On 06 Feb 2009 12:27:38 GMT, "Yenc-Power-Post" <yenc@powerposter.org>
posted:
>Yes, the AM archive sites were a mess to say the least - reposts of the old
>Willey sites and some new stuff, not much and of course that stupid
>numbering system.
>
>As for posting, i cannot commit myself just yet - maybe next week.
>
>YPP
Thanks, mate - I'll take what you can give - as and when you can.
"Beggars can't be choosers" as they say.
My "collection" of "willy-girls" is a mixture of Willey, AM, AM
archives, TBs, and un-watermarked pics posted ad-hoc in groups, etc.
I have found that sometimes even the dreaded AM-archives have some
pics of a determined set than appeared on the girl's
www.xxxx-model.com site. I've done a merge of all sources, so in some
cases there are dreaded blue/purple striped pics in the middle of
"real" sets - to fill holes, so to speak..
I should stress that I'm not a "collector" - I'm a "looker".
I'm not after "purity" in terms of watermarks or even size - I just
like to look at the girls, not at the attributes of a piccie. So, in
some cases, I don't have what the "collectors" would call "originals".
At least the AM-rchives didn't rename the piccies - that HAS helped in
tracking down model names and set numbers. Yes, I DO have trouble
identifying the models - it's something to do with the fact that I
don't concentrate very much on the faces when I look at a piccie ;-)
I'm thinking of putting together a RAR of one piccie from each set
that I can't identify and see if there's people out there who could do
a Windows Search on the filename to discover the name/set for me.
After all it would be a labo(u)r of love - or lust.
I could also post any set that people might be interested in after
looking at the samples. Bearing in mind, of course, that not ALL
piccies in a set may be originals and so the "collectors" would
probably gang together to beat me up :-(
Well, thanks for your replies, and your time. I look forward eagerly
to some postings from you.
Take care
--
me - "what's in a name?"
|
|