Finally!!! Irontech 163 and 163+ side by side photos.

[DashingDazzla]

And thanks Panther for the side to side comparison. This is so informative for people considering these dolls.

[Panther68]

And thanks Panther for the side to side comparison. This is so informative for people considering these dolls.

Sure, no problem. If there is any last requests while both are still naked, let me know. I am off to work and will do some last photos when I return. Then I will dress them again as I gotta start getting some of the other heads photographed, Doria and Ella.

[-Ragnar66-]

...as I gotta start getting some of the other heads photographed, Doria and Ella.

Very much looking forward to both of them!

[dxc]

That is so great! Thank you so much.

Photos from all angles, it is so great to have the opportunity to compare dolls in that manner. I wish manufacturers would share more side by side comparison photos of their dolls. I think a lot of people here do agree that we would be happy for this.

First, these sculpts are really great, I like these types of realistic looking and detailed dolls. IT deserves a lot of credit for the products they developed here.

Personally I am pondering the IT163+ (with having the IT169 as another consideration.)
So naturally I was more eyeing at her. After a longer look at these photos I now kinda feel like back at square 1. I am a bit surprised how much of a difference the breasts look side by side. I like the IT163+ but for me the photos do clearly show that the additional height are a longer neck. Something that does not feel attractive to me. Looking at the shoulders they are at the same height and even though I was saying I want a doll taller than 1m60 I now feel I would be more comfortable with the shorter neck and same height as the IT163.
I wonder if variances in height might even result from how the skeleton ended up in the mold. Like if it is 1.5cm higher up the doll has a thicker TPE foot sole and a longer neck. IDK.
To clarify, I like what I see, but it is not the taller body I was hoping it would be after hearing about the first measurements.

Oh, BTW, Aneisha seems to have an injury on her behind. Modelling is dangerous.

[-Ragnar66-]

though I wouldn´t quite bet on it, I think the longish looking neck is more of an optical illusion. While standing both to each other the 163 plus had to be a more straigthened back/skeleton in order to better balance the weight from the bigger boobs. Aneisha has her center of mass more in the middle so her head didn´t need to be bent back as much as Doris´s. Also to consider photo perspective and different forward head bends. Panther surely knows better.

[dreamer from Russia]

Photos from all angles, it is so great to have the opportunity to compare dolls in that manner. I wish manufacturers would share more side by side comparison photos of their dolls. I think a lot of people here do agree that we would be happy for this.

I completely agree. This should be done not only with those dolls that are close to anthropometric data, but at first glance with completely different ones.

[dollarfan]

The standard 163 has a more pleasant and womanlike/humanlike transition from neck to shoulder. This is why the neck on the 163+ looks so long. As I hinted in an earlier post in another thread, the pussy on the 163+ is not very appealing. A better move from IronTech would have been a E-cup or F-cup on the perfect 10 body 150cm Victoria. All the new heads from IT is made perfect fore that neck/body. Mind You also that the 150 body has a pussy that is beautiful and also feels heavenly. Trust Me folks - I have tested it!

[avante]

DAMN well first off: major thanks for supplying us with these man! Second: goddamn both models look hot as hell, really liked the all nude with sunglasses lol and some also with the mirror are real sexy, and those doggy posses: AWESOME!

So yeah I'm with some of these guys in the 'negative' such as the 163+ vagina looks like it's missing a bit (instead of 'hidden') but other than that both look pretty nice to me. I mean standing behind them I would not know which to choose, so luckily for you you can have both haha. To the height; kinda get the feeling all is in the neck like some guys mentioned before me. That would be a shame, it looks a bit like more elongated + less diameter than the "163" which looks better to me too. Some mentioned seeing some differences in the 163+ build (in the line of little more weight/girth/realism)...but for me; it's really hard to pin point body differences (other than neck, vagina, tits) dimension/TPE mass wise. So if anyone reading this has seen any / from your perspective; are there any?


It's kinda weird btw there are tons of sets from these models, and still looking at yours (esp. due to the 2 models being actually next to each other) provides so much more (new) details. Some from more basic pics but also from the 'shoot her while walking around her = dif. angles' really puts things in better perspective. After looking a bit at your pics I saved them and went over them again for subtle details which might be different between the models. I think maybe (more) ribcage on the 163? and hint of abbs on the + but detail wise that's all I saw. But those are the only things I noticed -to appear that way- really. Are there maybe other details you noticed which are a bit different?


To round this off for doing these man! hope the 'negatives' dont get you down, guess we're all just dropping observations. There is little doubt in my mind however that everybody reading this would be up in her if we were alone with her right now . For me the best part of this (well both) model is the waist and below parts, well generally her hole figure, just for me the perfect tits for her would be in between these models unfort. Got little love for my 'anyone want a 163-E topic' so guess I'm niche . Still tho, I 100% believe these G's are hard to resist and goddamn awesome to play with for sure! Personally cant wait for some crop top to be wrapped around them (dunno if I said already, but thought it for sure:P)


EDIT: looking back again hahaha 3rd time in 3 hours lol just wanted to add, one thing I personally dont really like with the 163 is the nipples; mostly the coloring around the actual nipple to give appearance of bigger nipple width (or however that's called). Damn how I wish the incorporated bigger nipple in the actual mold. But anyways; how's that looking irl; like is it something that does not bother you/ you considered taking the excess around off or you like it just fine this way?

Oww and 1 thing I'd def. would like to know is how big her hips are standing doggy like that measured like this (well not per se the tool, but that distance):

168it ass.JPG (2.35 MiB) Viewed 2057 times

[RJ357]

I personally think both look great. I do like the difference in the bodies.

[Dollsampler]

I personally think both look great. I do like the difference in the bodies.

Very good pictures panther 68 with all needed details to allow a choice with good knowledge of what will be received.

I prefer the 163 to the 163 plus because her breasts are more realistic in size. There are very few 163cm tall European women size 38(healthy, not overweight) walking around with such huge breasts. But of course, dolls are not that much walking around except when you give them a lift to the beach

[Panther68]

That is so great! Thank you so much.

Photos from all angles, it is so great to have the opportunity to compare dolls in that manner. I wish manufacturers would share more side by side comparison photos of their dolls. I think a lot of people here do agree that we would be happy for this.

First, these sculpts are really great, I like these types of realistic looking and detailed dolls. IT deserves a lot of credit for the products they developed here.

Personally I am pondering the IT163+ (with having the IT169 as another consideration.)
So naturally I was more eyeing at her. After a longer look at these photos I now kinda feel like back at square 1. I am a bit surprised how much of a difference the breasts look side by side. I like the IT163+ but for me the photos do clearly show that the additional height are a longer neck. Something that does not feel attractive to me. Looking at the shoulders they are at the same height and even though I was saying I want a doll taller than 1m60 I now feel I would be more comfortable with the shorter neck and same height as the IT163.
I wonder if variances in height might even result from how the skeleton ended up in the mold. Like if it is 1.5cm higher up the doll has a thicker TPE foot sole and a longer neck. IDK.
To clarify, I like what I see, but it is not the taller body I was hoping it would be after hearing about the first measurements.

Oh, BTW, Aneisha seems to have an injury on her behind. Modelling is dangerous.

Hey dxc, you are correct the only difference is the neck length it is 4 cm. Some mentioned that they thought the neck was skinnier too. I measured the circumference. The 163+ is 26.5 cm. The 163 is 27 cm, so very little difference. Then there are the heads. There seem to be small heads and big heads. The Jane and Doria heads are small with a 19.5 cm face height and the neck connection set back a bit more, then the Miki at 20.5 cm, then Ella, Doris, Yael and Ayumi at about 22 cm. So if you chose a big head on the 163, she will be in that 160-1 cm range, not the 158 cm, I have stated in earlier writing when I measured with the 19.5 cm Jane head.

though I wouldn´t quite bet on it, I think the longish looking neck is more of an optical illusion. While standing both to each other the 163 plus had to be a more straigthened back/skeleton in order to better balance the weight from the bigger boobs. Aneisha has her center of mass more in the middle so her head didn´t need to be bent back as much as Doris´s. Also to consider photo perspective and different forward head bends. Panther surely knows better.

Hey Ragnar, you are correct. When I placed them side by side for the first time. There wasn't too much of a height difference. In these photos. I was able to get the 163 spine very straight as she is now about 3 months old and her joints are not as tight. The 163+ has some curve in her spine as it is quite stiff, so much of a curve that she may have lost 2 cm of height in the photo.

Photos from all angles, it is so great to have the opportunity to compare dolls in that manner. I wish manufacturers would share more side by side comparison photos of their dolls. I think a lot of people here do agree that we would be happy for this.

I completely agree. This should be done not only with those dolls that are close to anthropometric data, but at first glance with completely different ones.

Completely agree, fortunately, I have enough dolls that I can provided some information. Most are on my Irontech dolls, my two 168's and of course the 163 and 163+ Funny that I do have the popular WM 166c/ 273 head. She is feeling rather ignored at the moment, but at least she has the other dolls to keep her company.

The standard 163 has a more pleasant and womanlike/humanlike transition from neck to shoulder. This is why the neck on the 163+ looks so long. As I hinted in an earlier post in another thread, the pussy on the 163+ is not very appealing. A better move from IronTech would have been a E-cup or F-cup on the perfect 10 body 150cm Victoria. All the new heads from IT is made perfect fore that neck/body. Mind You also that the 150 body has a pussy that is beautiful and also feels heavenly. Trust Me folks - I have tested it!

Hey dollarfan, checked out the 150 cm on their website. Her vaginal area is the same as the 163. Winning!!! Unfortunately, I have not given either one of them a test ride as I do not want to remove their makeup on that area. So I will have to take your word for it.

DAMN well first off: major thanks for supplying us with these man! Second: goddamn both models look hot as hell, really liked the all nude with sunglasses lol and some also with the mirror are real sexy, and those doggy posses: AWESOME!

So yeah I'm with some of these guys in the 'negative' such as the 163+ vagina looks like it's missing a bit (instead of 'hidden') but other than that both look pretty nice to me. I mean standing behind them I would not know which to choose, so luckily for you you can have both haha. To the height; kinda get the feeling all is in the neck like some guys mentioned before me. That would be a shame, it looks a bit like more elongated + less diameter than the "163" which looks better to me too. Some mentioned seeing some differences in the 163+ build (in the line of little more weight/girth/realism)...but for me; it's really hard to pin point body differences (other than neck, vagina, tits) dimension/TPE mass wise. So if anyone reading this has seen any / from your perspective; are there any?


It's kinda weird btw there are tons of sets from these models, and still looking at yours (esp. due to the 2 models being actually next to each other) provides so much more (new) details. Some from more basic pics but also from the 'shoot her while walking around her = dif. angles' really puts things in better perspective. After looking a bit at your pics I saved them and went over them again for subtle details which might be different between the models. I think maybe (more) ribcage on the 163? and hint of abbs on the + but detail wise that's all I saw. But those are the only things I noticed -to appear that way- really. Are there maybe other details you noticed which are a bit different?


To round this off for doing these man! hope the 'negatives' dont get you down, guess we're all just dropping observations. There is little doubt in my mind however that everybody reading this would be up in her if we were alone with her right now . For me the best part of this (well both) model is the waist and below parts, well generally her hole figure, just for me the perfect tits for her would be in between these models unfort. Got little love for my 'anyone want a 163-E topic' so guess I'm niche . Still tho, I 100% believe these G's are hard to resist and goddamn awesome to play with for sure! Personally cant wait for some crop top to be wrapped around them (dunno if I said already, but thought it for sure:P)


EDIT: looking back again hahaha 3rd time in 3 hours lol just wanted to add, one thing I personally dont really like with the 163 is the nipples; mostly the coloring around the actual nipple to give appearance of bigger nipple width (or however that's called). Damn how I wish the incorporated bigger nipple in the actual mold. But anyways; how's that looking irl; like is it something that does not bother you/ you considered taking the excess around off or you like it just fine this way?

Oww and 1 thing I'd def. would like to know is how big her hips are standing doggy like that measured like this (well not per se the tool, but that distance):

168it ass.JPG

Hey Avante. her butt width is just shy of 37 cm. Took that measurement when both were bent over. I had a feelin' that some one would ask. As for the nipples, I should have requested 4 cm with color. That was on me, not them. I can remove the make up and redo but I try to keep the doll in its natural state for as long as I can, so you all know what your getting rather than glam them all up in personalized make up. I will use MF eyes or Doll Laboratory teeth implants at times.

I personally think both look great. I do like the difference in the bodies.

Thank you RJ357, I like them both too. I have no problem taking the 163 out in public, like my shoot in San Francisco, last week on Lombard Street. We shall see with the 163+, with her boobs busting out of her blouse. She may get me in trouble.

I personally think both look great. I do like the difference in the bodies.

Very good pictures panther 68 with all needed details to allow a choice with good knowledge of what will be received.

I prefer the 163 to the 163 plus because her breasts are more realistic in size. There are very few 163cm tall European women size 38(healthy, not overweight) walking around with such huge breasts. But of course, dolls are not that much walking around except when you give them a lift to the beach

dollsampler yes woman with this size are rare like the real Lucy Pinder though this doll and head should be judged on its own, not on what it was based off of.

[-Ragnar66-]

though I wouldn´t quite bet on it, I think the longish looking neck is more of an optical illusion. While standing both to each other the 163 plus had to be a more straigthened back/skeleton in order to better balance the weight from the bigger boobs. Aneisha has her center of mass more in the middle so her head didn´t need to be bent back as much as Doris´s. Also to consider photo perspective and different forward head bends. Panther surely knows better.

Hey Ragnar, you are correct. When I placed them side by side for the first time. There wasn't too much of a height difference. In these photos. I was able to get the 163 spine very straight as she is now about 3 months old and her joints are not as tight. The 163+ has some curve in her spine as it is quite stiff, so much of a curve that she may have lost 2 cm of height in the photo.

thanks for confirmation Panther! IMHO it needs bit more common sense and knowledge to judge the dolls attributes when presented in pics.

Skin color: Environmental lighting, cam settings, flash or not, doll powdered or not and last but not least, post editing the pics for presentation.

Doll size ratios: Mostly cam angle/perspective, dolls stance and skeleton/bone positions, clothing and wigs. It´s always interesting that many doll promos show some certain "tricks" applied, to disguise possible size mismatches. These are: Clothes distorting a dolls proportions, adding voluminous wigs and large sunglasses to artificially enlarge an otherwise too small a head and again, making use of the cam perspective. While it´s nice to have those means available I also find it a bit of a cheat on customers alike.

[Panther68]

Hey all, just bumping this up as I had a member asking for comparison between the two 163's on another thread.

[Aldebaran20]

OMG those are some of the most beautiful vaginas and asses I've seen so far in dolls, truly oustanding well placed.

[kryten1]

The stuff of dreams