Discussion - Mandy Miller (No) -> Caroline Clark

**Rubinski** · May 13th, 2014, 10:47 AM

* * Mandy Miller ID Disputed * * * * *

Update -
Looks like we are going to call her Caroline Clark
Thread here
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...68#post4629268

Here she is in her candy cane striped dress

First from Mayfair - V 27 n 11

Then I found her in a couple of Lips magazines.
As usual, only one shot in each mag.
I scanned the full pages, and did a zoom of her

Form Lips - Dec 95

Then again in Lips - Sep 97

**Rubinski** · May 14th, 2014, 01:26 AM

Found another layout at the Creamcheese site.
From Club Int (UK) V11n1
They called her Roxanne.
Thanks to restoration201!

**Rubinski** · May 14th, 2014, 11:31 AM

ripchord just posted part 1 of Club International (Canadian) April 1982
Thanks Rip!
It includes another layout of xxxxx and her candy striped dress.
They called her Janice.
Click on the link below to see all the scans.
http://www.vintage-erotica-forum.com...3&postcount=58

Quote:

Originally Posted by ripchord

So here's my scan-god assignment of the day. This is the Canadian issue, which will be a little tamer than the USA version, so if anybody, etc...

...

Haven't found the US version of this mag yet

high1000street · May 15th, 2014, 06:01 AM

Roxanne is not Mandy

**Rubinski** · May 15th, 2014, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by high1000street

Roxanne is not Mandy

So, Lolo must not be her either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zjatzjat

Since Lolo had been on Mandy's thread for a year and a half, I hoped she had been vetted.
I'm no Mandy expert, and I have no reason to dispute your call.
Anyone else?

I'll take a closer look.
(update - Pretty close. Can't decide yet. Also need to figure out who is the true Mandy.)

Is the resemblance close enough that we should we leave these posts, so others will know?
Probably should leave it for a day or 3 anyway, so the word about the disputed ID gets back to the folks who saw it tonight, thinking it was her.

Are there any more on the Mandy thread that aren't Mandy?

**Rubinski** · May 15th, 2014, 02:54 PM

Since there was only one person disputing the ID, I was told this would be left on the thread until there were more opinions, but I guess someone else decided otherwise.

This creates a problem with the folks that picked up my scans before high100street disputed the ID.
Since all these posts simply disappeared, those folks will not know the ID is being disputed, and will probably continue thinking the scans I posted are Mandy.
Isn't that a bigger problem than someone getting an email about posts they don't like?
Is this what we wanted from the content only rule?

There is also the question of whether high1000street is right.
One guy says no, and that's it?
Has anyone even thanked his dispute post?
A lot of folks thanked my posts. Did they think I had the right girl?

This section is a backwater, and I doubt anyone that knows Mandy will see it now, and the issue probably won't be resolved here.

In this case, the girl I posted is the same girl as a scan that has been on the thread for 18 months, yet my posts are removed, and the older scan remains, without any indication that it might not be her.
Seems like we are setting up this problem to be repeated, rather than resolved.

These problems are created by the simple "content only" rule, which came about because of the spoiled babies that complain when anything but scans or videos appear on a model's thread.

Sorting out this ID problem is not something that all of us believe should be removed from the model threads.
Getting the right girl on a model thread is very important.
I think most will agree with that.
Putting the occasional bitching of a few spoiled brats ahead of the needs of the forum is wrong.
Anyone that complains about a discussion to sort out an ID problem is probably not a true fan anyway.

The vintage erotica world is not a perfect world where all the girls are ID'd clearly and correctly.
Occasionally, ID's will need to be discussed, and that particular girl's fans are almost always going to be the best ones to decide the issue.
This particular problem is one that should be discussed in front of the girl's fans, not in a backwater that most of her fans will never see.

This is one case where the simple "content only" rule is creating problems.
I agree that simple thanks should be removed immediately, but some things should be discussed in front of the girl's fans.
Rather than cleaning it out immediately, some discussions should be allowed to be develop, and perhaps be resolved, before getting cleaned out.

There's also the thought that some info is good enough to be considered content.

If the problem can't be resolved in a day or three, then we can set up a discussion thread like this, but we should also make a post on the model thread that points the fans to the discussion.

**Rubinski** · October 26th, 2017, 03:22 AM

Sorry I forgot about this thread, but here's an update.

Immy found an ID for her of Caroline Clark.
There is a pending model thread for her in MIR we are working on.
Some content for her is there.
http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...d.php?t=272096

Update - Now there is a model thread for Caroline Clark here
Enjoy!

May 13th, 2014, 10:47 AM	#1
Rubinski Classic Models Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Avatar is NGC1097 Posts: 4,075 Thanks: 58,418 Thanked 133,785 Times in 3,984 Posts	Discussion - Mandy Miller (No) -> Caroline Clark * * Mandy Miller ID Disputed * * * * * Update - Looks like we are going to call her Caroline Clark Thread here http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...68#post4629268 Here she is in her candy cane striped dress First from Mayfair - V 27 n 11 Then I found her in a couple of Lips magazines. As usual, only one shot in each mag. I scanned the full pages, and did a zoom of her Form Lips - Dec 95 Then again in Lips - Sep 97 Last edited by Rubinski; January 12th, 2024 at 04:01 PM.. Reason: Reloaded and text edit

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

May 14th, 2014, 01:26 AM	#2
Rubinski Classic Models Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Avatar is NGC1097 Posts: 4,075 Thanks: 58,418 Thanked 133,785 Times in 3,984 Posts	Found another layout at the Creamcheese site. From Club Int (UK) V11n1 They called her Roxanne. Thanks to restoration201!

May 15th, 2014, 06:01 AM	#4
high1000street Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 162 Thanks: 8,572 Thanked 4,151 Times in 141 Posts	Roxanne is not Mandy

May 15th, 2014, 02:54 PM	#6
Rubinski Classic Models Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Avatar is NGC1097 Posts: 4,075 Thanks: 58,418 Thanked 133,785 Times in 3,984 Posts	Since there was only one person disputing the ID, I was told this would be left on the thread until there were more opinions, but I guess someone else decided otherwise. This creates a problem with the folks that picked up my scans before high100street disputed the ID. Since all these posts simply disappeared, those folks will not know the ID is being disputed, and will probably continue thinking the scans I posted are Mandy. Isn't that a bigger problem than someone getting an email about posts they don't like? Is this what we wanted from the content only rule? There is also the question of whether high1000street is right. One guy says no, and that's it? Has anyone even thanked his dispute post? A lot of folks thanked my posts. Did they think I had the right girl? This section is a backwater, and I doubt anyone that knows Mandy will see it now, and the issue probably won't be resolved here. In this case, the girl I posted is the same girl as a scan that has been on the thread for 18 months, yet my posts are removed, and the older scan remains, without any indication that it might not be her. Seems like we are setting up this problem to be repeated, rather than resolved. These problems are created by the simple "content only" rule, which came about because of the spoiled babies that complain when anything but scans or videos appear on a model's thread. Sorting out this ID problem is not something that all of us believe should be removed from the model threads. Getting the right girl on a model thread is very important. I think most will agree with that. Putting the occasional bitching of a few spoiled brats ahead of the needs of the forum is wrong. Anyone that complains about a discussion to sort out an ID problem is probably not a true fan anyway. The vintage erotica world is not a perfect world where all the girls are ID'd clearly and correctly. Occasionally, ID's will need to be discussed, and that particular girl's fans are almost always going to be the best ones to decide the issue. This particular problem is one that should be discussed in front of the girl's fans, not in a backwater that most of her fans will never see. This is one case where the simple "content only" rule is creating problems. I agree that simple thanks should be removed immediately, but some things should be discussed in front of the girl's fans. Rather than cleaning it out immediately, some discussions should be allowed to be develop, and perhaps be resolved, before getting cleaned out. There's also the thought that some info is good enough to be considered content. If the problem can't be resolved in a day or three, then we can set up a discussion thread like this, but we should also make a post on the model thread that points the fans to the discussion.

October 26th, 2017, 03:22 AM	#7
Rubinski Classic Models Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Avatar is NGC1097 Posts: 4,075 Thanks: 58,418 Thanked 133,785 Times in 3,984 Posts	Sorry I forgot about this thread, but here's an update. Immy found an ID for her of Caroline Clark. There is a pending model thread for her in MIR we are working on. Some content for her is there. http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...d.php?t=272096 Update - Now there is a model thread for Caroline Clark here Enjoy!