egafd.com

XNK7118

I've seen both movies that are listed her entry and I think
those are two different girls.

Didn't see the movie , but there is vef thread with all scenes and scene parings.
Claire looks to thin ... but well maybe she was on a BK diet. Pics are to small.

some caps of xnk4782 from Charlene in Action:

[IMG]http://thumbnails114.imagebam.com/44526/df67c6445254233.jpg[/IMG]

More in the gallery

... "sent for further consultation".

De-merged, with notes added.

IMO those are different actresses.
[IMG]http://thumbnails114.imagebam.com/44529/d361b3445283298.jpg[/IMG]

Compare the areolas with deezers gallery. Boob size is also way different, she could have gotten a boob job, but she must have got really fat in the meantime and she doesn't look like a girl for a boob job. Mouth corner looks different too.
And she looks also older. MGM numbers are 88138 and 88263.

lgwin wrote:
> MGM numbers are 88138 and 88263.

Which is which?

lgwin wrote:
>>Compare the areolas ...

It's cold outside, so they shrinked:-)

lgwin wrote:
>>Boob size is also way different, she could have gotten a boob job

No, I saw a clip with this scene. Definitly natural breasts in both films.

lgwin wrote:
>>but she must have got really fat

XNK7118 is definitly more well-rounded. But, why not. Weight changes.

lgwin wrote:
>>Mouth corner looks different too.

Agree!


lgwin wrote:
>>And she looks also older.

You mean XNK4782? Only a little bit, but less weigth often leads to older
looking face.

At the risk of prolonging even further this discussion, I repeat:
"De-merged, with notes added".

"Charlene in Action" is the older movie - sorry I thought it was obvious.
I think I have most of magma vhs covers with numbers.

Can try to create a list from it but I'd have to find a way to parse the file names and they are not always correct.