Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Feedback History A detailed history of activity from this user in all different categories.
User : Cryton (10)  

Feedback:   All (15)  |   Reviews (5)  |   Comments (1)  |   Replies (9)

Other:   Replies Received (19)  |   Trust Ratings (18)

All Activity A summary of all the feedback from this user.
Shown : 1-15 of 15  

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
Visit Fucked Hard 18

Fucked Hard 18
Reply of Goldfish's Reply

There are a number of resolutions considered to be HD (obviously all are higher resolution than SD) including 720p, but to differentiate, the consumer electronics industry has deemed the phrase "full HD" should only relate to 1080×1920.

So you're quite right in saying that 720p is HD, but "full HD" should only be used to describe 1080×1920.

There's more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

02-08-11  07:39pm

Visit Fucked Hard 18

Fucked Hard 18
Reply of Goldfish's Comment

FWIW, "full HD" refers to 1920×1080, but 1280×720 is a valid HD resolution.

01-20-11  11:47pm

Visit Met Art

Met Art
Reply of graymane's Review

I ceased being a member when more and more of their photographers started using aggressive blur filters to turn the skin of models into one solid block of colour, and as a result make them appear like lifeless, plastic dolls.

Is that still going on?

11-01-10  08:09pm

Visit Private School Jewel

Private School Jewel
Reply of tangub's Reply

Thanks for all the feedback.

There aren't any bonus sites included with the subscription, just the additional photos of Blue Eyed Cass and Syhla Jennings (plus a handful of tiny videos of them both that aren't really worth mentioning).

09-28-10  11:14am

Visit Private School Jewel

Private School Jewel

Status: Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: • Beautiful model
• Regular updates, usually twice per week
• Genuine high resolution photos - up to 2336×3504px
• ~3,500 photographs (as of mid-September 2010)
• ZIP files for all photosets
• Choice of video formats, with WMV highest quality offered
• Acceptable SD video data rate, on average 2,500Kbps at 29.970fps
• No DRM on videos
• Download managers supported
• 368 images from Blue Eyed Cass and Syhla Jennings’ websites
• Personal blog
• Active forums with good participation from Jewel and webmaster
Cons: • ENORMOUS ugly 480×600px red logo/watermark on image files
• Images slightly noisy and overly compressed
• Small number of videos
• Video SD only - 640×480px
• ZIP and image files all have the same file names
• Random scheduling of webcam shows with little warning and no available archive
• ENORMOUS ugly 480×600px red logo/watermark on image files (can't stress that enough)
Bottom Line: Jewel is an American ‘girl next door’ who’s said to be the youngest legal teen on the Internet as some of her galleries were shot on the day after her 18th birthday. Promo galleries started appearing in November 2006 (as Jewel A. there are also Met-Art shoots from the same time) so the claim of “just turned 18” is a little out-of-date, some shoots have obviously been on-file for a while.

Jewel is exceptionally beautiful and has a fantastic body, especially if you love small(ish) firm, natural breasts. She’s toned without being skinny and has only one small, discreet tattoo, which for those of us who hate such things is rarely visible. Depending on the the shoot Jewel is either fully-shaven, has trimmed pubic hair or a French wax ‘landing strip’. There are no ‘hairy’ shoots.

As for personality; Jewel is engaging and has a natural, fun, if somewhat shy presence on-camera, although that increases the perception of a semi-amateur model who’s “working her way through college”.

The content is of a generally high standard with Jewel posing in various locations and outfits. The schoolgirl sets are some of the most successful but a little more creativity and thought put into the shooting style would be welcome. Stockings look best with heels, T-shirts look great in the rain, voyeuristic ‘nude in public’ settings... that sort of thing. The site is said to have been three years in the making and that should have been more than enough time to break out of the mold and generate a stronger portfolio of images, especially as Jewel is an absolute knockout.

The site’s most egregious sin is that the images are blighted by a HUGE watermark that is often located in the worst possible place - on one of Jewel’s bum cheeks, for example - which ruins some of the photos completely. A secondary annoyance is that all the ZIP and image files have exactly the same name.

There are various video formats available, including for mobile devices, but although artifact-free the best are currently SD-only. Everyone should be producing HD these days.

To-date all the content is conservative, there are just a few ‘spreading’ images and they’re not overtly graphic. There is no insertion whatsoever and when Jewel uses a vibrator it’s only on the outside of her vagina. The latest videos are a little bolder and Jewel has stated on her forum that she’s losing her inhibitions, which can’t happen soon enough. She’s also said that she’s into girls but has yet to find someone who will go all the way with her on video, kissing and caressing is as far as the site currently goes. Jewel is clearly into girl-on-girl action and the one lesbian video is highly charged, making its premature conclusion all the more unfortunate.

Jewel shows huge promise but does need to become less inhibited (without going hardcore). The site is recommended, but check out the many on-line previews first via the likes of FreeOnes or YourDailyGirls.com, they’re representative of how explicit things (don’t) get.

09-27-10  09:42pm

Replies (5)
Visit St. Mackenzie's

St. Mackenzie's
Reply of Tom SawyerR's Reply

>I would have loved this site if it came even close to getting "school girl naughty"...isn't that the point of the genre?<

Absolutely, which is hopefully something that came across in my review. The potential is there, but the selection of models (many of whom will only go as far as implied nudity) and the site's determination to keep everything soft really holds it back.

The appearance of the models gave a positive bias to my score.

04-30-10  10:24am

Visit St. Mackenzie's

St. Mackenzie's
Reply of Cryton's Review

A brief update on the quality of the photos. I asked about this in the user forum where "Headmistress Mackenzie" is quick to answer member questions.

She writes: "It is mainly because the photographer shoots so fast. He has had some camera problems to but they are sorted now. Can only apologise for the blurry pics already on the site."

If things improve I'll update the review, but it'll still mean that the majority of shoots suffer from these problems.

04-30-10  10:19am

Visit St. Mackenzie's

St. Mackenzie's
Reply of Tom SawyerR's Comment

I've looked at every model and none of them could even be remotely described as "huge" (no idea what "bigfords" means). One, Matron Jenny, could be described as curvy, but all the others are seriously in shape.

I tend to agree with the remainder of your comments however.

04-30-10  12:44am

Visit St. Mackenzie's

St. Mackenzie's

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: • Incredibly beautiful models
• Regular updates, usually every other day
• Exclusive content
• High resolution photos, typically 3500×2329px
• Thousands of images currently totalling ~4.95GB (as of 04/30/2010)
• Excellent quality HD videos: 1280×720px, 29.97fps, 5,000Kbps
• No DRM
Cons: • Disappointingly soft-core
• Blurry, out-of-focus photography
• Only 47 videos, of which only 13 are HD (as of 04/30/2010)
• Poor, shaky SD videos: 640×480px, 30fps, 928Kbps
• Excessive audio bandwidth in HD videos: 410Kbps, 96kHz
• Download managers do not work with video clips
• Not all models have video clips
• Content organisation could be improved
• Same video/photos appear in multiple model profiles
Bottom Line: The idea is good, a school full of hot female students and equally hot teachers. It's the porn world's equivalent of St Trinian's, a place where the students wear the typical fantasy uniform of white shirt, short skirt, stockings and heels. They've often been naughty and often need punishing, which usually involves them having to strip. OK, the various scenarios are fairly repetitive and a little contrived, but...

...if you thought Talulah Riley, Gemma Arterton and Tamsin Egerton were something else in the films, then the models of St. Mackenzie's are their equal, and then some. Many are simply gorgeous, in fact it's hard to single out those who aren't. Candice Collyer, Faye Tasker, Holly Newberry, Faye Taylor, Lucy-Anne Brooks, Kate Stroud and Big Brother UK contestant Amy Alexandra are amongst the stand-outs.

The teachers are equally stunning; Miss Elise, Miss Lilly, Miss Millicent, Miss Nicola and Secretary Rachel, who has the most incredible breasts I've ever seen.

All of this has the making of a fantastic site, but for various reasons it's soft-core only and really soft at that. Rarely do photo sets include pussy shots and when they do, usually only fleeting glimpses. Some models have been a little more revealing of late with the occasional open-leg shots, but there's no spreading whatsoever. The site could be exceptionally erotic from a lesbian standpoint, but girls hardly ever kiss let alone get up to anything naughty. Likewise, while most of the teachers are of a similar age to the students, there's also the potential for some hot action between younger/older models set against the taboo background of a boarding school, but the site's owners maintain the notion of such a thing being inappropriate. Clearly, someone needs to realise that St. Mackenzie's isn't a real school.

The lack of more revealing content is a hot topic on the site's forum. The official line: "Most UK models only work to topless/soft nude. So finding 40+ models of a high standard (which you all expect) that do 'girl thingy' shots would be impossible."


As for the quality of the content, the video falls into two camps. Horribly shaky, poor quality SD clips and fantastic-looking, steady HD sequences. The latter are a joy to behold because the data rate is sufficient to eliminate blocking and reveal lots of detail. The photos are a different matter; the resolution is huge but many of them are blurry, out-of-focus, or both. The EXIF shows that most were shot using a Nikon D3, but the results are so bad I can only assume it's either faulty or the photographer is really, really hopeless (the use of up to ISO 2000 pointing to the latter).

Personally, I absolutely love the beautiful models but find it totally infuriating that the action and photographs are so tame. The poor standard of photography also detracts from the fantastic-looking teachers and students. The site could be exceptional, but it needs to get more daring and stop taking itself so seriously.

04-30-10  12:39am

Replies (7)
Visit Naked News

Naked News

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: • Victoria Sinclair
• Unique format
• Real, daily news
• Choice of video resolutions
• High resolution images (up to 4288×2848px)
• 272 free Mr Skin videos (up to 640×360, 15fps, Windows Media)
Cons: • "The best quality VIDEO on the Internet" a downright lie

Poor video resolution and frame rates as follows:
• - H.264, 512×384px, 29.970fps, ~600Kbps
• - QuickTime "Premium Video", 512×384px, 14.814fps, ~420Kbps
• - QuickTime "Low Broadband", 384×288px, 14.811fps, ~300Kbps
• - QuickTime "Dialup", 384×288px, 14.811fps, ~300Kbps
• - "iPod Video", 320×240px, 29.970fps, ~330Kbps

• "Low Broadband" and "Dialup" video files the same
• Images in individual ZIP files, one ZIP per image
• "Nothing to hide", yet anchor photographs are non-nude only
• Anchor photographs are rarely updated
• Site navigation and layout
Bottom Line: When Naked News made its début back in 2000, streaming and downloading video via the Internet was in its infancy. That and anchor Victoria Sinclair, who really could be a mainstream newsreader, primarily contributing to the site's success.

Sinclair ticks all the right boxes as many men's ultimate fantasy figure and seeing her strip naked during a broadcast while managing to retain the air of a consummate professional, must be why the site still attracts new members.

The appeal of the show's lesser anchors varies in accordance to their appearance. Many anchors have been surgically enhanced and while some results have been fairly successful (Whitney St. John) Michelle Pantoliano, for example, has that extreme two-melons-on-a-broom-handle look. Some are genuinely beautiful (former anchor Lisa Benton) while there are those to which mother nature wasn't so kind (Sandrine Renard and Christine Kerr). Once naked, all are either completely shaven or have a tiny landing strip in the French style so if you're a fan of more natural or hairy women, look elsewhere.

Each day's show is broken up into segments or can be downloaded (or streamed) all in one go. Many segments only feature full nudity, with stripping reserved for the main news and certain anchors, usually Sinclair or Roxanne West, who start in typical business attire with classy, lacy underwear.

Unfortunately, while Victoria Sinclair's star still shines bright, the website itself has not moved with the times. Navigation is awkward and most content loads in a frame "below the fold", meaning constant scrolling and erratic "back" button behaviour. Particularly frustrating are the anchor and "Hot Model" images which, although of exceptionally high resolution are only available to download within individual ZIP files. Yes, one JPEG image per ZIP, how stupid is that?

Most of the anchor photographs haven't been updated in many years, and it's also annoying to find that none of them reveal anything in their photos, not even a nipple let alone any pink bits. If they're happy to appear nude in video, why not in photos?

There is a gallery of "Hot Models" (by my count ~1,670 photos) where naked breasts can be found, but full nudity is still extremely rare.

As for the quality of the video itself, it simply doesn't stack up to modern day standards. None of the download or streaming options reach SD resolution, let alone the "Ultra High Quality" promised. In this regard, the site is both disappointing and wholly misleading. The only videos at 30fps are the H.264, and for some unfathomable reason they're only available for the past two days.

While Naked News was on the forefront ten years ago, in 2010 the site looks old-fashioned and amateurish, with the video quality and presentation style both in need of a radical overhaul. It is worth subscribing for a short period just to admire Victoria Sinclair's style, but otherwise the site represents poor value and little to interest connoisseurs of the female form.

04-10-10  09:43pm

Replies (2)
Visit Simon Scans

Simon Scans
Reply of Simon of Scans's Reply

Excellent reply, thank you, I have a far better impression of the site following your input.

In our defence, contacting CCBill regarding the payment seemed like the best option because as you mentioned, my girlfriend's original message went unanswered and people tend to get a bit paranoid about their credit card details.

Regarding the preference for CCBill, this comes purely from the fact that the VSX payment process always states my girlfriend's card isn't valid, when of course it works everywhere else, including CCBill.

I'm sure she'd gladly accept your offer of a free pass and thank you for the gesture of good will. Let me know how she should get in touch and I'll pass on the details.

03-22-10  02:42pm

Visit Paul Raymond.xxx

Paul Raymond.xxx
Reply of BadMrFrosty's Reply

The site is so badly designed that I wasn't sure if that was deliberate or not, especially as they claim free accounts get lots of content.

I'm quite happy to have that part of the review amended though, although it did seem worth mentioning that none of the content appeared to require a username or password.

03-22-10  02:14pm

Visit Paul Raymond.xxx

Paul Raymond.xxx

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: • A large amount of images
• More explicit than Paul Raymond magazines
• A good archive of retired models
• Classic models in hard or lesbian scenes
• Lots of free content if you access the files directly
Cons: • Bait and Switch membership and billing
• Terrible content organisation
• No zip files of images
• Non-exclusive content
• Image resolution restricted by website design
• Streaming Flash video only (no download links)
• Poor video resolution, datarate and frame rates
• Problems cancelling membership
Bottom Line: Paul Raymond is a famous UK publisher of 'top shelf' pornographic magazines, including Club, Men Only, Razzle, Mayfair, Mensworld and Escort. These form a vast collection of images that date back to 1971 and feature many models who went on to fame and fortune. All this together in one site sounds great, but in practice it's a woeful attempt.

Users are enticed to "Sign Up Now for Free!" for access to model profiles and "XXX videos and pictures". But on the face of it, a free account doesn't gain access to any real content, clicking on an image or video brings up yet another pay to join page in a classic 'bait and switch' tactic.

Once into the site, content is divided up by magazine with the same user-interface for each. Aside from the magazines, there are sections called Escort DVD, Jo Guest and Full Length Videos. There is no model index, no video index and although new additions are listed chronologically, the small thumbnails are cropped and untitled which makes it impossible to learn anything from them. Although each performer does have their own page accessed via a photo set or video, the content is so poorly organised that it's easy to overlook many elements.

Each photograph is presented in a box within the site's layout, and that restricts its resolution. Although the height varies, no image is wider than 720 pixels, and that's poor to say the least. There are no zip file downloads or any easy way to grab a sequence, so downloading an image set is by design a tedious process. The sets themselves also vary considerably, some have as few as five or six photographs, but in many cases they're much harder than you'd see in a Paul Raymond magazine, one area in which the site does deliver. I was surprised to find some content I'd seen elsewhere, a set from MET Art being one example.

Video quality is equally poor although the content itself is varied and features many classic models in hardcore and lesbian scenes. There are no deliberate video download links and streaming Flash is the only viewing option. Recent additions are 480×320 at ~1,750Kbps, but the majority are a woeful 400Kbps and have jerky, low frame rates, many are even the wrong aspect ratio and have interlacing artefacts.

I cancelled my membership after a short period and my access was revoked, but my card was still debited for the following month and now I'm waiting for a refund. Subscriber beware.

03-21-10  07:07pm

Replies (3)
Visit Simon Scans

Simon Scans

Beware of Billing Scams / Non-Existent Communication

My girlfriend wanted to try this site, and would liked to have signed up using CCBill.

On the site's FAQ page at - http://www.simonscans.com/pages/faqs/ - it clearly states there are three main systems for joining, and CCBill is one of them, but on the sign-up form itself CCBill is never given as an option. She E-mailed to ask how to join using CCBill but never received a reply.

Last week she spotted a site called SimonsFans.com - http://www.simonsfans.com/sf.php - one of those typical gateway sites full of free taster images. On there was a link to join using CCBill, so she filled in all her details and CCBill processed the payment, but she was never provided with a username or password.

The E-mail from CCBill reads:

"Thank you for your subscription to Simonscans.
Your subscription number is ******************* [obfuscated here]
Please include your subscription number in all correspondence.
Your username is
Your password is"

So she wrote to CCBill and asked how to gain access to the site. Here's their reply:

"The website does not use our access managment system. As such we can not test the access to the site. We have e-mailed the website on your behalf regarding the issue. If you do not recieve any correspondence from the website please contact us back. Please allow 48 hours before following up with us regarding this issue."

After five days, there had still not been any response from SimonScans, so she contacted CCBill and they refunded her money.

Good for CCBill, a very poor show from SimonScans.

The only development since is that all the links on the SimonsFans website still point to a CCBill URL, but when clicked redirect back to SimonScans.com. This is more likely to be down to action from CCBill than SimonScans given their terrible customer support in this case, and the dubious nature of the SimonsFans site.

03-21-10  11:10am

Replies (2)
Visit Elise Erotic

Elise Erotic

Status: Current Member for over 2 months (at the time of review).
Pros: With over 34,000 images, Elise Erotic can boast a huge catalog of fetish images, dedicated primarily to lovers of pantyhose, stockings, heels and feet. Most recent images are 1177×1704 pixels and of a generally high technical standard. Updates appear on a regular basis, each one split over two weeks.

There's no doubting Elise looks fantastic in hose and heels – she has great legs – and there are some really excellent galleries, the location shoots being particular highlights. A wide variety of outfits means there should be something for everyone, but if not, you can always contact Elise with your own request.

Although the premise of the shoots hasn't changed, there has been a recent trend towards more nudity. Whereas previously Elise's vagina would be only barely visible through various types of sheer material in one or two images per set (if you were lucky), now there's some clear frontal nudity creeping in, although still a far cry from spreading or hardcore.
Cons: When the site was founded, Elise had a beautiful, natural figure, but using the gallery dates as a guide, at some point in late 2003 she underwent surgery and returned with some really horrible and pretty weird-looking breast implants. Although (thankfully) they're never fully revealed – sheer tops are as far as Elise will go – they don't suit her at all. The huge library of pre-op images only serves as a reminder of what a beautiful, natural figure she once had.

The other major negative is the site design, which is woefully out-of-date and does nothing to enhance the user experience; photo sets aren't dated and zip files, the links for which aren't on the gallery pages, are few and far between. There is also a complete lack of meaningful supplementary content. There are a handful of tiny videos in an antiquated format, an ancient guest book page and a few member galleries. The live chat has been off-line for as long as I can remember and the last webcam show was in 1999.
Bottom Line: Elise Erotic really is hit-and-miss. On the positive side, Elise has great legs and there is a huge number of images. Unfortunately there is also a general lack of imagination and variation when it comes to shoots, so while the outfits may vary, the locations rarely do.

The trend towards more nudity is welcome, but it's about eight years too late. Personally speaking, the less of Elise's fake tits I see the better, seriously, she's a lot sexier when she keeps them covered up. Given the strengths of the older galleries, when Elise was a more natural-looking, girl-next-door type, a few more daring shoots back then would've been just the ticket.

Say what you like about the subject and Elise herself, there's no arguing that the website itself is dreadful. Quite apart from it appearing to be designed fifteen years ago, the navigation is misleading and in some cases dysfunctional. For example, currently there are twenty-six main galleries but the left-hand navigation only extends to twenty-four, and on some pages to only twenty-one, so it's easy to miss the latest additions. Each main gallery is divided into (on average) nine separate shoots, but none are dated. Only the most recent galleries have zip files but their download links are located on a different page entirely.

It's annoying that each set is posted in two halves, on average fifty/sixty images at a time over a period of a week. But here's a tip; although the HTML navigation pages for each gallery go on-line in two halves, all the images are uploaded in one go, so if you use a download manager or guess at their URLs, they're easy to find. That means you can view all the images in a set without a long wait, but effectively reduces the number of site updates to a paltry two per month.

In terms of video, the site is light years behind what everyone else is doing. With three exceptions, all thirty-six clips are presented in Real Media versions 3 and 4, formats that all but died out back in the last century. In addition, they're all the size of postage stamps, none larger than 320×240, including the most recent posting in Windows Media format. The video content itself is acceptable, in fact Elise's voice reminds me of Jodie Foster and she has a fun, personable nature, but the technical aspects of the video let the whole side down.

Would I recommend the site? Err... tough call. It's inexpensive to join and if you don't expect much you'll probably be pleased with the huge number of photos, especially if you're a fan of the genre. Recent shoots have more spice, and that'll hopefully continue, but if you're looking for video content you'll be sorely disappointed and if you're troubled by disfigured chests, look away or concentrate on the older material. For a month or two the site is worth a try, but probably doesn't have much mileage. If you're a fan of Elise, rejoin every twelve months or so, with just one month's subscription you'll be caught up in next to no time.

09-27-09  06:07pm

Replies (1)

Shown : 1-15 of 15  

Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.


To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.

Loaded in 0.58 seconds.