Model Name Source Reliability

[Pepper II]

I think it would be beneficial to compile a list of what magazines or other sources should be considered reliable in what era and in what order of reliability. Conversely let's point out sources which are largely unreliable. Like most everything else here a lot of this is highly subjective so let's not get too hung up on precise ranking but just treat this as an overall guide. I'll maintain a list in this post so what's posted here will be the prevailing opinion at the time. All subsequent posts in this thread will be suggestions and relevant discussion. This is just a start, of course and will evolve over time.


Magazines:


Photographer's Catalogs or Websites:


Film Credits:


Internet Databases:

[beutelwolf]

Internet databases that are reliable:
Pornstars: iafd, egafd, bgafd
celebs: nudography
actors: aveleyman, notrecinema

Of course, all can contain mistakes - but these tend to correct when mistakes are found.

[beutelwolf]

Parade: very long running mag; many models per mag, usually just a single pic. The names are largely full names & accurate (non-invented), although some models went under multiple names. However, the mag has occasionally mixed up models, e.g. swapped the names of two models in an issue. In the 1970s the mag changed its style completely, and most models only got a single name, which was largely unreliable. (The mid-1970s Parade is a different mag altogether, as is the mag launched in the 1980s.)

Carnival: similar to Parade, again a big content change in the 1970s. Also guilty of model mixups.

Escort (until 1971): also connected to Parade, less error-prone though. The modern Escort, launched in the 1980s, is a different mag.

Men Only: another long-running mag that changed its style several times; its 1960s incarnation I would rate similar to Escort, for naming quality.

Girl illustrated: most models are given full (and accurate) names, though the same caveat about multiply-named models applies here too. When models are given only a single name it means very little though (this pre-dates page-3). Naming errors are quite rare. There is visibly a change in style from volume 5 onwards and that also aversely affected the reliablity of its namings. A visual clue is the amount of text accompanying a pictorial: perversely, a lot of text means it's mostly bogus.

Girls of the World: in the early issues most models are given full names. Many (but not all) of these are made-up, mostly to accommodate the "...of the world" claim of the mag's title, i.e. like its contempories the mag largely draws on models from the UK, France, Germany, Scandinavia, Italy, and then often rebrands them as belonging to remote parts of the world, with an obscure name to match. Later issues would move to mostly give models single (all invented) names; a few were still given full names which were sometimes accurate.

[Name-Hunter]

~subscribed~
Check this post often as I will use it to list my 'resources'.

Internet databases that are reliable:
The Nude EU for modern models where the studios created set covers

Eurobabe Index for modern european models.


Content Sites That Are Reliable

Joanie & John Allums Index Page very reliable and sometimes even amazing!

Hungarian Honeys Disclaimer: not all the models are Hungarian.

Suze Randall A wealth of information

Content Sites That Are UN-Reliable
And the winnah is...Teen Dreams better lately but commonly they just 'pick names out of a hat'

[G-Type]

Also worth to mention (contemporary models mainly)

Indexxx

&

SportyOne
.

[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.

[burpman]

Originally Posted by beutelwolf

Internet databases that are reliable:
Pornstars: iafd, egafd, bgafd
celebs: nudography
actors: aveleyman, notrecinema

Of course, all can contain mistakes - but these tend to correct when mistakes are found.

Don't forget imdb. Also a good source of info for models sometimes.

[icu]

IDs ... please don't forget lanasbigboobs

[Rubinski]

I don't think any of the sources are 100% reliable.
So, where would we set the reliability threshold? 60%? 80%?

I believe we should accept them all.
We should consider all vintage video, magazine, and catalog IDs reliable.
Right or wrong, they are factual.
They are also vintage facts, and shouldn't change on us.

Right or wrong, those facts can be seen by anyone with access to them, and searched for by anyone wanting to find more of the girl they are looking for.
So, I feel we need to accept them all.

It may be untidy to have a bunch of extra AKAs to deal with, but it's just part of the landscape to me.
As long as we can see them, they are verifiable, solid IDs.

As much as we would like to clean the cloud, we can't.

Speaking of clouds, I suppose we should accept all website IDs too.
Websites seem to be the only ID source for many of the newer girls.

Websites are also factual, in a way.
If any website IDs someone (including this forum), it becomes part of the cloud, and it also becomes part of any personal database that finds the info.
So, I think we have to accept website IDs too.

Unfortunately, websites often include mistakes, and unproven IDs, but so do vintage sources.

We can clean mistakes off our model threads, but we can't clean the whole web, much less all the personal databases where the bogus IDs come from.

I think the only way to fight bogus IDs is by communicating the details.
Cleaning our threads just leaves us open to reinvent the wheel when the bogus ID gets introduced again.

I would love to get rid of the Jane Sikes ID that many folks gave to Laurie Noel, but it will never happen.
Same goes for Laurie being called Marsha Malone.
Both those bogus IDs have no actual credits for being Laurie, and both IDs have been credited to other girls, but the connections to Laurie persist.

Nothing anyone can do about it, except communicate the problem, so we don't stumble over it again later.


Reliability theories are only opinions, derived from sketchy data.
I would accept an opinion of sales numbers, before I accepted someone's reliability theory/opinions.

I think reliability theories should only be used as a last resort to pick between multiple suitable choices.

Mayfair is wrong a lot. How much?
We have named many of our model thread using Mayfair IDs.
Mainly because they often gave us a first and last name ID, making them more searchable.

Many of those Mayfair IDs have been proven wrong, and a few thread titles corrected.
Many are still wrong, but we don't know it, or can't prove it.
Even Playboy is wrong or lies at times.

What percentage of lies can a magazine give us, before we consider them unreliable?

The bigger problem is how can we know when there is an exception to the reliability theories?
There's no way to predict the exceptions with any real degree of accuracy.
Even if a magazine is wrong 100% of the time, there is always a chance that one particular ID from them will be right.
That makes denying IDs based on reliability theories an unsound decision.

We should not use reliability theories to prejudice us against IDs that could be right, or against IDs that would otherwise be a suitable and searchable ID.

I hope we will only use reliability theories as a last resort, to use as a tie breaker between otherwise equal IDs.

[buttsie]

Longevity of a site and what names they choose to use do count for something

Sites that choose to gather all the info together in one spot are far more valuable than
1 off sites / magazines in general

No source should ever be dismissed but probably exposed for its short comings so folks
use multiple sources to verify information as being factual or made-up

The old sportyone was full of vague info but it was useful for simply putting a name to a face where no others were readily apparent

Marci
American
Alias: Marci
Birthday:
Hometown: Los Angeles
Nationality: American
Current model status: Inactive

Then Marci Maloney (USA) from babescartel a to z



http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...ighlight=marci



Film Databases trump websites / magazines because they start with the bare bones and then build a picture of a models / pornstars film roles by viewing material over a long period of time.

Egafd is good because they dont list anything that hasnt been proven
They may start with 1 name as the lead title but they list all aliases that are film related

As it is they still have some 6000 unknowns that their not prepared to list
because its pure guess work - no cast lists being the biggest headache


An extreme comparison


I came across a site awhile back where every model had the middle name Sarah
Turned out every one of their names was completely bogus

Just pics uploaded and named anything they chose

Another fly by night set-up to earn advertising revenue with no effort






Excaliburfilms 1997-2015 have been around for eons and for mine are equal to iafd for Ids
Their bios seem to turn up on plenty of other cheap imitation sites


Film Databases,Vidcaps & Resource sites
http://www.vintage-erotica-forum.com...3&postcount=50