I think there are two different models here. Pretty4ever and METArt Ilakis model are the same girl but I think she is not the same as the other sets. METArt says they are the same girl but I don't believe them because:
Moles don't match (mole above right nipple and in right armpit in P4E/Ilakis is missing in the others)
P4E/Ilakis model has a small smile but the other sets have a girl with a big smile showing off her crooked teeth
If I understand Ricksim right, we might have two models here. Model1 would be the Eva J of the two MA sets by Antonio Clemens. Model2 would be Ron Offlin's Eva J aka Maya (SB) aka Irma (P4E) aka Renata (AV). I don't suppose there's any doubt about the latter all being one and the same. The mole test is unambiguous.
A mole test between Model1 and Model2 doesn't work because Model1 is 100% mole-free. Such utter perfection does not occur in nature. Only photoshop can create it. As to the teeth, she seems to have done something to put them right because she can be seen wearing dental braces in some of the AV sets.
If neither moles nor teeth stand up to scrutiny, is there some other test that might elucidate the matter? I've done the "areolae test", comparing the small "goose bumps" that surround the nipples. They tend to form a pattern that is unique to each woman and remains stable over time. It sounds simpler than it actually is. In reality, you don't often get enough materiel with the right focus and lighting and level of detail for a reliable test. But in this case, I believe we have a match.
Summarising, do we believe that Model1 and Model2 are one and the same? I believe I have invalidated the two arguments against (moles, teeth) and I can see an argument for.
At first sight, the Adelia B connection seemed very convincing. But it doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. Mole test negative. Different pussy, different breast size & shape...
It's NOT two different models. The moles were removed in photoshop, like Met-Art does in many things. Anyone who knows anything about photography knows this. I already confirmed the moles by using her AVErotica sets side by side with her old and new Met-Art sets. Eva J is Sienne. Same girl. All they did was dye her hair (or let her hair be natural actually) and not edit out the moles in editing. Anyone who can't see that should stay out of photography and art.
I don't know that anybody disagrees with you. As you say, it is totally obvious that Sienne is Renata @ AV. What has been suggested (see comment by Ricksim below) is that the two sets by Antonio Clemens might be a different model, but I believe I've disproved that suggestion.
Comments
Merge with Eva J - http://www.thenude.eu/Eva_J_20328.htm
Maya at ShowyBeauty - http://showybeauty.com/model_79.html
P4E model page.
http://www.thenude.eu/covers.php?g=6&id=158505
She also models as Nomi at wearehairy and Crystal at atkhairy
She's gone brunette in her latest sets at atkhairy... and is also now appearing as Renata at averotica!
Now appearing as Sara at cutiesintights
INDEXXX: http://www.indexxx.com/models/39049/eva-j/
I think there are two different models here. Pretty4ever and METArt Ilakis model are the same girl but I think she is not the same as the other sets. METArt says they are the same girl but I don't believe them because:
Moles don't match (mole above right nipple and in right armpit in P4E/Ilakis is missing in the others)
P4E/Ilakis model has a small smile but the other sets have a girl with a big smile showing off her crooked teeth
What does anyone else think?
I really can't say for sure - I think you could be right but photoshop does make things difficult! I need a second opinion - anyone? (:R
The girl on the cover METART, "Ilakis", Eva Jis similar to EROTICBEAUTY, "Lismias", Adelia B (same shooting location) METART, "Presenting Adelia", Adelia B
If I understand Ricksim right, we might have two models here. Model1 would be the Eva J of the two MA sets by Antonio Clemens. Model2 would be Ron Offlin's Eva J aka Maya (SB) aka Irma (P4E) aka Renata (AV). I don't suppose there's any doubt about the latter all being one and the same. The mole test is unambiguous.
A mole test between Model1 and Model2 doesn't work because Model1 is 100% mole-free. Such utter perfection does not occur in nature. Only photoshop can create it. As to the teeth, she seems to have done something to put them right because she can be seen wearing dental braces in some of the AV sets.
If neither moles nor teeth stand up to scrutiny, is there some other test that might elucidate the matter? I've done the "areolae test", comparing the small "goose bumps" that surround the nipples. They tend to form a pattern that is unique to each woman and remains stable over time. It sounds simpler than it actually is. In reality, you don't often get enough materiel with the right focus and lighting and level of detail for a reliable test. But in this case, I believe we have a match.
Summarising, do we believe that Model1 and Model2 are one and the same? I believe I have invalidated the two arguments against (moles, teeth) and I can see an argument for.
At first sight, the Adelia B connection seemed very convincing. But it doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny. Mole test negative. Different pussy, different breast size & shape...
Met-art are playing the rename game again. Having originally called her Eva J, they are now reintroducing her as Sienne.
It's NOT two different models. The moles were removed in photoshop, like Met-Art does in many things. Anyone who knows anything about photography knows this. I already confirmed the moles by using her AVErotica sets side by side with her old and new Met-Art sets. Eva J is Sienne. Same girl. All they did was dye her hair (or let her hair be natural actually) and not edit out the moles in editing. Anyone who can't see that should stay out of photography and art.
I don't know that anybody disagrees with you. As you say, it is totally obvious that Sienne is Renata @ AV. What has been suggested (see comment by Ricksim below) is that the two sets by Antonio Clemens might be a different model, but I believe I've disproved that suggestion.