Register on the forum now to remove ALL ads + popups + get access to tons of hidden content for members only!
vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum vintage erotica forum
vintage erotica forum

Go Back   Vintage Erotica Forums > Classic Models > Softcore Models > Softcore Models Discussion

Follow Vintage Erotica Forum on Twitter
Best Porn Sites Meet Our Girls Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices
Softcore Models Discussion For all chat and discussions on Vintage Models


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-13-2013, 05:02 PM   #21
cqnew1648
Senior Member
 
cqnew1648's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 151
Thanks: 1,893
Thanked 7,646 Times in 160 Posts
cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+
Default What’s best about Karen Price?

I can’t help but agree with Eteocles: what’s most captivating about Karen is her smile. How could you not fall in love with her, whether she’s with her pet squirrel, looking out a window, performing acrobatic stunts, or making small talk at a car show or radio station?








I especially love her photo in the gym. She’s joyful, graceful, and happily giving us a hint of what’s to come—as erotic (and endearing) an opening photo as you’ll ever see in PB.



And now we have a follow-up photo from the gym. Karen's wearing the same wonderful smile, but now she's giving us a preview of what's to come!



What’s amazing to me (and I know I may just be speaking for myself here, but I think not) is that I’m drawn to her face even when Karen is cavorting on the beach or the patio.

[

No woman has ever been blessed with a figure more splendid that Karen’s, but my gaze always turns first and foremost in these photos to the beauty of her face; and what thrills me more than anything else is to see Karen enjoying herself. I read an article recently that speaks to the fact that most regular guys don’t objectify or dehumanize the beautiful women they fantasize about. We see them as very human--out of our league, of course, but as people we do care about, admire, and wish well. That’s certainly the way I feel about Karen, and indeed about every woman whose talent and beauty moves me.

Last edited by cqnew1648; 06-19-2017 at 09:08 PM.. Reason: Added two newly released photos & a comment
cqnew1648 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2013, 06:17 PM   #22
cqnew1648
Senior Member
 
cqnew1648's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 151
Thanks: 1,893
Thanked 7,646 Times in 160 Posts
cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+
Default Congratulations to Karen for the top-rated thread on VEF

It’s wonderful to see that Karen Price is now the top-rated model on VEF’s SC thread. [Click on Softcore Models and sort the threads by “Thread Rating” to see her top-billing.] It’s a great way to celebrate the thirty-second anniversary of Karen’s appearance on newsstands. I know that Karen has left her PB years far behind, but I hope she’ll be happy to know someday how popular she is with PB’s most fervent and sophisticated fans, and take pride in it, as she should. It’s an extraordinary accomplishment to be the fairest of the fair, a testament to her athleticism, hard work, and presence before the camera. Thanks again to Karen for sharing her beauty with us.

VEF fans are stingy when it comes to praise for SC models: only 42 of over 5,738 threads currently receive a “five”—less than 1 percent. But VEF fans haven’t been sparing in their praise of Karen or of other PB models, who occupy most of the top-10 spots. They include Carol Imhof, Kimberly McArthur, Janet Lupo, Bettie Page, Candy Loving, Cynthia Myers, and Donna Edmondson.

Thanks to everyone who rated Karen’s thread a “five.”
cqnew1648 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2014, 09:43 PM   #23
cqnew1648
Senior Member
 
cqnew1648's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 151
Thanks: 1,893
Thanked 7,646 Times in 160 Posts
cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+
Default First Thoughts about Karen Price in Dear PMs

Like all of Karen’s fans, I’m delighted that she signed up in the fall of 1981 for a two-year stint as a regular contributor to PB’s new monthly feature, Dear PMs. It’s a treat to hear her thoughts and to have so many more pictures of her (albeit small ones). PB clearly knew how special Karen is and what great pictures they still had in the vault. That’s why, I'm sure, they featured her in the first ever Dear PM column and invited her to be a regular. PB ran the column initially with only 7 PMs, and Karen was the only one to appear in every column during the first six months. And PB wasn’t shy about counting on Karen to sell the column and the magazine. In the first issue in which the column ran (October 1981), Karen appeared in the most erotic photo ever to appear in the column (they toned it down after that!), and she appeared in that month’s subscription ad as well.





Karen also appeared in the most playful and seductive picture in the column’s history in February, 1982.





PB’s staff clearly knew Karen was the darling of PB fans: as a friend on VEF put it in a private message, “she has the face of an angel and the body of a fertility goddess!” The Art Department realized that Karen’s shoot by the fireplace was as scorching hot as her brass bed shoot and knew it would be a shame to waste it. And to top it off, Ken Marcus won the Annual Prize in 1981 for the Best Playmate Pictorial for his shoot with Karen.





PB hadn’t yet figured out that we’d pay handsomely for annual review specials to see more of Karen’s photos, but they realized she could “move product.” She could to this day, if they ever figure out a way to profit from what’s in the vault. Karen was so popular that she appeared 17 times during the two years she participated in the column.

We can take heart, then, that the business office, the editorial staff, and the Art Department knew, as we do, who should have been POY. Too bad only one man’s vote counted—and a tainted vote at that. But I know we should be grateful to Hef nonetheless—no Hef, no PB, no Karen!

Last edited by cqnew1648; 09-05-2014 at 02:34 AM..
cqnew1648 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2014, 09:46 PM   #24
cqnew1648
Senior Member
 
cqnew1648's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 151
Thanks: 1,893
Thanked 7,646 Times in 160 Posts
cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+
Default Second thoughts about Karen Price in Dear PMs

Still, it’s puzzling that Karen signed up to do the Dear PMs feature. We’ve spoken on our thread and in private messages about Karen’s mixed feelings about her experiences as a PM and her regrets about posing—feelings she made clear in the spring of 1981 in her early interviews with Canadian papers. Her decision to participate in Dear PMs is all the more surprising given her reservations about being in the spotlight and her discomfort at being treated thoughtlessly by some people as a sex object. Dear PM asked its contributors to be more open and public about their lives and feelings than any other PMs had been asked to do in the past. By the spring of 1981, Karen was so shell-shocked that she moved back in with her mother. But by the fall, she was willing to be quite specific about where we could meet a woman like her, even to the point of naming the most likely time and place, and she made no bones about loving sex, as long as it was with a man she loves and who respects her, cares about her, and treats her as an equal.

For some reason, therefore, Karen decided by the fall of 1981 to embrace the PM experience, even if she was still ill at ease at some of the car shows (maybe she was just bored!). Karen must have felt better about being a PM by the fall of 1981, or she must have decided to make the most of her new-found fame, when she signed on to participate in the Dear PM series. PB opened doors for her, which must have been exciting, given her ambitions. She was featured in “World of Playboy” twice, and we learned from that feature (and from the PM review and her movie credits) that she auditioned successfully for small film roles, that her acrobatic act was going strong, and that she had fun on her Alaskan adventure for PB, which gave her more to do than a car show and allowed her to meet fans in a more natural, co-ed setting. She probably felt more at ease as a PM in the company of both women and men. And she may have learned to cope with the downside of being a PM. I hope so for Karen’s sake. And I hope they paid her well for her Dear PM thoughts.

But on the downside, when we think about Karen feelings during her time with PB, her stint with Dear PMs probably means that she would have accepted the title of POY if it had been offered to her. Indeed, her willingness to participate in Dear PMs probably means that she hoped to win, which means that she was probably disappointed to lose to Hef’s girlfriend—not a great way to lose after having done so much for PB and having proven her worth to the program. She was PB’s most intelligent, articulate, and beautiful voice. And why didn’t they give the Annual Award for Best Playmate Pictorial to Ken and Karen, rather than to Ken alone? After all, he didn’t win the award for the centerfold, which by Karen’s own admission was taken before she learned how to pose. Ken’s centerfold doesn’t capture Karen’s warmth or beauty to the degree that say, Marilyn Lange’s centerfold does. Ken Marcus is a peerless photographer, but he won the prize because Karen was adorable with her squirrel—because she was captivating in the gym—and because she set the set on fire in the bedroom, once she was at ease before the camera. How he could concentrate long enough to snap the shutter is beyond me!





In light of these thoughts, I’ve thought a bit more about Karen’s response when a PB staffer asked her in the January 1982 Annual Review about her chances of becoming POY. She said “The competition is too good this year. Beside, I’ve had a lot of fun just being Miss January.” It could be, as Eteocles suggests, that she answered as she did because she had given up hope of becoming POY. But it’s quite possible she hadn’t. It was a tough question to ask Karen in such a public forum, and her response was understandably modest and considerate of the feelings of the other PMs. She couldn’t possibly have said that she hoped to win or expected to win without looking foolish or arrogant or worse, and she kindly pointed to the merits of the other PMs and deflected attention from herself. What’s most important, I think, is that the staff member asked her that question—a question that wasn’t asked of any other PM in any other annual review in that era. It suggests to me that the interviewer thought Karen had an excellent chance to win—it would have been a cruel question otherwise. And the interviewer probably asked it because he (it’s a guy question!) hoped Karen would win. That’s the only reason I can think of why he would have asked her a question that he shouldn’t have out of consideration for Karen and the other PMs. So again, it seems to me that Karen was the odds-on favorite to be POY, if the staff and the fans had anything to do with it. But of course, we didn’t have anything to do with it. It was one man’s decision. So I feel all the more for Karen. She was robbed—and it must have hurt, even if she had had her fill by then of being a PM.

Karen will probably never chat with us about her experiences as a PM or about her feelings from so many years ago. It could be fun, but then again, it might be depressing for her and for us. I’m glad that Patti Farinelli spoke with her fans and shared her thoughts on a range of subjects. It was fun. But I was horrified to learn that PB dubbed her video. I thought that we were listening to Patti, but in fact we were listening to none other than Shannon Tweed (there’s a very troubling theme developing here!). The truth about how Karen was treated and about why she lost to “that other woman” might be painful for her and for us. But then again, Karen might be heartened to know that she has so many genuine fans, old and new, after all these years. She’s only a few weeks away from a million views on VEF!

Last edited by cqnew1648; 06-28-2014 at 04:48 PM.. Reason: Fixed broken IV link
cqnew1648 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2014, 07:29 AM   #25
kwaidan
Member
 
kwaidan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 22
Thanks: 2,832
Thanked 379 Times in 22 Posts
kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+
Default Karens Dear PM answers....

In context to the above discussions, part of me wonders if the entire Dear PM thing was a sham. Pictures of the PM's were used, with text that was made up to further push the 'sexual identity" that comes with being a Playmate. Make any sense?
So, Karen, being a PM, and despite her strong dislike for the entire experience, was at PB's mercy as far as using her pictures for anything they wanted....at one time I thought I read that PM's were under some kind of contract....so maybe her pics were under 'contract' to be used with whatever the mag wanted to use them for....hence a fake text along with it.
I'd like to think she and the other PM's said those "hot" statements....but the smart and cynical part of me thinks they did not....hell...a lot of me thinks that the "quotes' the accompany the pictorials are just as 'fake' as well....
Just my two cents.
kwaidan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to kwaidan For This Useful Post:
Old 02-04-2014, 11:26 PM   #26
spazarino
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 391
Thanks: 118
Thanked 2,839 Times in 358 Posts
spazarino 10000+spazarino 10000+spazarino 10000+spazarino 10000+spazarino 10000+spazarino 10000+spazarino 10000+spazarino 10000+spazarino 10000+spazarino 10000+spazarino 10000+
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwaidan View Post
at one time I thought I read that PM's were under some kind of contract....so maybe her pics were under 'contract' to be used with whatever the mag wanted to use them for....hence a fake text along with it.
I'd like to think she and the other PM's said those "hot" statements....but the smart and cynical part of me thinks they did not....hell...a lot of me thinks that the "quotes' the accompany the pictorials are just as 'fake' as well....
Just my two cents.
I believe the contract is for 2 years (with a straight buyout on the pics themselves....hence why PB still puts shots from 25 years ago in some mags)
spazarino is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to spazarino For This Useful Post:
Old 02-08-2014, 02:43 AM   #27
cqnew1648
Senior Member
 
cqnew1648's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 151
Thanks: 1,893
Thanked 7,646 Times in 160 Posts
cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+
Default Did Karen and the other PMs featured in Dear PMs write their own answers?

Kwaidan raises a great question: did the PMs featured in the Dear PMs column answer the questions that PB posed, or did PB staffers answer the questions? I hope that we’ll be able to chat with a Dear PMs correspondent some day and learn first-hand how they were recruited and how the column worked. But I’m almost certain they answered the questions themselves. The first reason I think so is that PB featured very few PMs in the column, and it featured a handful of those a dozen times or more. As Alan DeMoss noted in his VEF post on the column, a handful of PMs gave the bulk of the responses (see below, with the PMs who appeared in the first six columns enumerated). Why feature Lorraine Michaels 40 times, and Barbara Edwards and Donna Edmondson only 5 times each? If PB was making up answers, why not feature their POYs? Why go to the trouble to make up copy for Lorraine so many times? And PB went back to 1975 to enlist Azizi Johari. Why not make up stuff for Patti McGuire or Debra Fondren if you were going back that far? Both kept up strong relationships with PB and with Hef, so they probably would have participated if asked. The numbers don’t add up to a fraud.

And then there is the content. I’m sure someone with a gift for this sort of thing could run a program to figure out if a single author wrote all of Lorraine Michaels’ columns, and a different author all of Cathy Larmouth’s, etc. That would be a better statistical test. But what strikes me most, as a fan of Karen, is that we do hear her voice in her responses, just as we did in the copy in the January 1981 issue. Was she serious about her ambition to teach acrobatics in her own school? Yes. Was she serious about staying fit and healthy? In Australian PB, she said "I don't drink, smoke, or take drugs. I never have and I never will. Maybe I'm just a health nut, but I just don't believe in putting certain substances into my system." Was she serious about what she looked for in guys? She was clear that she liked “active” guys,” a guy who is “healthy and takes care of himself,” and who’d seek her out in some athletic setting. Biking, gymnastics, acrobatics were her thing—not drinking. Not a surprise that she ended up happily married to an athletic, active, adventurous guy who shared her ambition to be an acrobat and teach acrobats—a kindred spirit. Her answer to the question differed from those of the other PMs, and it was clearly in her own voice. She was speaking for herself. And given that PB values its professional relationships with its PMs, I think it would have been unthinkable—and bad for business—to put fake words in their mouths and to put them in the feature without their consent. The fact that Karen and a few others appeared so many times suggests that PB did have their consent.

And finally, I don’t think it’s a surprise that PMs would give frank answers to questions about sex, romance, and relationships. They are folks—god bless them—who were “out there” in a wonderful way and who were probably to a person women who enjoyed sex and being sexual beings. Why else pose for PB? It wouldn’t be a surprise if they embraced the non-sexist aspects of the PB philosophy, which at its best tried to promote healthier attitudes toward sex and greater knowledge about sex in a nation that was way behind on both fronts—and still is.

40 - Lorraine Michaels [I, II, IV, V, VI]
28 - Cathy Larmouth [III, IV, V, VI]
25 - Cher Butler
22 - Tracy Vaccaro
20 - Susie Scott
18 - Sherry Arnett, Marcie Hanson [I, II, III, IV, VI]
17 - Azizi Johari, Karen Price [I, II, III, IV, V, VI], Julie Peterson, Liz Stewart
16 - Lynne Austin, Laurie Carr
14 - Marlene Janssen
12 - Cathy St George
11 - Carol Ficatier, Rebecca Ferratti, Lesa Pedriana
10 - Luann Lee, Venice Kong
9 - Roberta Vasquez, Brandi Brandt
8 - Lisa Welch [I, II, III, V], Michelle Drake
7 - Jeana Tomasino [I, II, III. IV, V], Kathy Shower, Kym Paige
6 - Denise Mcconnell, Rebecca Armstrong, India Allen, Anna Clark, Missy Cleveland, Anne-Marie Fox, Marianne Gravatte, Debi Johnson, Vicki Mccarty [I, II, III, IV, V], Linda Rhys-Vaughn, Lynda Wiesmeier
5 - Barbara Edwards, Donna Edmondson, Marina Baker
4 - Teri Weigel, Kim Mccarthur, Kym Malin, Ava Fabian
3 - Victoria Cooke (VI), Eloise Broady, Terri Doss, Kim Morris, Patty Duffek, Alana Soares, Laura Richmond
2 - Pia Reyes, Christine Richters, Julie McCullough, Penny Baker, Kari Kennell, Patty Farinelli, Veronica Gamba
1 - Shannon Tweed (VI)


P.S.: The Roman numerals indicate which PMs appeared in the first six Dear PM columns. Karen was the only PM to appear in all six.

Last edited by cqnew1648; 05-07-2014 at 04:21 AM..
cqnew1648 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2014, 02:55 AM   #28
kwaidan
Member
 
kwaidan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 22
Thanks: 2,832
Thanked 379 Times in 22 Posts
kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+kwaidan 1000+
Default

Well put cqnew1648.

I just have a cynical nature sometimes as I work in the media, and know how things are twisted and 'faked'.

I think what was put out there in past PB issues was real....and why wouldn't they talk about sex....they obviously had "it" going on. I agree with your points...as I said, I just get doubtful from time to time.

:-)
kwaidan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to kwaidan For This Useful Post:
Old 02-09-2014, 03:41 PM   #29
cqnew1648
Senior Member
 
cqnew1648's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 151
Thanks: 1,893
Thanked 7,646 Times in 160 Posts
cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+
Default Thanks for your note

Thanks, Kwaidan, for your note. And you’re right to be skeptical. We won’t really know the truth about the Dear PM column until a former Dear PM speaks with us. And your cynicism about PB is justified. As I noted before on our thread, I was shocked when Patti Farinelli told us her voice was dubbed on her PB video. She was not pleased.

There was also the pernicious slide at PB in those years away from natural beauty. The best list I’ve read discovered only one augmented PM before 1974, but after that the floodgates opened. Three of the POYs from the PMs of 1980 through 1985 were non-naturals, and sadder still, the pressure was so intense from the non-naturals that two of the naturals who won during those years had implants after they won. Natural beauty took a beating. I don’t wish to disparage anyone, male or female, who choses cosmetic surgery or dyes their hair or whatever to feel better or express themselves. But PB for most of us fans is supposed to be about the natural beauty of the friendly, outgoing girl-next-door. It’s supposed to be the real Miss America pageant. It wasn’t any more. We’re right to question everything about PB in those years and to be angry about Hef’s decision to tarnish the POY competition in favor of non-naturals and his love interests.

All this brings to mind Lily Tomlin’s great line: “No matter how cynical I get, I just can’t keep up.”

So I hope we keep questioning, as we try to winnow the admirable from the not-so-admirable. Even if Dear PMs was on the up and up, a lot wasn’t. And true fans always question, whether it's PB, baseball, or the judging at the Olympics. It shows we care. Not a surprise that millions of guys still have heartfelt opinions about who should have been POY in a given year, but no one argues about who should have won at the pageant in Atlantic City. We’re fans. We care!

Last edited by cqnew1648; 09-17-2016 at 03:24 AM..
cqnew1648 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to cqnew1648 For This Useful Post:
Old 03-02-2014, 03:56 AM   #30
cqnew1648
Senior Member
 
cqnew1648's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 151
Thanks: 1,893
Thanked 7,646 Times in 160 Posts
cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+cqnew1648 25000+
Default Thread ratings for Softcore Models—someone has tried to drop them radically

I check the “thread rating” for Softcore Models fairly regularly, because I’ve always been interested in the opinions of our fellow VEF members. Karen is still number one, but it looks like a group of people got together last week to drop the ranking of virtually every Softcore model on VEF. Their work was so thorough that only six models are still rated as “Fives” out of 5806—a dramatic drop from 42 the previous week (which struck me as low to begin with!). What’s most shocking is that they sent some of the most beautiful women ever to appear in PB—all of whom were in the top twenty for months—out of the top 100, including Cynthia Myers, Marilyn Lange, et al. I suspect that the only reason that Karen, Candy Loving, and Kimberly MacArthur survived as fives is because so many of us took the time to rate them as fives—not because the people involved in this effort meant to spare them. It seems that their goal was to leave no one with a rating of five. They didn’t hit the hardcore forums, just the softcore forum. I have no idea what their motives were, or if they targeted particular models for particular reasons. I wonder if anyone might know.

Once again, it’s a reason for admirers of the great PMs to register their admiration by rating their threads a “five,” because otherwise, younger members new to VEF won’t have the benefit of the thoughts of the majority of VEF members—just the thoughts of this particular group, which does not, it appears, share our appreciation of the great PMs of the classic era.
cqnew1648 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to cqnew1648 For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:49 PM.






vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.1 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.