Ready for some more HC vintage?

[vidguy69]

Dug through some more of my stash for another issue of vintage hardcore from the past. And, as you should know by now, additions and comments are always welcomed. As always, I apologize in advance for any reposts that may appear.

*****WATERMARKED PHOTO REMOVED*****

[vidguy69]

Originally Posted by vidguy69

Dug through some more of my stash for another issue of vintage hardcore from the past. And, as you should know by now, additions and comments are always welcomed. As always, I apologize in advance for any reposts that may appear.

*****WATERMARKED PHOTO REMOVED*****

Sorry about the watermarked pic, hadn't noticed that. Now, I'll have to go back and check my original copy to see where it is in the pic.

[jstark]

Brilliant! Love it!

On a side-note, I don't recall ever seeing a 'vintage' cumshot. Maybe the cameras just weren't fast enough or maybe the priorities were different back then, but I'd certainly like to see one (or more)!

[madahab]

Originally Posted by jstark

Brilliant! Love it!

On a side-note, I don't recall ever seeing a 'vintage' cumshot. Maybe the cameras just weren't fast enough or maybe the priorities were different back then, but I'd certainly like to see one (or more)!

it probably has something to do with not looking like much in black-and-white, hi contrast, or old films. on a related subject, that vint08.jpg is the oldest shaved pussy i've ever seen...

[vidguy69]

I appreciate the nice comments. On the vintage theme, and the cumshot thought---I may have a few I can find that will satisfy that request. If I can find some, I'll add them to this thread to keep it in the newer part of the forum. No gurarntees, though.

However, another theory I have is that so many of those very VERY old vintage pics were definitely static-posed photos. You can see the backgrounds are likely those used in some of the everyday studio settings, the furniture and d****ries as backdrops. My thoughts are, the photographer and the models took quite a lot of time setting up the poses. And, of course lighting would also be a major consideration, since only the barest of necessities existed back in the Victorian 1800's and early 1900's. So, long exposures would have been the order of the day--or at least very slow shutter-speeds, to capture the scene correctly. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been for a man to maintain an erection while "Flash-Powder" exploded in the studio, filling it with smoke and the smell of the burned powder itself. Another thought is, that so many of the older--but not quite ancient--pictures have been copied so many times, under less than perfect conditions, they've lost a lot of their detail through the normal generational loss that comes from re-copying and re-copying.

As for contemporary standards of the times, that's likely another reason we don't see a lot of cum-shots, facials, pullout "money-shots", etc. They just weren't part of the culture back in those early times. Women were coveted as wives and child-bearers. They clothed themselves from head-to-toe and were almost never seen in daring outfits in public. Probably a lot of the women who posed for those "racy" photos were prostitutes who did it for the money. They weren't the wild women we're so lucky to have today.

[FntsySharer]

love vintage - esp the natural tits - check out retroraunch dot com