Model Name Source Reliability

[effCup]

Originally Posted by Pepper II

This seems to be one of those cases where the PH Australia name is actually her modeling name since it is backed up by both the Luke Ford reference and the VHS tape.

Are you saying that a model name published within Australian Penthouse is normally not a modelling name? How? Why?

How many AUPH modelling names are shared by or closely related to those used by The Latent Image?

How many AUPH modelling names are shared by or closely related to those used by Hot Shots (probably Stephen Hicks)?

I asked here quite some time ago for an explanation for the assertion once made that AUPH model names are "notoriously unreliable", but that seems not to have eventuated. Why?

What is the threshold for "unreliability"? Is there perhaps a ratio percentage and if so what is it or what should it be?

[Pepper II]

Originally Posted by effCup

Are you saying that a model name published within Australian Penthouse is normally not a modelling name? How? Why?

No; I'm not saying that at all, just the opposite which is why I made that comment. Until Sweeet started the Penthouse Australia thread there was very little available from this source. So with the predominance of the American magazine being widely available combined with the comprehensive index compiled by Viklas these names became a standard. But now between Sweeet's postings and your persistence many of these names have been accepted and I'm sure many more will be. Don't forget the American Penthouse content has been widely available for many years but the availability of the Australian content is relatively new.

This is always going to be subjective; there is no threshold or percentage. At the time we hadn't seen many examples of verifiable model names from this source. Since then we've uncovered many new aka's and their sources. I freely admit my earlier assertion has proven to be wrong and I'm glad it has been. This shows the value of all of us collaborating and sharing any info and sources we discover.

Finding and sharing these new sources is so important to our mission here. Like you said the TLI source material has proven to be a gold mine of information but there was almost nothing available from this source until I started publishing the catalogs and I still have a long way to go. But we wouldn't want to accept any of these model names without some corroboration, either. In fact we've seen many which are used nowhere else so they would not be a good name to use commonly unless there is no other forthcoming. This also illustrates the value of our Special Projects section. There is a wealth of information available there most of which would never be known without the efforts of the members who started the projects and those who contribute to them.

[effCup]

This is the contrast I'm meaning.

A member types a 2-part model name into a vef post and a) it's accepted, if that post's located in some part(s) of vef, but b) questioned, with a request for additional evidence, if that post's located in some other part(s) of vef.

I'm all for b), evidence wherever possible.

Is it simply that VintageBob hasn't logged in since 2017-06, so we can't ask him from where that name came, that's the problem?

[buttsie]

Most on here wont ever be found on your usual databases

Home of 9,290,367 Webcam Recordings Webcam Recordings from
15 main sites over 667 pages

Useful for the absolute amateur / obscure performers who never leave their bedroom

Anonym zu http://www.webcamrecordings.com/

Like the aptly named and very obscure Web Actress

[MB solved BNA] (CamModel) WebActress
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...ght=webactress


PS

Seems to be a lot more archived under the years / months using index on left

ie 2016 - Page 1 of 16954

[magnut]

Originally Posted by fictioneer

Magazines: The US Challenge group, pretty low-rent skin mags, is surprisingly reliable for "real" names. This is strongest around 1972-1978 -- before that time my observation is that they are a bit of a tossup, though I doubt I've seen a dozen specimens from 1970-1972, and the chain went under c1980. Fake names were a rule in the 1970s for most US houses below the PB/PH level. If Challenge ever uses the same name twice for a model, that's generally the one I stick with.

The Adam books (Adam, Knight, Pix) generally use standard names for models as well, before abt 1974, after which I rarely saw them (and by 1977 or so the model names were fake in both the issues I saw).

But as a general rule, US mags of the 1970s and after almost always use fake names for models. The raunchier the editorial comment on the layouts, the more likely the name is to be fake. "Neither said photos nor the words used to describe them are meant to represent the actual characters or personalities of the models," as the TOC page disclaimers read.

Why might a newsstand mag/editor use multiple names for the same model? I see that occasionally in '70s mags.

e.g. Challenge 1971-72 had a "Libby" whose photos were republished a few years later (1974-76) as "Donna Dole". And the model in my avatar had at least FOUR names (one first-last, three first-only) in 1977-79 Challenge issues, as well as at least three names (first-only) in SIR!

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by magnut

Why might a newsstand mag/editor use multiple names for the same model? I see that occasionally in '70s mags.

e.g. Challenge 1971-72 had a "Libby" whose photos were republished a few years later (1974-76) as "Donna Dole". And the model in my avatar had at least FOUR names (one first-last, three first-only) in 1977-79 Challenge issues, as well as at least three names (first-only) in SIR!

They used multiple names for the same reason they used wigs--To make it appear to be a different model.

[buttsie]

Originally Posted by buttsie

Most on here wont ever be found on your usual databases

Home of 7,439,033 Webcam Recordings from 15 main sites over 667 pages

Useful for the absolute amateur / obscure performers who never leave their bedroom

Anonym zu http://www.webcamrecordings.com/

Like the aptly named and very obscure Web Actress

[MB solved BNA] (CamModel) WebActress
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...ght=webactress

Another Caps site - female domination
full of the truly obscure amateur / semi-pro who most likely wont be on any mainstream site / database

Useful for those pesky one of clips posted on streaming sites that get reposted adnauseum
never with a name

Anonym zu https://femdomcc.net/tags/

[effCup]

Originally Posted by Jazz67

no idea how accurate that name is.

It's a professional modelling handle. What does "accuracy" actually mean, in such a context?

No really, a genuine (non-leading) question. I see/find such language used frequently by various folk in this same context, a context of scepticism about many and various magazine titles, as if some are somehow "more" believable than others, but step back for a moment and really think about it.

A professional modelling handle is something like Ziggy Stardust... or David Bowie, for that matter. Yes, both are made-up names. We think of the DB handle as if it were "real" or "believable", and it has become so, but only through usage, itself a product of fame (no, not the song).

NB, the above is not meant as picking on Jazz67 at all, I've simply used his words to (hopefully) start a thought process.

In terms of mag. believablity: Mayfair published quite a few models more than once, and I haven't done a proper statistical analysis but know that often they were given different names from their earlier appearances--whether simply because of different photogs. or what one can speculate but that's not the most relevant at the moment. Yet despite that we somehow treat Mayfair names as readily believable but other mags. less-so. Is that simply also "fame", i.e. our accustomisation to Mayfair on this site? Which itself was simply an accident of what mags. folks had and scanned relatively early-on in this site. Yes, they're useful for often being two-part. But somehow we apply different standards to different mag. titles. An (e.g.) Mayfair name is accepted even if only used once, whereas in another mag. quite early on someone may well write what Jazz67 did above.

A further thought experiment: why do folk here seem to prefer the earlier-published (e.g. Mayfair) handle over later ones (even from the same mag. title)? Just because a handle is earlier doesn't actually make it in any way "closer" to some imagined "originality". In terms of real people we tend to prefer later handles when people change their name--e.g. name changes, married surnames, etc.

[effCup]

Originally Posted by charliels531

They used multiple names for the same reason they used wigs--To make it appear to be a different model.

Quite possibly. But did the mag editor actually do that? I would suggest it was instead the photog. who did that.

A persistent rumour on vef is that mag editors (& associates) sit round drinking/smoking in their offices whilst inventing different handles for models they're going to feature in their next issue. Frankly, I think they seldom had such spare time, with lots of better things to be doing with their time. Did they even ever actually meet the model(s) in question? Maybe for mags. that were trying for "exclusives"--often Playboy, sometimes Penthouse, etc. but I'm not sure how many other titles could afford such aspirations. Many mags. could never afford to have their own "staff" photogs. I'll bet a lot of models were only ever the print or negative samples sent/submitted by photogs. for consideration. In which case there hardly is any "model" to know and then try to disguise--I'm speaking of/on the role of the mag editorial staff. If someone working on a mag. happens to notice that model X appeared twice in a given issue, possibly under different handles, is that really the editor who arranged it, or was it simply the material that got submitted from/by various photogs? It's not quite the same level of churn as with tomorrow's chip-wrapper, but somewhat. That is, I'm saying model sets mostly simply arrived as sets, as stuff to publish.

Photogs., on the other hand, had perhaps a handful of current and/or recent models whom they wanted to flog to various mag. titles, preferably for as much or perhaps as often as they could.

It is not always the case, but there are repeated patterns of model names seemingly being associated with photogs.--i.e. photog. A called a given model X, or variations thereof, while photog. B called the same model Y, or variations thereof.

Wigs are indeed a disguise, and so too model handles, but by whom and for which purposes?

I'm not saying mags. didn't ever change model handles, but I am suggesting a different picture of the activities involved.

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by effCup

It's a professional modelling handle. What does "accuracy" actually mean, in such a context?

The word "accuracy" is in this kind of context not a good choice.
From a pragmatic point of view I see two qualities in a name:

• recognition, the name is used elsewhere, not just for this mag on this pictorial
• uniqueness, or near uniqueness - very few if any other models use the same name

Regarding the name we were talking about, Mary Veng, this is unlikely to be good for recognition; I may be wrong (and I have in the past on such names), but this sounds like a one-off creation. However, as far as made-up names go, this has a good chance for being unique - never seen the surname Veng before.

Had the model been just called Mary in the mag, that would be a next to useless name.

In my own database I tend to go with whatever name I find first, but I occasionally rename models if a name with better recognition emerges later. Names like "Mary" I tend to ignore, and treat the models as unknowns instead.

That Mayfair is regarded so highly as a name-setter on VEF is purely a historical accident: Mayfair pictorials were plentiful in early VEF and so they became a naming resource.