[CyberPlainsDrifter]

The original Tina Small pics were of the real thing in the early 70s.  Apparently b/c she was very shy, she only agreed to do some artsy, blurred type photos of which there were only a few.  She retired from the scene quickly b/c it made her uncomfortable.  10-15 yrs later when the giant latex prosthesis boobs became available, someone decided to capitalize on those earlier spectacular photos & used a model of similar looks to do "new" Tina Small photos.  These were in no way connected to the original Tina Small except in name.  Most younger breast enthusiasts only know of these & assume the older photos were more of the same.  I remember seein' the original photos which were published & republished & republished b/c they were so unique.  Fake boobs that size simply weren't possible nor could photos be retouched to make 'em look real.  Back then, photos really were good evidence, unlike today, nor were implants of any large size possible.

So yeah, the original Tina Small was the real thing.  Anything since were the good ole latex glue/strap on boobs.

[doggo]

To help Renegade UK with his fading memory, just a couple of points:

Quote:
"Tina" ... made her first appearance in the Sport in 1987.

That is quite possible, as the Sunday Sport was first published in September 1986.

However, John Xavier's pictures of the "latex" Tina Small were published during 1983. He marketed these under his "Photoprints" company name, and they also appeared in glossy magazines long before Sport first appeared.

Books and videos began appearing around this time: the first book, Every Inch A Lady, consisting of soft focus pictures of the "original Tina". Xavier's Photoprints had been publishing these pictures from around 1981. He was based in Hampshire, on the South coast, and the early exterior photographs were taken in the area.

The later autobiography, Big Girls Don't Cry, also included photographs taken at the same time as the videos, in which the breasts were quite clearly artificial.

The facial appearance of the model is not exactly consistent over the years. Some of the pictures, including some of the early Polaroids, show a girl who is apparently not shy at all, in almost raunchy poses, straddling a chair. Generally, though, the pictures are heavily diffused and dreamy in mood. It has been said that this was to give Tina some anonymity, but Xavier's photographs of other models at that time were in the same murky style.

The original Tina's breasts were almost certainly not latex. The later Tina's certainly were. Given the cost of prostheses, particularly in the early days, long before the flood of Sport models of the late 1980s, there is no way in the world that Xavier would have shelled out the cash for two entirely different pairs of the things.

[dyon]

Divorced!!??.... I've read she never married..

[doggo]

 

Quote:
I've read she never married...

And went to live in a monastery in Tibet? That must have been quite an eye-opener for the monks. Didn't she just fade away, like her photographer who, from the look of him, was probably off with the fairies most of the time.

[Lesbian Bob]

Quote:
"Tina" was actually quite young (only 18 or 19) and made her first appearance in the Sport in 1987...so she would only be in her late 30s now (36 or 37)

You're probably thinking of one of the many latex models who followed Tina, such as Zena Fulsom or Vicki Little because Tina Small first appeared in magazines around 1976-1977 and was shown in Fling magazine in 1978, where she was described as being 18.  Also her biography, Big Girls Don't Cry, has some childhood photos of her, including one when she was in her early teens and already suffering from breast hypertrophy.  She had her breasts lifted and her nose altered around 1980 and soon appeared in magazines like International with her new look.

Tina was never latex, a point I've made repeatedly here, in supermarkets, and in church, because her breasts never had the flaws of the latex kind, which always show roughness around the edges where they're blended into the skin and which wrinkle like a smooth foam pool toy when it's bent.  All the latex models came after Tina, so why would they have those flaws while the prototype did not?

[pedonbio]

Gather round, Lesbian Bob, and Hoogleboogle, and especially Doggo (whose work I worship), and all who sail in this thread; I sense a theological disputation coming on.

First, I'm the evil empiracist who said she was probably closing in on sixty.

Second, I don't believe anything without at least a whimper of evidence. Just because I think I think, doesn't mean I think I am!

So. About whom are we speaking? I am attaching a small scan of the person I speak of when I utter the name "Tina Small". I will try to find clearer scans, but as someone upthread noted, this particular model specialized in soft focus.

Next, a plain-text version of Big Girls Don't Cry is alleged to be [a href="http://www.(prohibited V).com/picthumbs/s/small/bgdc.txt"]here.[/a] (Now I'll see if my HTML skills have grown as lame as those wonderful throbbing hard-ons I got when I was sixteen!)

Okay. The woman in the photo was "modelling" around 1974-75, when I was working in the --er-- ancillary support services to the porno-industrial complex in Chatsworth, California. She was reputed, of course, to be working in England. The latex prostheses were available, and had been since the mid-1960s. And my first (and lasting) impression was that she was 1) using latex prostheses and 2) was a LOT older than 18; more likely 30 at that time. That was 30 years ago. Ergo, closing in on 60.

Okay, somebody prove me wrong, or at least tell us that the picture is not the "Tina Small" you were speaking of.

[Mammeister]

 

Quote:
The original Tina Small pics were of the real thing in the early 70s. Apparently b/c she was very shy, she only agreed to do some artsy, blurred type photos of which there were only a few. She retired from the scene quickly b/c it made her uncomfortable. 10-15 yrs later when the giant latex prosthesis boobs became available, someone decided to capitalize on those earlier spectacular photos & used a model of similar looks to do "new" Tina Small photos. These were in no way connected to the original Tina Small except in name. Most younger breast enthusiasts only know of these & assume the older photos were more of the same. I remember seein' the original photos which were published & republished & republished b/c they were so unique. Fake boobs that size simply weren't possible nor could photos be retouched to make 'em look real. Back then, photos really were good evidence, unlike today, nor were implants of any large size possible.

So yeah, the original Tina Small was the real thing. Anything since were the good ole latex glue/strap on boobs.

--------------------
CyberPlainsDrifter
Ridin' the cyberplains...
 

So you were fooled once but not again?

If wishes were horses, you'd be Mr. Ed.

You will have to force yourself face the fact that not even the original Tina Small was real. It was a latex hoax from the very beginning.

BTW, Mr. Ed really couldn't talk either.

[Mammeister]

 

Quote:
  am so glad to see another thread dedicated to this woman. She just doesn't get enough attention/threads around here.


Anyway, I am actually a friend-of-a-friend of Tina Small. Her breasts, which are 100% natural, were surgically reduced in the late 80s.

She divorced her husband soon after that.  

No Al, you have her confused with the kissing bandit and somebody else that had huge breast implants.

I know you wouldn't intentionally tell a lie.

 

[doggo]

 

Quote:
I am attaching a small scan of the person I speak of when I utter the name "Tina Small". I will try to find clearer scans, but as someone upthread noted, this particular model specialized in soft focus.

Ummm. Is it just me, or...?

Without seeing the picture it's hard to tell, but I think I know which one you're talking about. I'll attach one myself.

Is 'A' your girl, PB? Just a guess. Photoprints published a handful of pictures in this setting in 1981, along with a mixed batch of Polaroids.

At 'B' is the Tina of early 1983, soft focus, courtesy of John Xavier.

At 'C', a few months later, from the same source but brutally sharp, Tina with highly detailed nipples.

The models may or may not have been the same in all three pictures but the breasts certainly aren't. In 'A' they're big but nothing to write home about. In 'B' they're down to here. In 'C' they're nicely made but undoubtedly fake. The breasts in 'B' are not the same as the ones in 'C'. That's all I'm saying. John Xavier wasn't made of money.

Mammeister: you're late, mate. We've been arguing about this for days. You haven't been ill or anything? Nothing trivial, I trust?  

[Lesbian Bob]

Quote:
 Is 'A' your girl, PB? Just a guess. Photoprints published a handful of pictures in this setting in 1981, along with a mixed batch of Polaroids.

At 'B' is the Tina of early 1983, soft focus, courtesy of John Xavier.

At 'C', a few months later, from the same source but brutally sharp, Tina with highly detailed nipples.

The models may or may not have been the same in all three pictures but the breasts certainly aren't. In 'A' they're big but nothing to write home about. In 'B' they're down to here. In 'C' they're nicely made but undoubtedly fake. The breasts in 'B' are not the same as the ones in 'C'. That's all I'm saying. John Xavier wasn't made of money.

The earliest publication date I saw for 'A' was 1976 or 1977.  'B' appeared in Fling probably in 1980-81, while 'C' was shown around 1983.

The best proof that 'A' and 'C' were the same woman would be film or video tape of Tina looking like 'A' and moving her eyes because the woman in 'C' had the unique ability to move each eye individually, Harry Ritz style.

[sheber]

Quote:

Quote:
"Tina" was actually quite young (only 18 or 19) and made her first appearance in the Sport in 1987...so she would only be in her late 30s now (36 or 37)

You're probably thinking of one of the many latex models who followed Tina, such as Zena Fulsom or Vicki Little because Tina Small first appeared in magazines around 1976-1977 and was shown in Fling magazine in 1978, where she was described as being 18.  Also her biography, Big Girls Don't Cry, has some childhood photos of her, including one when she was in her early teens and already suffering from breast hypertrophy.  She had her breasts lifted and her nose altered around 1980 and soon appeared in magazines like International with her new look.

Tina was never latex, a point I've made repeatedly here, in supermarkets, and in church, because her breasts never had the flaws of the latex kind, which always show roughness around the edges where they're blended into the skin and which wrinkle like a smooth foam pool toy when it's bent.  All the latex models came after Tina, so why would they have those flaws while the prototype did not?

Bob, Bob, Bob.....



sheb "Wanna talk real estate?" er

[doggo]

 

Quote:
The best proof that 'A' and 'C' were the same woman would be film or video tape of Tina looking like 'A' and moving her eyes because the woman in 'C' had the unique ability to move each eye individually, Harry Ritz style.

Yeah, I guess that would be pretty conclusive, when you come to think of it. I've now got an image of a few thousand guys sitting at their keyboards trying to make their eyes rotate in different directions.

Can we stop now, Bob? It's starting to hurt.

[RenegadeUK]

...Remember I actually met the Sport's "Tina Small" in person...albeit very briefly...so I know exactly which woman I am thinking of...

I think it is pretty obvious from the montage above that the "Tina" from the 70s was not related to the Tina of the 80s...The 70s Tina was a hard faced, exhibitionist dog in her late thirties by comparison.

One thing to be very careful of also, is that in the months following the Sport's unveiling of their Tina....many people and the rest of the British tabloid press were airing suspicions about the validity of her breasts. The Sport undertook a false provenence exercise (into which they pumped a lot of money and photographic expertise) using various wigs and hired costumes. They produced several years worth of false pictures and a biography to try and "prove" that their Tina had been around a long time AND with the humungous breasts....some of those false photos were deliberately credited with being produced in the 70s...and included so called childhood photos and teen photos...all "distressed" and aged to make them look genuine...

Latex rubber prosthetics had been available in the film industry way before Xavier produced his earlier Tina Small photos....and bearing in mind the money he would make from such photos, it would not have been an unreasonable investment...and anyway...all it would have taken was a few pints down the neck of some special effects techy from Elstree or Pinewood Film Studios and he could probably have wangled them for free...especially with the offer of a ringside seat during the photo shoot...

As for wrinkling around the joins between latex and skin...have you folks never visited a top class photographer's studio?...long before computer photoshopping morphs, manual airbrushing of nude photos was a well practiced art in the UK since the 1950s.....(damn, I grew up in my teens thinking that women had nothing between their legs except a smooth, bald, featureless mound)...and the majority of "Tina's" pictures were deliberatly shot in soft focus to assist the hide....many of them with scarves, shadows and hair deliberately placed to further help disguise the joins...

It was a very cynical and deliberate hoax by all concerned from start to finish...and the fruits of their efforts are here for all to see...20 years on people are still being fooled by it.

Having said all of that....the picture A in the montage above may well be a genuine large breasted "Tina"....I have to admit I have never seen that picture or that lady before...But it only adds to the continuing confusion...BUt I can confirm with my hand on my heart that 90% of the published pictures that folks accept as being "Tina Small" were most definitely faked for our entertainment...and that is not heresay or "a friend of a friend told me"...I was there and I KNOW the truth

[doggo]

Two quickie questions:

1.  Of my A, B, C montage, which was the Tina you met?

2.  In your opinion, did John Xavier exist? (He certainly did in his.)  

[RenegadeUK]

The Tina I met at the Sport's offices was #C.....not sure about B being the same girl, the photo is too indistinct....I have never seen A before in my life

As to the existance of John Xavier...not sure...I HAVE heard the name before...but I did not hear the name until the mid 1990s....long after the "Tina" epidode and I had left London and my close associations with the glamour industry behind( I was an unmarried RAF Squadron Leader, with a flash sports car, a large salary to burn and a huge love of the many large breasted London models that frequented the La Valbonne club in those heady days)...In recent days I have tried searching for Xavier in various search engines and come up blank so far???