Playmate Kelly Carrington

I just bought a copy of the 2010 Playmate calendar today, and I have
to say I am quite disappointed over it. Of the 12 photos, only 1
appears to have been taken exclusively for the calendar; the others
are all outtakes from well-known pictorials or recycled shots that
have already been published.

In the “already published” category is Sara Jean Underwood, whose May
calendar picture is directly from her PMOY pictorial in the May 2007
issue. Also, Kelly Carrington’s September photo was already published
in her Oct 2008 magazine pictorial.

While Sasckya Porto’s February picture hasn’t been published before,
it is an almost identical pose to her 2009 calendar shot, and it is
also a very close shot to one in her Cyber Club Playmate portfolio –
an outtake from her PM pictorial. It is too soon after the 2009
calendar shot to feature this almost-identical pose.

Candice Cassidy gets a Cyber Club portfolio shot for her calendar
page, so it isn’t a new photo, either. She looks stunning in it, but
I really wanted a new, unpublished photo.

Several other photos are outtakes from Playmate pictorials. Dasha
Astafieva, Kayla Collins, Hope Dworaczyk, Grace Kim and the Shannon
Twins fit into this category. Some of them have nearly identical
poses already published in the Cyber Club.

Beautiful as Kayla Collins is, I think the photo chosen of her is
rather weak in terms of body angle. They should have chosen a better
photo for a calendar.

Crystal McCahill gets an outtake from her 50th Anniversary Playmate
test that isn’t particularly flattering.

The only photo obviously not an outtake or reprint is Ida Ljungqvist’s
(January) — and oddly this photo looks like it was intended for
December rather than January due to the gifts in the setting.

Jessica Burciaga gets a decent bedroom shot; at least we haven’t seen
the exact setting before.

Gone are the days when the calendars were exclusive photos done
explicitly for the calendar. I am very well aware of how good many of
the calendar shots were in the past due to my current project of
scanning them all. I started with 1958 and have completed all through
1993 so far, and there are some amazing images in there. Many of them
were obviously very deliberately set up and posed to make strong,
stunning images for the calendar. The current one looks thrown
together as an afterthought in comparison. I am very disappointed.

I expect that come 2010 I will be hanging up past calendars rather
than the current relatively weak one most months.

plw