(Login Funkenstien) _ Posted Jun 30, 2009 10:54 AM
I think the guy had to shave his leg prior to the procedure?
This reminds me that when I went on vacation recently, I was astounded at the number of people sporting tattoos. I know tattoos are common and trendy for the under 25 crowd, but most of these people were 40 - 25 years of age.
I was at Disneyworld and saw many thousands of people that week, so I think this is probably a reasonably representative sampling of whitebread middle class America. I didn't realize tattoos were so popular. Granted, I haven't really been able to do much research on the subject, considering I haven't been to the beach or pools in quite a while. But, the fact that it was hot and that everyone was showing more skin than normal finally gave me a glimpse at America's underbelly.
And it was not pretty.
What really surprised me not only was the sheer number of people with tattoos, but the very high proportion of people with bad tattoos. I'm talking about poorly done (cheap and low quality), unoriginal (picked out of a book), or horribly faded (unmaintained) tattoos there were. For every 10 tattoos I saw, I'd say nine fell into one or more of three previous categories.
I'd like to think that I'm not horribly biased against tats as I actually considered getting some kind of tribal thing on my shoulder/bicep when I was nearing 30. I'm now very glad that I didn't.
But to answer your question, tOdd. The tattoos you showed are neither unoriginal, nor poorly done, nor horribly faded. So they are probably in the top 10% of tattoos out there. Not my thing, but as far as tat's go, they are good.