Vintage/Retro big tits

File: 33.jpg (113KB, 500x702px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 500x702px

>>16950378

File: tumblr_no8uytvqN91u3lrczo1_1280.jpg (162KB, 935x702px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 935x702px

>>16950381

File: 46857ca9867ede9b1472895079.jpg (372KB, 600x922px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 600x922px

>>16950391

File: 37457ca986831c791472895080.jpg (328KB, 600x907px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 600x907px

>>16950392

File: 23357ca98687baa81472895080.jpg (359KB, 600x842px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 600x842px

>>16950394

File: 39857ca99c01b3191472895424.jpg (276KB, 600x768px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 600x768px

>>16950394

File: 34357ca99c0865bb1472895424.jpg (188KB, 600x821px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 600x821px

>>16950399

File: 42957ca9a74e76db1472895604.jpg (401KB, 1412x600px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 1412x600px

>>16950401

File: 57057ca99c0b0bcb1472895424.jpg (293KB, 600x912px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 600x912px

>>16950402

File: 91457ca99c0537191472895424.jpg (410KB, 600x827px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 600x827px

>>16950403

>>16950378
That poor girl.

>>16950378
That's an actual disability though, not just "big tits". I mean, that's an abnormal growth issue

>>16950683
Neanderthals are not extinct!

>>16950696
Look mommy, no hands!

File: 14.jpg (84KB, 523x800px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 523x800px

>>16950381
Jesus christ sauce please

File: danniashe_.jpg (303KB, 843x1280px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 843x1280px

>>16950777

>>16950777

I think it's Roberta Pedon... or something like that.

>>16950777
>>16950786
Danni Ash. Jesus fucking christ.

>>16950853
No

>>16950378

>>16950899
You're a fucking idiot.

16950693 Vanessa del Rio

>>16952138
>You're a fucking idiot.

>You're

>>16950399
Why did they call her 'Chesty'?

>>16950756
i lost it, thanks

>>16952177
well, for obvious reasons

>>16950381
thats a shitty shoop

>>16952156
... ?

you're is a contraction of the words "you are".

it was correctly used.

>>16952156

You must have failed english homeboy.

>>16950853
Thx m8

>>16950899
Lol you are literally retarded

File: zena-fulsom-84.jpg (76KB, 588x600px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 588x600px

>>16952496

File: zena-fulsom-170.jpg (140KB, 800x565px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 800x565px

>>16952500

>>16952496
>>16952500
>>16952504
Aren't those just prosthetic?

Thanks, OP. Today, I finally learned there's such a thing as too damn big.

>>16952177
She likes Chestnuts

File: image.jpg (393KB, 880x1920px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 880x1920px

>>16952837

File: image.jpg (356KB, 1123x1920px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1123x1920px

>>16952839

Why do tits look different back then than they do today? Is there that much fucking photoshop?

>>16952868
There is a larger variety for your viewing pleasure today. A proper camera used to cost money, and there were a comparatively small number of publishers of nudity versus the present.

>>16952868
I'm guessing it's because bras have changed so much. They used to wear those torpedo bras, and the boobs would conform to that shape.

>>16952841
>>16952962
Man, torpedo tits look awesome.

>>16950696
Holy FUCK

>>16952962
>I'm guessing it's because bras have changed so much. They used to wear those torpedo bras, and the boobs would conform to that shape.

It's hard for me to deal with how retarded that comment proves you to be.

>>16950394
Holy shit is that a Young Minka?

>>16953121
How do you explain it then Mr Science?

>>16953121
It's actually the correct answer, smart guy.

http://www.fashion-era.com/bras_after_1950.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bras#The_1930s

>>16952198
>>16950402
>>16950401

google image search is being useless, name?

>>16953160
>How do you explain it then Mr Science?

You seriously think that breasts (can even) conform to bra shape? And you need someone to fucking explain to you why the don't/can't??

Fuck man. End it now and save the world the misery of having you in it for even another minute.

>>16952868
Because of bra. Like panthyhose who never crack from 1940 to 70's, industry made changes. Now breasts shape changé Because of bra mode and shape like actual panthyhose crack easily son women have to buy more and more... I Know a woman who never wear bra, she haves boobs like 60's Girls.

>>16953368
>It's actually the correct answer, smart guy.

COngratulations. You posted to a couple articles talking about bras.

But no, cone shaped bras don't create cone shaped breasts.

Gosh, wouldn't a square bra be cool?? Women walking around with square breasts after wearing a square bra for a month?

Yes when wearing a bra large enough breasts will fill the space. But no, cone shaped breasts are not created by cone shaped bras.

Holy fucktard batman.

>>16950683
i need to suck on her tiny penis

>>16953754
It was never about shape, it was a matter of the targeted support areas, allowing the upper area of the breast to tighten, specifically the tiny layer of subdermal muscle which dictates elasticity. This pulled the area above the areola, not allowing the breasts to roll and flow.

>>16953738
So you can't explain it then Mr Science, huh? Checkmate m8.

>>16953792
>So you can't explain it then Mr Science, huh? Checkmate m8.

Yes, totally checkmate.

I totally can't explain why cone shaped bras don't create cone shaped breasts.

>>16953798
You're fucking stupid if you think not. It explains it perfectly. Just good ole goddamn common sense tells you that back then that was the only way bras were made. Look at the differences.

If you have a better explanation then please share it with us, genius. But if you just think about it, it's the only logical explanation for it.

>>16953802
Oh also, if training bras where designed that way, then from puberty to adulthood them titties wuz trained son... So yea, they "grow" that way.

>>16953802

Holy fuckshit. Please, for the love of the great almighty, do not breed. Do not procreate. Do not bring a life into this world that will be subjected to the inky black void that is your intellect.

I...I can't even...

File: 768438717_Scan10004_123_1181lo.jpg (3MB, 2500x5341px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2500x5341px

>>16953823

File: 768387649_Scan10002_123_786lo.jpg (3MB, 2500x3277px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2500x3277px

>>16953829

>>16953808
Yea you can't cause you wrap your simple mind around common sense. What else explains it then? I see your words but they don't mean shit. I happen to have kids and they're honor roll students. So unless you can enlighten us all to what exactly caused them tits to look that way, which is exactly how the bras of that era are shaped, how about just go back to jerking ya pudd and shut the fuck up.

>>16953802
>>16953804
HAHAHAHA Jesus Harold Christ I have seen some stupid fucking posts on this site but this is absolutely without a doubt the dumbest shit I have seen. Training bras don't train don't "train" the titties, it's to teach prepubescent girls to put on a bra every day so they can grow comfortable with it. For fucks sake, a simple google search will tell you this. God damn.

>>16953838
>So unless you can enlighten us all to what exactly caused them tits to look that way, which is exactly how the bras of that era are shaped,

So.....it's your position that any woman that wore a training bra (a cone shaped training bra??) ends up with cone shaped breasts?

What does your wife/baby momma think about that theory? Please ask her. Please. And video tape the conversation and her expression when you state this theory of yours

>>16953838
>Yea you can't cause you wrap your simple mind around common sense.

Common sense? ha. You mean moron sense, which is what you're using here.

>What else explains it then?

Genetics? Diversity of shape and size? The facts of human biology?

The 'common sense' that tells us that all women's breasts are shaped differently (come on, where's all the square breasted women from square bras and training bras?)

>I see your words but they don't mean shit.

That's because you're fucking stupid.

File: 655978-minka.jpg (409KB, 640x977px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 640x977px

>>16953146
This is a young Minka. I wouldn't know if this is the first cosmetic enlargement.

>>16950402
name pls

>>16953882
>So.....it's your position that any woman that wore a training bra (a cone shaped training bra??) ends up with cone shaped breasts?

If they wear it long enough, yes. Of course. Go ask any woman.

>>16953723
Name is Tina Small. A 1980's early fake. Just like Zena Fulsom. All BS

>>16954470

He's some little moron, just plain fucking stupid. He has yet to tell us all what caused or causes it and that'd be because he doesn't fucking know.

If he was right about his genetics comment, those same women would have passed the cones shaped breast down throughout their family. That's mean that more and more women today would have them, which we clearly don't see threads here piled full of such. But what we do see is, threads such as this full of breast shaped that way.

He's clearly a little goddamn moron, 3 stooges are clearly more intelligent than he is. He has no fucking clue what a training bra is or what it's for.

Genetics, haha, little fucking simpleton. My wife has double d breast and everyone in her family is damn near flat chested. Far back as you can go, both sides. Whoa boy, genetics! I'm almost positive she's said that her grandmother or maybe great grandmother had torpedo tits, so why does her daughter and the ones after her?

Goddamn, go back to your closet or basement or wherever the fuck it is that you reign as king of the fucking blooming idiots, please. His dad clearly jerked off too close to a flower pot and up sprang a blooming idiot.

look at how much this fucking guy wrote in a big titty thread on 4chan lol. hory shet.

File: joyce mandel.jpg (263KB, 600x1035px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 600x1035px

>>16950378

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST...

Where have all these beautiful tits and nipple shapes gone!!

>>16952201
A majority of these are fucking terribad shoops.>>16952201

>>16950378
Pls more of this. Name?

>>16955029
Google: Macromastia/Gigantomastia/Miosotis

>>16950378
this looks more sad than sexy

File: image.jpg (103KB, 700x1078px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 700x1078px

Love retrp

>>16954753
FIY she recently started a twitter account:

https://twitter.com/realjoycegibson

File: 08.jpg (152KB, 503x768px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 503x768px

Laura Sand

>>16952868
Smaller sample size. Nude modelling was more taboo, so fewer women did it, so photographers they had to take what they got. The result is that models were closer to average then star models are today.

>>16952201
Why is it a "bad" shoop?

This is an entire thread of some LAUGHABLY bad photoshops. Aside from the blatant dishonesty, it serves next to no purpose. Find some actual huge titties and post those, don't waste your time on bullshit. Blatant disregard for honest aesthetics is fucking stupid and repulsive.

>>16950655

That's just one example, though arguably one of the worst, in this garbage thread. I LOVE huge titties, especially classic ones. But this is just sad. FUCK OFF with your shitty shop skills and your pandering to the inexperience of newfags. Goddamn.

>>16952156
shitty bait

>>16952519
yes

>>16950658
It's a genetic condition called macromastia. It is a form of hypertrophy resulting, in this case, in uncontrolled growth of the breast's connective tissues. It can be easily recognized via the macromastic breasts' distinctive, saggy appearance (note the differences between the girl in the picture and some of the other buxom ladies in this thread). It isn't dangerous per se, but it's obviously uncomfortable and can lead to many kinds of complications, from back pains to heart, blood pressure and blood sugar problems. The connective tissues growing wild are also at great risk of becoming cancerous with age.

>>16957337
Those wishing to... educate themselves (and who don't mind some truly disgusting picture) are invited to look up "macromastia sores". The short version: the breast grows too large for the skin and it bursts. Bloodily.

Are all of those from The Seductive Jewess?

>>16957340
Thread officially over.

>>16950674

Name of this chick? Reverse image search is just turning up old cars and bikes.

File: 984751728.jpg (95KB, 1164x529px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1164x529px

>>16957462
Suzanne Pritchard

File: busty heart 04.jpg (52KB, 916x800px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 916x800px

>>16957473
>Suzanne Pritchard

Thank you very much anon

File: IOkq08V.jpg (95KB, 667x1000px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 667x1000px

>>16950378
10/10 would marry holy crap!

File: Margaret 0009.jpg (673KB, 1197x1614px) Image search: [Google]

673KB, 1197x1614px

>>16953146
No it's a bad shop of Margaret

>>16950683
>call_me_caitlyn.jpg

>>16952484
Gone, but not forgotten. How late in her career was she still doing hardcore? Anyone have anything? (Candye Kane, FYI.)

I had some terrifically suitable pics of Chesty Morgan, but /s/ won't let me post any. Help?

File: 1460309831824.jpg (33KB, 559x621px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 559x621px

>>16950378
Get this shit out of here.

>>16950378
Poor girl. I mean, i like tits as much as the next guy but jesus.

File: robertapedon044.jpg (758KB, 1176x1572px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 1176x1572px

>>16950777
that is Roberta Pedon, and those do look larger than usual, but she had pretty huge cans when she was young. Hard to tell if shooped. Decide for yourself.

>>16956558
Because unlike you, I'm not a stupid fucking idiot and can tell it's photoshoped

File: Roberta-Pedon-S-12.jpg (445KB, 855x1200px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 855x1200px

>>16963376
I can tell it's a shop--and not just because I'm the one who shopped it. What I'm asking is why are you calling it a "bad" photoshop?

>>16959686

She was 15 when that photo was taken. I hope you like Russian prisons.

>>16964261

Hannah Harper? Are you stupid?

>>16964271

The girl in OP who the guy was quoting is/was 15.

>>16963889
Cuz it's obvious that it's photoshoped and you suck at photoshop.

Stop being such a faggot and get better.

File: Yulia2a.jpg (335KB, 670x1024px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 670x1024px

>>16964390
What specifically is the problem: edge-detail, contast, resolution inconsistancies?

>>16964261
>>16964390
post proof

>>16963889
another pedantic semantic playing cunt

>>16956929
couldnt agree more. and what kind of sad fucks have to use photoshop ?

I used to really like Roberta Pedon until I found out she was Jewish from her mother's side, making her a Jew by their customs. Then she just became repulsive to me.

File: 5105asv030.jpg (70KB, 500x750px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x750px

Trinity Loren

http://xhamster.com/movies/1574083/trinity_loren_milking.html

Mmmmm fuck I love big pointy titties

>>16953121
>>16953738
>>16953754
>>16953798
>>16953808
>>16953882

If a girdle can shape a waste, it's completely reasonable to assume bras might effect the development of breasts. It's fat for fucks sake, just look what your pants did to your waistline.

Here, this is for you. Read it and kill yourself. The order doesn't matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>>16966922
k

>>16967877
>I read it on wikipedia, therefore it's true.
I'm not the guy you're arguing with, but you're a special kind of retard, ain't you?

>>16969392
Wikipedia lists the sources. Don't be a duncecap.

File: janet_lupo.jpg (220KB, 600x1345px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 600x1345px

Janet Lupo. Some of the best natural tits ever. And that body.

>>16970871
10/10

>>16966922
Wow and now you're repulsive to me!

>>16956558
All shops are bad.

File: BarbiB.jpg (965KB, 2495x3744px) Image search: [Google]

965KB, 2495x3744px

>>16970878
Bonk bonk the bad man. Bonk bonk.

>>16970911
My word!

>>16970911
Can offer why they are good?

>>16972093
I'm assuming he thinks they're sexy?

>>16950687
Perfection

File: 388282806_1987_03_103.GreatBriton_123_96lom.jpg (409KB, 766x1168px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 766x1168px

>>16972093
All of these pictures are have been manipulated 12 different ways by the time they appear here. But if Anon modifies it one little bit in photoshop, "OH NO YOU DIDN'T!", as if there's suddenly something sacred about a 2D array of colored dots. The technical skills of the photoshopper are irrelevant--they're all just bad bad. Fundamentalism 101.

>>16952588
What's her name?

>>16965688
I need to know who this is.

>>16976735
It's actually the queen of England in an ultra-rare nude.

>>16976778
I wish, she was smokin when she was young.

>>16952868
Its because its what was popular. Torpedo tit models got most of the jobs. Saggy floppers were cast aside, as well as other shapes. Its just preferences. Kinda like 70s bush or how flappy a vagina is.

>>16976843
>wonder why someone replies nine hours later to a post with several previous responses
>check the other replies
I'm glad you came here to educate that anon because what in the fuck are those other idiots talking about.