Christie Brinkley - 150 Years of Women, Fashion and New York Celebration in NY 19 April, 2017 - MQ

​

 

She must have made a deal with the devil to look this good!

 

I have (several times) checked how old she is, but for those of you who think they are a good judge of how old a woman is, what age do you think this woman is?

No peaking at IMDB now, honest guess.

 

She wouldn't have to ask twice...

 

I'm thinking 60 something, but that would, by no means, stop me. She's still a hottie.

 

Nah, man she's 70 year's old...you're right though. i still would.

Edit: just turned 71

 

Um... no. She's 63. (In 2014, when the 50th anniversary issue of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition came out, they made a big deal about her being 60. So no, I didn't Google either.)

And there's no apostrophe in a plural word. (Although I'm guessing "apostrophe" and "plural" will be out of your scope of understanding as well.)

 

Oooh, sick burn man....

 

I am so curious what her pussy looks (and feels) like. I would jump at the chance to find out, which is odd because normally the thought of fucking a 60+ year old woman just seems gross.

 

My first glimpse of this woman was in 1980 The SI Swimsuit issue. Should tell you how old I am. Christie defies the hands of time.

 

Stunning woman, regardless of her age. However, she wears stockings to make her legs and skin look smoother, because legs would be a dead giveaway on the age thing.

 

I think the Swimsuit Edition will be older than 50 in 2104..

 

Umm...2104? Also, "she's" isn't used as a plural here (especially since it's not a word like that), it's being used as "she is". You'd know that if you took 5 seconds to reread before you went all Grammar Nazi. Incorrectly, at that.

 

Her face doesn't look much different than it did 35 years ago, which obviously isn't natural. Her face doesn't have the wrinkles it should for 63. But she has pretty much preserved her looks, not changed them. Unlike Catherine Bell & Charlotte Ross -- both of whom are much younger.

 

The post JB was referring to has been edited. It used to have the word "year's" (sic) referencing more than one year in it... But yeah, 2104.

 

Awe... I made a typo. Whoops. That completely negated my point, awe shucks.

How about this: "She's not 71. You're wrong. I wonder where it is that you checked because that information was erroneous. I'm especially surprised that you first noted that she was 70, then deliberately edited to reference having checked to verify and yet you're still wrong. Perhaps you might like to borrow my search engine? I'm not currently using it because I don't need it."