My only prob with Cheryl's is that while it's clearly well executed, it's so poorly designed. I love good body art but that tattoo is so wooden and graceless. No flow, nothing remotely organic about it.
Exactamundo!
The placement is all over the place. To carry that off it needs to go up her back too and if you were going for an all-over back piece i dont think large roses would be your choice.
I think it's rather sad she's re-tweeting her fan's positive comments about it just so others can see them :rolleyes: if you really don't care what people think, then why bother
That does seem sad. If she was truly confident with her tattoos and happy in her own skin she wouldn't need to do that. I do honestly believe Cheryl will come to regret getting such extreme tattoos eventually.
It's massive - and a big committment to get something so big and permanent done to your body. I personally wouldn't want it but she is a beautiful woman and it doesn't make her ugly and wouldn't put anyone off her.
For those sayng they don't mind the aging process and how their tats will look in the future - arms age differently to butts, especially for women. Even skinny/pert women get cellulite on their butts and top of thighs - imagine how those roses will look with cellulite rippling underneath.
I don't think the 'When she's 70' comment is really all that relevant these days, so many people have tattoos, it's not like she'll be the only woman at Shady Pines Deluxe with one.
And 70 year olds tend to cover up anyway, tatts or no tatts.
Did anyone spot the showbiz feature with photos of Christine Keeler.at 71 and in her heyday on the DM pages. Sad to see. Make sure you hold on to your money Cheryl or you could end up where your tattoo design matches the surroundings
My only problem with that tattoo is nobody except the person she is sleeping with will get the benefit of seeing it in all its glory not even herself.It will spend most of its time either fully covered or partially covered.
I remember we had a big argument on here ages ago when I dared to call them "council". You went on and on and ON about your great job, expensive suits, posh watch - all in defense of your tattoos. I then said bragging about that stuff was more uncouth than any tattoo and you did a hasty back peddle.
Suffice to say when I saw your name on this thread, I wasn't surprised.
I remember we had a big argument on here ages ago when I dared to call them "council". You went on and on and ON about your great job, expensive suits, posh watch - all in defense of your tattoos. I then said bragging about that stuff was more uncouth than any tattoo and you did a hasty back peddle.
Suffice to say when I saw your name on this thread, I wasn't surprised.
That just shows you were wrong then too.
I didnt feel the need to bring any of that into this but i will if you want.
Do you want to value my Tag watch?
Do you want to value my Hugo Boss suits?
Do you want to see my shirts?
I hope not cos im not judged by those things and i shouldnt be. Im judged on being good at my job. The fact that I have tattoos is never an issue.
Comments
Exactamundo!
The placement is all over the place. To carry that off it needs to go up her back too and if you were going for an all-over back piece i dont think large roses would be your choice.
That does seem sad. If she was truly confident with her tattoos and happy in her own skin she wouldn't need to do that. I do honestly believe Cheryl will come to regret getting such extreme tattoos eventually.
Good point:)
How is it nasty?
Nasty as in an unpleasant looking design.
If you're asking that, you must be a defensive tattoo fanatic yourself.
Read my posts, im none of those things.
Come back when you can discuss without the hyperbole.
No hyperbole here. Why else would you ask "how is it nasty?"
For those sayng they don't mind the aging process and how their tats will look in the future - arms age differently to butts, especially for women. Even skinny/pert women get cellulite on their butts and top of thighs - imagine how those roses will look with cellulite rippling underneath.
Having had tattoos myself, I think she is very brave to get tattooed so close to 'where the sun don't shine'. That must have been painful!
And 70 year olds tend to cover up anyway, tatts or no tatts.
I'm just thinking what a lucky bugger he is tbh
Its not "nasty".
It might not be your choice and you might not like it, but thats a different thing altogether.
It's way OTT and not attractive??
Oh, you are.
I remember we had a big argument on here ages ago when I dared to call them "council". You went on and on and ON about your great job, expensive suits, posh watch - all in defense of your tattoos. I then said bragging about that stuff was more uncouth than any tattoo and you did a hasty back peddle.
Suffice to say when I saw your name on this thread, I wasn't surprised.
That just shows you were wrong then too.
I didnt feel the need to bring any of that into this but i will if you want.
Do you want to value my Tag watch?
Do you want to value my Hugo Boss suits?
Do you want to see my shirts?
I hope not cos im not judged by those things and i shouldnt be. Im judged on being good at my job. The fact that I have tattoos is never an issue.
Not wrong then and absolutely, positively, definitely not wrong now. About tattoos or you.