Page 2 of 2

Re: The comparison of doll size

Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 3:29 am
by dolls-castle
Ok, Guys,
We will do more photos next week..

How about the two legs? Anybody likes them? Any comments? :)

Miracle

Re: The comparison of doll size

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:34 pm
by coco82
Oh yeah :)

Other height comparison, with heels on ?

Re: The comparison of doll size

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:21 pm
by Zippy81
dollguy wrote:175 is all legs. Now her is the issue doll manufacturers don't seem to understand when making dolls. Mainly when it comes to buillding taller/larger dolls,they are not balanced. The 175 in picture looks like tits on a stick. Maybe people buy it? And i am the minority in my view?

As pointed out as well,the vagina distance is no difference with 10cm of height difference. Is it laziness or intentionally made that way?

I don't mean to sound critical, some people are not aware of some details or overlook it. I think manufacturers should start doing more surveys and ask questions. Instead of just producing hit or miss dolls. Nobody that i know would want a lady with toothpick legs real or doll.

I recently bought the 166cm muscular workout jy doll. To me,she was the most balanced doll on the market. Building a doll with stick legs is not very well received or sold. Put some meat on her,a person buying that big of a doll isnt worried about weight as much as someone buying a 140cm doll.

My last bit of advice! Don't worry if a doll is 100lbs. A person buying tbat is looking for something more lifelike balanced weight and body sized to fit her shape. Everyone is going crazy of the LeAnne doll right now. Why? Cause it is balanced sized wise for a big girl. Nobody wants a stick lady.

Sorry if i offend anyone,just my opinion.
dollguy wrote:Here is a good example, one weight is balanced. While the other is all legs.


:thumbs_up: :thumbs_up: :thumbs_up: :thumbs_up: :thumbs_up: :thumbs_up: :thumbs_up:
:glou: :glou: :glou: :glou: :glou: :glou: :glou: :glou:
Yeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss



Thanks for the comparison photos miracle! I wish every manufacturer would do this!

Re: The comparison of doll size

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:36 pm
by Rock13
The 175cm doll emulates the basis for the old adage "... she has legs that stretch all of the way up to Heaven." Some people have very long legs compared to their relatively average length from shoulders to inseam. Case in point, the majority of Victoria's Secret's "Angels".

Re: The comparison of doll size

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:45 pm
by hollows+fentiman
Erm, guys, this thread is 18 months old and probably won’t get any new answers to your queries!

If you have any, I suggest you pm Miracle at DollsCastle.

Cheers, Hollows.

Re: The comparison of doll size

Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2018 2:28 pm
by mismith
wow, i'm impressed with the 175cm version! That might be my next size!

Re: The comparison of doll size

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:12 am
by avante
So yeah this is pretty old, but it's good to see a vendor post these pics!

Truth been told for me the perfect one would be between the 165 and the 160; the first being a tat skinny; as common with dolls (and mentioned before) in the legs mostly*, and the latter being to fat for me...it's really curious to me how these are about the choices: skinny kinda average girl (with decent tits) or a extreme curvy tits/ ass&hips/ fat overall...like where is the medium / normal size? Not that many in betweens imo unfort.

*it always amazes me how no company seems so get the bright idea to pretty much keep this kinda body but just add some (like not x2 but x1.2-1.5) meat to the legs and like calfs...add like 2-5kg and it's a real proper build. Maybe I'm just overseeing something here ;)

But really probs to Dolls Castle for at least posting these!