this specific model aswell on my speculative quest for a second to complement my 172D (main goal - better LHP).
I love the detailing on this!
A bit disappointing that it's heavy at this shorter size. I know from my existing doll that weight is manageable for me, but going shorter i'd hope to get lighter too.
I think I read the Wm166C was lightened by using larger hollow thighs in the skeleton, I guess that's a trick irontech skeletons don't have yet?

Seems no option is perfect in the real world..

Panther68 · Post by **Panther68** » Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:50 am

curious_person wrote:interesting thread. I started to consider this specific model aswell on my speculative quest for a second to complement my 172D (main goal - better LHP).
I love the detailing on this!
A bit disappointing that it's heavy at this shorter size. I know from my existing doll that weight is manageable for me, but going shorter i'd hope to get lighter too.
I think I read the Wm166C was lightened by using larger hollow thighs, I guess that's a trick irontech skeletons don't have yet?

Seems no option is perfect in the real world..

Morning Curious_person,

You might want to consider the Irontech 165, like the WM 166c it is lighter weight and taller than the IT 163. IT 165 is about 76 lbs. The LHP on the 165 is better, too. Here are some photos that I took for a TDF member, a couple months ago.

First photo, left to right, 163+, 163, 165 and the WM 166c body with the Irontech Victoria head.

curious_person · Post by **curious_person** » Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:01 am

Panther68 wrote: Morning Curious_person,
You might want to consider the Irontech 165, like the WM 166c it is lighter weight and taller than the IT 163. IT 165 is about 76 lbs. The LHP on the 165 is better, too. Here are some photos that I took for a TDF member, a couple months ago.
First photo, left to right, 163+, 163, 165 and the WM 166c body with the Irontech Victoria head.

nice comparison, thanks. better LHP ,taller + lighter (within reason, still looks better than the ultra-skinny HR166A) .. thats a win.

Panther68 · Post by **Panther68** » Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:29 am

curious_person wrote:
Panther68 wrote: Morning Curious_person,
You might want to consider the Irontech 165, like the WM 166c it is lighter weight and taller than the IT 163. IT 165 is about 76 lbs. The LHP on the 165 is better, too. Here are some photos that I took for a TDF member, a couple months ago.
First photo, left to right, 163+, 163, 165 and the WM 166c body with the Irontech Victoria head.
nice comparison, thanks. better LHP ,taller + lighter (within reason, still looks better than the ultra-skinny HR166A) .. thats a win.

Also, the IT 165 has a more real woman body than the HR166 or WM166. The extra 2 kg(4.4 lbs) is that she has a waist of 62 cm, the others have tiny waists. She makes a great outdoor model as she looks real and she is light to carry around. Also she can fill a pair of jeans, nice.