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 : Drooler (220)  

Feedback:   All (3085)  |   Reviews (116)  |   Comments (241)  |   Replies (2728)

Other:   Replies Received (1471)  |   Trust Ratings (82)

All Activity A summary of all the feedback from this user.
Shown : 26-50 of 3085 Page :    < Previous Page - Next Page >

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
Visit Digital Desire

Digital Desire

Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: +Vast collection of professional quality pics by Stephen Hicks and his fellow photographers
+Many, many beautiful models from all over
+Some photos in 1600px; first set of each month has 3000px at least from start of 2006
+DDGX subsite offers extra pink, toying, and hardcore
+Returning member price of 15.95 for both DDG and DDGX combined (use same username and password as last time)
+Zip files (but only in largest pic size available)
+Quick model search, but some models have 2 names
Cons: -Some exclusive, some seen elsewhere (Twistys, Penthouse, etc.)
-Too many categories of pics
-Piece-mealing: “Daily” pics in 1-per-wk segments over 4-6 wks, or “themed” in one gallery with 4 models having about 5 pics each from shoots already or not yet published; DDGX has small sets taken from same shoots as featured galleries
-With “Daily” pics, you never know if max size will be 1024 or higher
-Softcore videos are often boring, overly edited, DRM restricted, and music tracked
Bottom Line: I’ve been a member many times off and on since 2002. The photography by Mr. Hicks & Co. is usually very professionally done and has signature elements of lighting and color that make it identifiable on sight. For awhile, it was my absolute favorite site.

Actually, though, I’m pretty burned out on it now. Here’s why:
1. All of that piece-mealing of photo content is really annoying!
2. Quite of lot of the “new” content each month as actually older content in larger sizes. (“Seen it before. Find older gallery on hard drive. Replace it?” – over and over again)
3. I’m tired of the inconsistencies in pic sizes and in number of pics per gallery.
4. I’m tired of seeing old, 3rd-party content showing up here, some of which is really mediocre.
5. With truly new content, they just don’t often do the great belly-down-flat and standing ass shots they used to. And that’s the final blow! ;)

At least they’ve toned down their hype. In ’06, they were pasting “3000px” and “exclusive” on their public pages, as if lots of that awaited the would-be subscriber. Glad they’ve cut that crap.

And the good news for photo lovers who have never been is that they’ll be getting better versions of the older content -- and probably won’t even know that they are.

06-08-07  05:16am

Replies (4)
Visit Marquis Models

Marquis Models

Status: Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros: +nearly all exclusive content
+good content buildup, beginning in 2004
+many excellent models
+zip files of photosets (at least from Sept. 2006)
+trial membership 3 days for 3.95 gives access to everything/$19.96 for one month
Cons: -slow rate of updates. Giving March 2007 as an example, there were 9 photoset and 7 video updates -- not a lot in a month.
-pic sizes get no larger than 1200px (may be OK for some); even smaller pics before August 2005: 1000px, and even some 750-800px, very small
-navigation a bit confusing (click on an update, you just get the model's page; THEN you click on a link to see everything posted on the model, both videos and pic galleries); so the initial confusion is nicely smoothed out
Bottom Line: This is a completely softcore site.

The prices are good (unless it's for a year, then it's a whopping $179, which can't possibly compete with MetArt's $99/yr).

The photosets are done tastefully and have a nice soft, creamy (but usually not blurry) texture to them. And for ass lovers, there's a good emphasis here. There's some lez or just girls frolicking around, but mostly it's solo.

The videos are nice, too, except for the size (320x240). Enjoyable if you don't require full screen mode.

04-27-07  02:52pm

Replies (0)
Visit Sunmod.com


Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: +Beautiful, sweet, charming, consistently alluring Sanja Matice (aka Angie).
+Very good to excellent quality images; most from the past two years in 1600 px. Put Sanja in and out of any clothes and wow!
+HUGE archive, most of it exclusive
+Acceptable trial price ($9.95 for a week now) considering the volume of pics
+Navigation inside a gallery has "previous" and "next" thumbs under each pic frame
Cons: -About 3-4 gallery updates per month
-No zips
-1600 px images must be collected by clicking on the small pic to get the 1600, saving the 1600, clicking on the 1600 to return to the small one, then clicking again to the next image.
-Navigation at the main page is a bit confusing
Bottom Line: There's also the daily "hi-rez" pic that's about 3000 px. Some may see it as a plus, but it doesn't usually do anything more for me (but I will have a peek anyway).

If you like softcore and Sanja's charms, at least a trial membership would definitely be worth it. It could be the best individual model site out there for what I know.

What it needs most are zip files, which aren't hard to do and might even save the site some bandwith for the all the clicking that must be going on. And why not go to 3000 px or more in the galleries, too? Beauties like Sanja should be so enshrined.

04-17-07  01:13pm

Replies (2)
Visit Lizzie Secret

Lizzie Secret

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: -170 photosets of Lizzie, at least 85 exclusive to this site. (The others are also at Eva’s Garden.)
-93 photosets of 20 other models, but they’re all at Eva’s Garden, too
-zips of photos available in 3 sizes: 1000px, 3000px, and 5000px
-photo galleries viewable in each of the 3 sizes for the grabbing of “singles” in a preferred size
-the few videos are all available in 6 download formats: HD and “plain” mov, HD avi (1280x720, letterbox, 1411 kps) and “plain” wmv (720x400, 3109 kbps), iPodMP4, and 3GP (also for you phone-toting perverts)
-videos are not the pretentious fast-cut-edited types; they take their time; sound track is sexy music (jazz, soft rock ...)
-videos also stream; can be full-screen
-variety of subscription plans for any budget with at least USD31.50 in discretionary funds
-technically very good content quality
-updates at least 5 x per week on the cheapest plan, slightly more often if you splurge
-visitors can get a pretty good idea of the content that’s available
Cons: -login takes a bit of learning (training session provided below)
-navigation to downloads of pics and galleries takes some getting used to (training session also provided herein)
-only 5 videos. I guess it’s a photo site! And only two are exclusive, of Lizzie: “Spicy Pool” and “Boring Laptop.” The only one not of Lizzie is Melissa “the Butt” preening and grinning buck naked on a white bed (mmm!).
-downloading is a tad slow at approx. 320 kbps. The HD avi of “Spicy Pool” (693MB) took 40 freakin’ minutes.
-subscription pricing plans penalize then reward loyalty: first period costs more than the continuing ones, but also more than non-recurring choices; continuing subscription rates are lower after the first period.
Bottom Line: PRO’s addenda:
-features: gallery rating, comments, favorites, blog with bts pics of Lizzie and ads for sites like FemJoy, and a forum for verbally drooling over the models with like-minded persons

If you’ve been an Eva’s Garden subscriber, you won’t find anything new here except for the exclusive Lizzie pics and two videos. But that might be enough. It was for me. I knew what I was getting into.

But I wonder: Why not just make it a totally exclusive Lizzie site, with no cross-content from Eva’s Garden? That would spare the EG plus Lizzie fan the hassle of having to check his stash, again and again, to avoid getting duplicates of stuff already gotten at EG. And the other model material, as it appears in updates, just gets in the way of getting the exclusive Lizzie stuff.

So this site is best for LIZZIE fans who’ve never been to EG and might also discover some treasures among the other bootylicious models such as Blue Angel, Lolla (Dido), and Melissa.

With those factors in mind, it’s a “might recommend.” However, because there’s nothing done “poorly” here, the score is in the 80’s.

Login training session (at least in Firefox): You save your usepass in your browser. Later, you go to log in, but your shit’s not there! Well, it is actually. Just type in the first letter of your user name and it appears; click on it and the two boxes fill with your access codes, except you then also have to type in the three easy-to-read violet characters in a captcha.

Navigation training session: Typically at a photo site you click on a thumbnail for a gallery and are taken to a new page of that gallery, and you go from there. Here, it works differently, but once you get the hang of it, you’ll probably like it because you’ll feel that you’re moving faster.

Every page of gallery thumbs has twenty. Click on one and you’ll be taken to the top of the same page. There, you’re given the option of viewing the thumbs of that particular gallery or downloading zips. If you’re going in for the thumbs, RIGHT CLICK to open the gallery in a new window. If you left click, and you’re on, say, page 9 of the gallery thumbs, you’ll see the gallery you want to view, but when you hit the back button, you’ll be shot back to page 1 of all the galleries. And you might be asking yourself something like, “Now, where the fuck was I?”

04-23-11  05:02am

Replies (8)
Visit Sweet And Nude

Sweet And Nude

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Well-organized site with simple, straightforward navigation
+Excellent quality, exclusive photos!
+Good-sized archive of over 33,000 pics
+32 babes, most of them stunning Euro models that you’ve probably seen before and probably don’t mind seeing yet again! (They’ve just added Euphrat!)
+Variety of settings, indoors and out
+Zip files download quickly after you’ve done a few
+Excellent visitor’s site allows you to view all of the thumbs of all of the galleries, by model or by update
+Model pages give you an idea of what’s to be posted in the future for each model
+Finally accepts MasterCard and not just Visa
+Reasonably priced at 19.95 for a month – if you’re just going for the archives
Cons: -Galleries are broken into pages/zips of 30-40 pics each. (See BL for why this is a total pain, and visit the site yourself to see how it’s done.) It’s too bad that they don’t give you the option of a single download for an entire gallery.
-Updates only about 22 days out of each month (M-F), and each update is one of those 30-40 pic pages. You’ll typically only get 3 complete galleries in a month’s time.
-Photos only in one size, 3000 px on the long end. (But I’ll take it!)
-About 10% (13) of the galleries are just too dark and shadowy and/or have the model covered in what I guess could be called “artistic grime.”
Bottom Line: I’ll start on a positive note by stressing how good the photo quality is here. They are crisp and clear, and at 3000 pixels, they’ll have you bounding in joy. Sites that are consistently this good in this way are rare.

Yet it really is annoying how they break the galleries into zips of 30-40 pics each. Worse, when unzipped, the resulting folder contains yet another folder of the same name. Open that to get those 30-40 pics. Imagine having to deal with this as many times as there are zips of all of the galleries you get. That’s way too much wasteful packaging that has to be stuffed into the trash can.

But it’s worse still because each page/zip is part of the beginning to the end of the gallery “story.” So page 4a has her fully clothed, stripping, naked, and playing around. And so does 4b, 4c, 4d, 4e ... to sometimes several points further in the alphabet. And the file names correspond (“a_01,” “b_01,” etc.). So after you’ve gone through all of the unzipping and extra-and-unnecessary folder opening, you have to arrange the photos yourself into something more coherent.

Well, you don’t HAVE to, I suppose. You could just throw them all into one master folder and enjoy them in 4 to 10 or more repeating narrative cycles.

But linear thinkers won’t like it. Cycles are for laundry. ‘nuff said.

Bottom line: There’s enough here of very beautiful girls in excellent-quality photos to keep you busy collecting, but don’t be surprised if you find yourself in a love/hate relationship with the letter “i.”

09-03-10  01:03am

Replies (3)
Visit Ero Berlin

Ero Berlin

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Attractive models. Many are “names” from the Euro porn side of things.
+All exclusive pics and videos (109 vids and 90 photo galleries)
+Vids play in Flash or download in 3 sizes: wmv 1280x720 or 640x360; or iPod. Nice quality!
+Model personalities come out in vids, sometimes a lot, sometimes just a bit. They speak in their broken and accented English, and come on to you. It’s sexy!
+Downloads quickly climb to approx. 730Kbps
+Navigation from models list page is easy
+Login maintained after closing browser and rebooting. Convenient!
+Visitor’s section gives you a good taste. Try the video samples!
+Good monthly price of $19.95, which might not last past Sept.
Cons: -Only 37 models
-Some photoshoot content is non-nude or semi-nude
-19 of the zip download buttons (no galleries to view) only download zips from other galleries. Why lead the user to think that a video has a unique photo zip when it doesn’t? Flaky!
-Pics are only 1622x1080 as portrait, 1080x723 as landscape, but sometimes they’re the opposite. A given pic might be one size in the gallery, but the other in the zip. It’s completely unpredictable. And annoying!
-Galleries open in small scrollable window instead of a whole page. But you can use the “move” button to drag window to top left of screen and then resize -- each time.
-Gallery thumbs are all 125x125, so you can’t tell if a pic is portrait or landscape without opening it, nor how much more there is to see vs. the thumb (not WYSIWYG)
-Gallery names sometimes don’t match zip names. Confusing!
-Photoshoots don’t always match content of videos
-Generally, there’s not enough light in both pics and vids indoors
Bottom Line: For me, Eroberlin has been long awaited. It was supposed to come out in the spring, but apparently there were considerable delays.

It kind of reminds me of FTV Girls. There’s non-nude or semi-nude content, sometimes a bit of lez content, and sometimes toys in the pics (often in the vids). There’s a fair amount of “public” shooting. They like to end one shoot and start another in the same gallery. And the regular photo sizes are about the same, too.

I’d say this site does better with the videos than the pics in quality and available dimensions. The vids have no quick-cut editing or effects or annoying techno music. The only sound is straight from the shoot (sometimes with a bit of someone off camera, but not much). You get a sense of being with the girl for anywhere from 8 to 30 minutes.

The only problem is that sometimes you have to contend with noise from unexpected sources. A helicopter. A noisy, and very persistent, fly. Things like that.

But pics are important, too, and on this count the site is pretty muddled up. Why not have at least 3000 pixels in size on the long end in both orientations and stop this mixing of different sizes all willy-nilly?

People might not like downloading a zip expecting a pic to be 1622, as it was in the gallery, and then finding out that it’s 1080 in the zip. I know I don’t.

So 3000 px dimensions all around would really help the site. And the score, which I've nonetheless bumped up from 78 to 83 after getting feedback from the webmaster.

It really is a damn nice softcore video site, so to be fair I've notched it up on that basis.

09-07-09  01:31pm

Replies (10)
Visit Oldje


Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Many of those hot Euro girls – Cayenne, Stracey, Leanna Sweet, Rachel Evans, Julie Silver, Lucky, etc. – enjoying sex with older men.
+All exclusive content
+Total of about 268 scenes to date
+The most recent 116 scenes available in WMV 720x404.
+Scenes split into usually 2 vids means you can just get the best action in scene 2 if you like (though sometimes the first blowjob is in scene 1)
+Creativity in storylines and a sense of humor as well as sex
+Arranged with 10 updates/scenes per page; 27 pages to date
+Follows your browsing, so after you finish with a scene and then click “Updates,” it takes you back to the updates page you were on.
+Good visitor’s preview of the content
Cons: -Slow downloads (for me anyway): around 140Kbps (“20 Mbps” connection. Maybe my ISP is lying.)
-The first 152 scenes are only in Real Player and those vids aren’t so good
-Model name not mentioned in some of the scenes
-“Medium-sized” watermark on the vids; prefer “small” or none
-No all-in-one vids; scenes are split into 2 or 3 segments (usually 2)
-No streaming, should you prefer that
-Action in vids starts before the “Oldje” branding graphics have disappeared
-Some vids have “slow motion” parts you may or may not like
-Photos are only 960x640; screenshots are 720x576
-No zips of screenshots or photos
-Found a few screenshot or photo pages with missing links
-Priced in Euros, so dollar-buyers will pay more than $29.95
-Only updates about 1x per wk
-Some of the oldsters have big guts that block the view
Bottom Line: The first time I joined this, over two years ago, I was disappointed. The babes were hot, but those RealPlayer vids were skimpy in quality and the screen dimensions were small.

Funny how I quit just before they started offering the much better WMV’s. At this transition phrase, on their page 16, they even redid a few choice vids that I’d only been able to get in Real Player: Lucky in “Backstage with the Director” and Sarah in “Who’s the Boss” are among my faves, if only for fleeting minutes of the “belly-down flat.”

As for the men here, as an old Playboy cartoon once said: “There may be snow on the roof, but there’s still fire in the furnace.” Enter Big Pharma. I mean, PU’s have complained about some younger porn actors having trouble keeping Johnny at attention. Doesn’t seem to happen here.

A lot of these geezers appear over and over. They range from the middle-aged to the octogenarian. Some are in good shape, and some sport ample “table muscles.” One of them reminds me of gay Mr. Kidd from the old Bond movies; don’t think it’s the same guy, though.

But this isn’t your run-of-the-mill gonzo porn. Just check out the visitor’s area. What imaginations these people have! But the sex is still pretty much by the numbers, with a facial at the end.

I rather doubt that the more bright-eyed and bushy tailed of the PU community would much care for a site like this, but I’m getting up in years and this site helps. Hell, it could be ME on this one! With languid Leanna Sweet or foxy Cayenne! Mmmmmmm!

NB: BeautyandtheSenior is a clone. I've never been to that one. At least one PU member has provided a detailed comment on this.

02-28-09  04:54am

Replies (5)
Visit AV Erotica

AV Erotica

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +NO TOYS! (Yes, it can be done!)
+All exclusive
+Photos in 667x1000, 1667x2500, and 29xx X 43xx.
+Zips in medium size only, but they’re heavy, and the galleries have lots of pics. (Example: 5 zips I had of one model equaled about 650MB.)
+High quality, data-rich images. A medium-sized with a plain green background was 656K; a large was 1.72MB.
+Videos, smallest to largest file size, in wmv, Quicktime, and DivX
+Galleries from 07/07, daily from 11/07
+Server speed
+Easy, sensible navigation
+Can rate and/or comment on models, galleries, and videos
+Visitor’s preview shows a lot about the site
+Do check out the blog area. The writing is clear and focused and the stories told there might interest you. The English is almost perfect. They must have a great Russian-English translator. (Assuming that Volkov is Russian. Ukrainian? Other? I don't know.)
Cons: -For video fans: Not that many are up so far. 26 to date. Videos started in 9/07 and there’s a new one each Tuesday.
-For 1280x720 stalwarts, just 16 of the vids are that size.
-Videos can be boring
-Too many photos of the model looking away from the camera
-Galleries usually have no clear organization; I recommend a "narrative" approach of stripping to total nudity with implied sex
-Blurriness in some photos was a bummer, especially of what would have been splendid ass shots of Goldie (oh my!). Overly dark pics less of a problem, but sometimes were.
-Would you like all of the models? I didn’t, but I liked enough.
Bottom Line: Anton Volkov (hence the “AV” in the site name) is an established nude photographer with quite a corpus of work at MetArt, where he presently ranks #10 among their 60 listed artists. Several of his models there are also here, including Alice A/Malina, Irina, Julia, Katya, Leticia, Nusia, Olivia, Riana, Tati, and the especially awe-inspiring Lena, Goldie/Zlata A, and Nata (aka Helen, Larissa, etc.).

There are no duplications of MetArt material here. And yes, this is a purely softcore site, and I hope it stays that way.

Vids: With softcore vids, it’s especially challenging to keep the viewer enthralled. I recommend this basic idea: “I am undressing for you ... I want you so bad ...” The model has to get aroused, look often right into the camera, and feel passion for someone who’s not physically there. The POV is the viewer, having a very memorable day.

Dasha’s vid of turning around on a bed, looking very bored and clueless as to what to do was a total bomb. Olivia’s “In Corset” was better, as she had some magnetism, but it still didn’t hold me. And that’s all the predictable boredom that I cared to undergo to write this review.

$24.95 for access to several months of exclusive, quality content was a good deal, in spite of the flaws, without which the site would have rated higher.

What it needs most is a more consistent visceral "connection" between the models and the viewer, in the pics and the vids.

02-10-08  04:03am

Replies (6)
Visit Penthouse


Status: Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
Pros: +Many beautiful women -- established stars and newbies, too
+Pic galleries and videos of softcore posing/masturbation, lesbian, HC b/g, bb/g, b/gg, bb/gg
+zips/pics in 5 sizes (800, 1200, 2000, 3000, 4000) starting May 2006; before then, many max at 1600
+Not nec. “exclusive,” but nice pic sizes!
+monthly “calendars” for access to content, or by model or “pet”
+additional features: chat with models, store, and “reading” (video reviews, sex advice, and reading for auto-erotic purposes)
Cons: -preview of current month's updates only; takes 4 clicks into the tour to reach it
-qty of pics per gallery varies a lot from < 20 to > 100
-movement to earlier calendar requires lots of clicking back, OR a change in the month’s URL (e.g., change ?m=7&y=2007 to ?m=3&y=2006 to see March 2006)
-calendars go no further back than June 2005 (and that’s just a partial one)
-video downloads even in their best quality (320x240) are below par; there is 640x480 for streaming
Bottom Line: 1. It’s best as a photo site. July 2007 had 37 solo pic galleries, 11 g/g galleries, and 4 HC galleries, 18 HC videos (always broken into 3-6 scenes), and 9 softcore “BTS” videos.
2. The videos serve best as previews of professional productions. The quality of the vids here ain’t at the “keeper” level. Check the online “store” for DVDs.
3. It’s an erotic resource with the chat and the readings and, again, the store which sells, for example, an operationally viable replica of Cassia Riley’s pussy. (Nope. I don’t have one.)

So if you have it for Cassia, with this site it is possible to set up a multimedia blitz for yourself.

For awhile over the past year or so, they were posting “vintage” ‘70’s and ‘80’s photos in larger sizes, but not that many. It didn’t seem to catch fire. Wasn’t very good! That ‘80’s big hair looks ridiculous.

Yes, Penthouse has been around for a long time, but this site only starts delivering the really good stuff from May ’06 on. Enormous images of beauties like Hanna Hilton, Shay Laren, Jamie Lynn, and Crystal Klein baring their fine bee-hinds is very nice indeed … when they do. And you can vote on the photosets. The quality can sometimes be so-so.

Some galleries are from sources that have their own sites, like Digital Desire or MishaOnline, so don’t expect it always to be exclusive.

Wish they’d republish a lot of Hank Londoner’s work in 4000px. THAT would be great! But do they have rights to it? I dunno.

08-28-07  04:26pm

Replies (2)
Visit In The Crack

In The Crack

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +ASS is the emphasis here
+usually very fine Euro and American women; most are well-known
+117 gallery sets, most of which are of a unique model in two complete scenes
+excellent quality photography, esp from #15 to the present
+zips and individual pics available in small (approx. 800px) and large (1500 to 2400px) sizes, but see the cons!
+OK, collage-like previews of galleries (click “models” link, then click a gallery to see it)
+more recent vids in 640x360, 1280x720, and 1920x1080
Cons: -only 3 new galleries + companion videos per month
-access to all photos costs $24.95; video downloads require purchasing tokens in a complex system based on video size and time length (e.g. a small and short one costs just several, but a large and long one can cost over 200). Purchase examples: 500 tokens for $23.95; 10,000 for $349.95. (:o)
-complete availability of large and small pics starts with gallery #43
-no standard pic sizes; a variety of custom dimensions
Bottom Line: What I like are photos shot straight above a beautiful woman lying belly down, back straight, from the upper thigh to the top of her head, looking back amorously, her delectable ass beckoning. What this site delivers is close, but either full-body length with the woman’s face buried in a mass of hair, or just the ass all by itself, nearly every single time! Somehow with this site I almost NEVER get my wish!

But, dear reader, you might get yours: ass in various positions and at many angles (just not my favorite one). Colorful toys shoved into/sticking out of the three most popular orifices. Closeups of cheeks pulled apart, shot from multiple XYZ coordinates. Ditto that for the MOST popular body cavity. This is what we call stretching.

Feminists say that porn objectifies women. This site single-mindedly endeavors to do so, and it succeeds. Our dehumanized pretties include Eve Angel, Alexis Love, Jassie, Sophie Moone, Sophie Paris, Addison Rose, Susana Spears, Mia Stone, Lucy Stratilova, and many more. And it can get very messy, such as with Layla Rivera’s toilet session. (I’ll bet she’s a vegetarian.)

The photo quality is so good and the women look so fine, with such detail that you can clearly see the texture of their skin. It’s hard for me to believe how disappointing this site is -- for me, anyway. 200-350 photos per gallery is common here. Why can’t I get my wish? I do at lots of other sites. It’s really weird.

And the videos? Fuck that.

Now you can join and get everything for $34.95. I've been downloading lots of vids of girls like Susana Spears, Karlie Montana, and Peaches (among others) and the extended ass worship is very nice! Don't need the closeup anus twiching, but some folks might enjoy it. Boosted the score from 70 to 83.

08-25-07  08:25pm

Replies (9)
Visit Nubiles.net


Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive pics and vids
+Occasionally large pics option at 1800px from Nov 2005; from then, this size gradually becomes the norm for large over a few months
+SC and HC pics and vids (more often SC)
+Close to 450 different models now, often HOT
+Improved navigation (see below)
+Many ways to browse and access archives by date or model name or type
+Full length videos in mpg, and sometimes avi and or wmv; or segments that show preview screencap on mouseover
Cons: -Four to ten "full sized" pics in the 2-3000px range for many models, but why just those?
-Video segments only in mpg
-Videos OK on 1024x768 monitor, but not HiDef great
-Occasionally unappealing models
-Sometimes photos are too bright, too dark, or overly compressed
Bottom Line: The site has recently undergone a "remodeling job," resulting in better navigation and access to content. Points 1 and 2 in my "Nubiles Quibbles" comments here have been addressed! As for point 3, I haven't hit a bad link in the 2 or so months of update catch-ups I've been doing.

You can now download all small (apprx 1200px) or large (1800px) zips or individual pics straight from gallery pages. They also let you rate the gallery right there while you're in it. And what's more, they've added this feature to EVERY gallery, going right back to their beginnings in March 2004 (at which time, of course, they didn't yet have the larger pics).

Obviously, their webmasters know how to recode masses of pages efficiently, and my hat's off to them.

What's more, the first page a member gets to now displays 10 coming updates followed by 20 current updates and then the 50 most recent models. I do wish they'd put the current updates first, as it's what you'd expect. Still, it's a major improvement over what it was before.

Go further into the site for all of the archives, which are organized in a variety of ways (model names, by yr/month, etc.)

There's also a page of thumbs for the next 80+ coming updates (currently, that's to Sept. 7!)

What the site still needs are better quality & larger images & vids. Why not have 3000 px images as a standard size option instead of just a handful of such pics of each model, none of which are all that special anyway?

Just want to add: From the visitor's home page, clicking "updates" leads to ALL of the updates for this site, so you really get a great idea of what's there and some of what's coming. This is an excellent feature that I somehow missed before. Wish every site did this.

Bad news: Toys! Sybians! Vibrators! From the past month, only ONE photoset interested me. I can't see why they are taking this overly worn path. I'm reducing the score.

08-17-07  05:19pm

Replies (11)
Visit Mindy Vega

Mindy Vega

Status: Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: -Mindy is a beautiful Cuban American girl with dark eyes and a marvelous backside (gasp!). She's a natural at posing. Very sweet!
-Quality of pics has definitely improved over time; currently there are 1024s and even some 1200s going back to the past 60 galleries or so. She's also been updating some of the smaller, earlier galleries.
-Lots of webcam and even some HC video
-Automatic login for members; good navigation
Cons: -No zips
-Site's kinda slow even with highspeed broadband
-New Mindy galleries come but once a week :(
-The guest model collection is small and the pics are usually nonexclusive and just not that good
--There are bonus sites, but they are just so-so and most if not all have no video download options.
Bottom Line: This site's for Mindy lovers, and once you see her, it isn't hard to be one. For 24.95 (the actual price now), it's a NICE exclusive and growing Mindy collection. I recommend it!

04-08-07  09:14am

Replies (3)
Visit Just Cute Girls

Just Cute Girls

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive content and a good amount of it (goes back to January 2009). Over 200 videos and 930 photo sets
+Daily updates
+Decent price
+Some very nice looking-models; some are well-known
+Photos AND zips come in four sizes (in pixels): 504x756, 1008x1512, 2016x3024, and the very large 4032x6038
+Good image quality in the photos and videos
+Unique “retina” feature lets you zoom in on parts of a photo
+Every video is both streaming and downloadable. Earlier ones are each WMV 1280x720 and WMV 640x360; from October 2010, they switched to Quicktime 1920x1080, 1280x720, and 640x360.
+User can set viewing preferences (thumbnails per page, opening photo in new window, etc.)
+Save your login once, then just click the member’s link and you’re in every time
+Appealing design and color scheme on white background
+Easy, intuitive navigation
+Snappy search feature! Just start typing the model’s name and there she is! Or search by a list of attributes and everyone pops right on in.
Cons: -Not a huge number of models; not a small number either (about 64)
-Some of the models are not very sexy (tats, piercings, flab, fate)
-Thumbnails are too small
-Downloads are slow, especially with videos (160 kbps, for instance, and that’s after several logins and several days). Or this: 30 minutes wait for a 300MB video.
-Don’t even bother with the streaming option on the videos; it’s too slow to get going.
-Photoshoots broken into segments on different dates (at least they’re often similar dates)
-The photography is sometimes amateurish: girls’ heads get cropped off at various points; shadows cover faces outdoors; sometimes there’s simply no composition to speak of.
-(Minor quibble) photos and videos of individual models found under “Albums” – not the clearest choice of words
Bottom Line: This is a softcore site, mostly solo modeling with very little in the way of toys and just a few light-petting girl-girl scenes.

Some of the better-known models are here, including Lux Cassidy, Sara Jaymes, Riley Jensen (who only appears with Sara), Randy Moore, Carlotta Champagne, Sarah Jain, Jenni Gregg (the Czech bubblebutt blond), and Annabelle Lee.

Some of the others – from the younger Ashley and Odette to the more fully blossomed Renne G and Amber D -- are pretty easy on the eyes, too.

So how does this “retina” feature work? First of all, bring your own retinas (-;). Now, open a pic, choose a “retina” size (small, med, or large), then mouse over the pic. A circular area will follow your mouse movement, revealing in greater size the “stuff” that she got that you want magnified.

Yeah, that’s right. Magnified. I didn’t know that retinas could magnify. Mine can’t. Oh, well.

One thing I really like about this site is the apparent obsession with ass. There are LOTS of shoots done on beds indoors or blankets outdoors in which the lady lays very invitingly prone to your deepest wishes.

Another good thing is that the photo updates have at least 50 pics, and some go beyond 100. Since a full shoot might consist of 3-4 updates, there’s a selection of pics at every phase of the “tale,” from stripping to getting nice and belly-down flat on those crisp whites.

With so many pics here, you can sometimes discard the poorly composed ones and still come out with a decent “end result.” Sometimes ...

And that’s my biggest gripe about this site: the lousy composition of too many pics. It’s like, you know she’s is making sweet eyes, but you can’t see them because the top of the pic starts in the middle of her nose! And so on like that.

And so I ask, “Why?” It isn’t as though we’re short on space, what with the 4032x6038 pixel option. Why not just include the girl’s entire head in the photo, especially when her face is showing?

Assy vids are also in supply. I’m not much of a softcore vid fan, but I did get a few samples: nude, redheaded Amber oiling herself and moving around face down in sexual motion; Cyan shaking her money maker over a chaise lounge; Sara Jaymes slowly, slowly undressing on a bed; Sarah Jain, a personal favorite since I discovered her at NextDoorModels, stretching on a bed so quietly you can hear the birds chirping outside.

One thing the vids have in common is that they’re usually pretty quiet. If there’s any steady noise, it’s mostly from the outside.

Clearly, while flawed in photo composition sometimes and in download speed usually, this site is very good in a number of ways, and I would recommend it to any fan of softcore for its considerable exclusive content.

06-27-11  01:42am

Replies (6)
Visit Judy Jade

Judy Jade

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive photography of “Judy Jade,” a.k.a. Czech super-cutie Veronika Fasterova, or Verunka (what I’ll call her here)
+Verunka comes across as very sweet, friendly, playful, and sexy here, with a considerable range of expression. It’s a refreshing change from her typically cool, aloof, goddess-like presence at some other sites.
+Poses start in a wide variety of coverings, from a simple towel to all manner of skimpy outfits to street clothes that would invite persistent whistling
+All shoots are done indoors
+Photos at 3500px or 2544 at least
+Variety in lighting, color, tones and textures (usually acceptable, though not always)
+Galleries range from 40 to over 200 pics each; many are substantial
+Zips of the large-sized photos
+It’s a LARGE collection (well over 160 photo shoots) that is still updating
Cons: -Some pics at full size are blurry and therefore pointless
-Some galleries have mix of tints and hues; not the most professional
-Server can get pokey when browsing
-Updates come SLOWLY, around 2-3 per month
-Downloads are rather slow at about 350kbps
-Smaller “med” sized pics are only at 400x600
-Thumbs of landscape pics aren’t WYSIWYG
-Some sets have nudity or mid-stripping first and “fully clothed” later
-Full nudity not achieved in all sets (esp. the first 28 or so), but in plenty just the same
-Watermark can be a nuisance in tighter shots
-From later July 2009 to the present, shoots are broken into 2-3 postings
-From mid October 2009 to the present, some of the same partial galleries are posted twice under different dates. It’s very obvious. What’s up with that?
-No videos, sorry. But just as there are “video only” sites, here’s one that’s only photos. Hey, that’s the breaks, buddy.
Bottom Line: “Verunka.” I’ve always preferred that name for this girl. It’s uncommon. Besides, if you say it repeatedly, it sounds like a bed banging rhythmically against a wall.

This site has its flaws. The blurry pics are the worse of that, followed by the mix of tints and hues noted above. While some galleries look pretty close to "pro" in quality, there are others where you wonder if someone is playing around with the camera (or software) settings for focus and color and brightness/darkness. Someone obviously doesn't care if you wind up paying for the unedited results.

And then there's the watermark. It's easier to tune out than those at some sites, but it's still too "there."

If you’re into toy play, or masturbation by hand for that matter, you may not like this site anyway; there’s neither. She touches herself fairly often, but there's no rotation of the sugar plum.

But if you’ve got the time and patience to look through everything here, you’ll find plenty of real exclusive gems of Verunka giving you an attitude that you don’t often get at the more “artistic” sites, along with some very clear, crisp ass shots. And even though it’s a pricey single-model site with no vids, no guests, no toys, and no working on the whisker biscuit whatsoever, as single-model sites go, it’s better than the average. I’m certainly glad I plunked down for it this once.

02-23-10  06:33pm

Replies (2)
Visit Just Teen Site

Just Teen Site

Status: Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
Pros: +1178 updates (mostly galleries; a few videos) from Dec. 2004 to present
+All-exclusive to April 2007, then it starts to mix.
+623 different models, mostly European, many of them lovely
+From Oct. 2005, often has pics sized at least at 3000px, along with smaller pics at 1200px. “Hi rez” sometimes even 5000px.
+Good download speed at 2MB/second
+Search feature: drop-down lists of names, ages, countries, and hair colors.
+Access to live cams, though I doubt they’re included in the membership price.
+Membership includes JustTeenMovie
+Very good visitor’s browsing preview of updates and models
+Overall quality continues to improve
Cons: -Pricey, with no trial
-Claims at the bottom of visitor’s home page to be “100% Exclusive.” Not true, but see the bottom line.
-Inconsistent updating; has taken as much as a week for new updates to show.
-Zips are only of the large pic size.
-Large/“hi-rez” pics usually at 1200px until around Oct. 2005 (2-3000px).
-Older, 2004-05 content too often has poor image quality
-Some pics have the usual problems such as blurriness, excessive backlight and forward shadowing, low lighting, stupid poses, goofy props, etc.
-“Country” in search feature lists only Ukraine, Russia, and Czech Republic. So they made Czechs out of Austrian Crystal Klein and Hungarian Eve Angel, etc. (Will this affect their tax situation?)
-Once you’re logged in as a member, you have to take care to mouse around their EXTREMELY ANNOYING “Live Cams!” link which constantly animates in the top right corner.
-Problem with customer support e-mail (see my comment and the reply)
Bottom Line: Maybe you could say that the real “salad era” for this site was from Oct. 2005 to April 2007, when all of the pics were large and exclusive. But it’s not that simple.

The first non-exclusive content I can identify is Marketa Belonoha, April 23, 2007, which I’d seen in lower quality at the highly dismissable Viewpornstars. From that point forward, there are at least 31 non-exclusive photosets that I’ve seen elsewhere. (Not counting redundant videos.)

I don’t see this as such a bad thing because the image quality is sometimes better and the pics are nearly always larger than at the other sites: KarupsPC, MyGlamourSite, TeenDreams, SexyBabes, Watch4Beauty, VirtualGirl, and VivThomas. (But at least you can download zips of smaller pics at those other sites.)

Besides, what has been non-exclusive in 2008, for instance, is only about 10% or less of the total output so far.

But that total output is waning. Here are the update totals per year:
2004: 10
2005: 152
2006: 400
2007: 362
2008: 254

Even if they updated once per day for the rest of this year (87 days), which I doubt, they’d end up with 341 for 2008 – less than last year. And that’s with the higher $34.95 price in 2008. (It was $24.95 in 2005 and $29.99 in 2006-07.)

And sure, it DOES include the video site now, but I joined it for a 6-month subscription before they added that and started slowing down on the photo updates. See, I'm a pic fan, which is why I joined! I'm not as happy with the site as I used to be.

And I’m scoring it as fairly as I can from that perspective.

10-05-08  03:05am

Replies (2)
Visit Ariel's Blog

Ariel's Blog

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Ariel (aka Piper Fawn): A fully blossomed, all-natural 24-year-old woman with girlish, sometimes mischievous charms. She looks closer to 19.
+Clean, clear, straightfoward site design
+Login right on the home page (no clicking for it)
+Exclusive content, even within the Watch4Beauty collection of sites
+Total of 87 “nude art” photosets so far (back to late Sept. 2007)
+”Backstage” photosets (17 so far) might provide some additions to some “nude art” ones
+17 “real life” photosets (but not that interesting unless you and she have friends in common, IMHO)
+Photos in 3 sizes (1200’s, 2000’s, and large at least in 3872px)
+Zips in all three sizes
+Videos in iPod (640x480); QT and WMV 720x576
+Updates continue (unlike every other single-model Watch4Beauty site)
+Users can rate photosets and videos
+Active fans’ forum
+Members get discount rates to other W4B sites (“links” page)
Cons: -Some photosets emphasize the “art” at the expense of enjoyable nudity
-Blurriness, darkness, graininess, strange skin coloring (especially red) in some of the photosets
-A small number of black & white photosets
-Watermark on photos can be annoying
-Not many videos. 8 in “nude” art and 6 each in “backstage” and “real life”
-Some videos may bore (Ariel looking into space) or frustrate with all of the cutting and splicing
-Videos usually under 5 min. (may be a pro for some)
-Somewhat irregular photo or video updates, but 3 per week on average for all types
-“Search” box shows only on the home page; good only for searching titles of updates
-Server rather slow (rarely > 400kbps; 20mbps connection)
Bottom Line: Ariel has a face that can project many nuances of mood with her eyes and mouth. She can look right into the camera and “connect” with a grin, an arched eyebrow, a startled stare, etc. She is one-of-a-kind and yet she possesses a chameleon-like versatility. This really shows when a good makeup artist or hairdresser is involved.

One video that drives this home is “Valentine day” (Feb. 14, 2008). You really get the feeling that you’re right there with her as she caresses herself and looks straight into the camera.

It’s too bad that it was an exception. The same goes for photosets with her looking away, looking down, keeping her eyes closed. In other words, the “spark” that she can create would have ignited more often had those on the production end of things been more conscious of capturing it.

But there were some nice photosets here, for sure. Some of the real standouts include “Desert Rose,” “Green Tea,” “I Like My Bed,” “Wood Nymph,” and especially “My Lamp” and “Palm.”

I also thought the video "Wanted for beauty" was good as unique video art.

The fans forum is also rather interesting. Ariel’s native language is Czech, so of course don’t expect her to know English as if she were born and raised on it. What she says about her standards as a model I found impressive (e.g., avoid doing what you’ve seen 100 times already) and the way she handles jerks (enough of those) was, too. The lady just doesn’t waste her time with other people’s crap.

Bottom-bottom line: This site’s worth a join for Ariel fans.

08-08-08  04:53pm

Replies (5)
Visit Rigin Studio

Rigin Studio

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Eastern Slavic (all Russian?) women, with 92 models to date. Julia, Kelly, Nika, Sandra, and Sasha are among the real lookers, by the way.
+A year’s worth of daily updates and growing
+Photos are exclusive to this site
+Photos at 533x800 and 2336x3504 pixels
+40-120 pics per gallery; usually it’s between
+In quality, photos range from very nice and clear to somewhat grainy and occasionally blurry
+Can comment/read comments on galleries
+Seamless login. After the first login, you can close all of the site windows, then later reopen the site and you’re already in as a member.
+Can check your subscription status at the site (termination date; days left)
+Subscriptions are non-recurring; loyalty discounts are available for those who extend
+No toys! Hooray!
Cons: -Overkill signup process: 3 screens before reaching the ccbill page
-Multiple galleries from single shoots are common
-Zips only in one size: 3500 px
-Some of the models are not very attractive.
-Some photos could do better in color and light.
-Can’t easily return to a model’s page from inside a gallery. The only way is to surf "backwards."
-Model’s index disorderly, not alphabetized
-Since the site was redesigned (relaunched in July 2008) some earlier galleries are being reposted as "updates."
Bottom Line: Vadim Rigin is a nude photographer (or should I say, a photographer of nudes) with a nice body of work on other sites, such as MetArt (about 240 galleries) and MetModels (64 galleries). There are no videos, no hardcore, and no toys!

The photos are pretty good overall, but this site was designed by amateurs. Visually, we’ve all seen worse, but it certainly doesn’t say “pro,” either. I’d be happy enough if they’d add zips of the 3500px shots and change that light blue link text to something readable, such as good old #000000 (black). They could up the “visited” link color to a slightly more rods-and-cones-friendly grey, too. These link color changes would take under 10 minutes with a decent site editor. The zips would take one person a week with a little caffeine, sensible pacing, and 8 hours sleep a night.

As for the updates, why not just list an entire month on one page? Why have the 30th to the 9th on page one, and the 8th to the 1st on page two? I’m glad my wall calendar doesn’t do that.

And why not just link straight to the galleries from the model’s and update pages, instead of putting a superfluous “cover” page in the way?

The photos, while not always great, are the best thing about this site, but getting to them (navigation) and getting them (no zips) are no fun at all, especially with the worst thing -- that narcoleptic server. I cannot recommend this site until that’s fixed ... but (now April 25, '08) it never was. Believe me, it's a major flaw.

After going off line for ~3 months, it's back (new design). The server's now FAST, and there are zips! Navigation's better, if rather primitive. A few galleries not yet republished (e.g. of Nika). At least the gallery thumbs are now a nice large size and serve as an example of what TO do.

Also, Mr. Rigin was gracious enough to offer a free extra month to subscribers as soon as the site went back online, and he made good on that. Such a man of his word is not so easily found in the porn world.

All in all, it's much better and I'd now recommend it to lovers of toy-free softcore, with the score raised to 82.

03-27-08  10:12pm

Replies (4)
Visit Stuffed Petite

Stuffed Petite

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Great hardcore action
+Part of a network. $30 gives access to all sites.
+Videos in very good quality 640x480 wmv, their all-in-one “DVD” quality (their claim) or in segments (wmv or mpgs)
+Several updates include softcore and/or hardcore photosets, some of good size and quality
+OK visitor preview of this site and others on the network but ...
Cons: ... annoying popups in visitor preview. Must manually type in names of other network sites for their previews.
-Only 35 updates and the site’s been listed for a year. (But network updates are every day and archives are plentiful.)
-Some of women I find unattractive, esp. at the milfish SoccerMomScores!
-No zips for photos
-Photos are inconsistent in quality, size, and number (sometimes it’s 0; sometimes there are many pages). The Gigi “launch” update had pix at 1728px; the most recent Adriana Neveah update pics are a paltry 876px. And in content: Some are softcore only, some are hardcore only, and some are a mix (my favorite).
-Some photo galleries are left unfinished; they link to table grids of red X's (everyone's favorite low-budget computer animation). Flaky!
-Not 100% exclusive (recent Jassie update), but close
Bottom Line: I think that sex with a pretty girl when she’s belly-down flat is the ultimate pleasure. It’s not just the natural angle and the depth of penetration; there’s also something about the girl giving herself in this way that just drives me nuts. StuffedPetite is something of a specialist in videos with this position, be it flat on a couch and/or on the edge of a bed. My personal favorites are of Riley Shy, Lela Starr, Adriana Neveah, Mackenzie Miles, and Kacey Jordan. Every one of those are DELICIOUS!

But not every video at Stuffed Petite has the eel rolling in that ocean of motion. For more, see MeatMyAss (Vanessa Lane, Bree Olsen) and 1000Facials: Abbey Brookes, Paulina James, Jayden Rose, Sasha Grey, Cassie Young, Mindy Main (the 10-16-06 one is DYNAMITE), another Lela Star (!), Amy Reid, Courtney Simpson, Taylor Rain, ETC.

Of course, 1000Facials has lot of just bj vids, along with Throated and OnlyTeenBlowJobs (but there's a great, very ardent belly-down one of Bree Olson here). And there are even more bonus sites with DRM-free downloads or streams.

But I digress. Actually, 1000Facials has about 4x more content buildup than “Stuffed,” although the quality starts to get “pre-broadband” if you go far back enough.

The bottom line is that this is a damn good network site to join at least once, if you’ve got a hankering for more hardcore vids, particularly as described above. Not perfect, but good enough!

01-19-08  11:18am

Replies (5)
Visit Marketa 4 You

Marketa 4 You

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Visitor’s area: good preview of all content and pics per gallery
+122 solo photosets of Marketa to date
+50 of the Marketa photosets max over 3000px
+Easy to click to next or previous gallery
+Some very sexy videos! All are in iPod at 320x240 and also in QT and WMV formats at 480x360 (small size); 3 max at 640x480, 17 at 720x576, and 3 at 1280x720.
+4 videos are 9-13 min.
+No DRM.
+Diary and forum; Marketa responds in English or Czech.
+30 wallpapers, 3 sizes up to 1600px
Cons: -Only updates 1x per wk, usually Marketa but not always
-Some photosets have few pics!
-Some Marketa photosets also on Watch4Beauty: “Pistolero,” “Luxury,” “Magic Sky,” Morning Session,” “Wind Rises,” “Early Harvest”
-All 24 “My Friends” photosets also on Watch4Beauty.
-Most vids are approx 2-3 min. Just music for sound, but Marketa may speak in the future (she says in forum).
-Search feature: Saw sets of Zoe, Karin, and Monika. Searched for those names; got “Nothing found” each time.
Bottom Line: A very softcore site, mostly of heart-stealing, very charming, all-natural, phenomenal Czech beauty Marketa Belonoha. No toys, no tats, no silicone, no nasty piercings. So far, so good!

Then there’s the little sign on the homepage that reads, “5000PX Photo Resolution.” But of course that’s not saying that ALL photos of Marketa max at that size. Who would get that idea?
73 photosets max at 2560 (including the first 62)
4 max in the “3’s” (odd sizes between 3264 and 3872)
46 max in the “4’s” (various odd sizes), including 37 at the full-blown 4992. That’s BIG.

It adds up to 123, not 122, because one is girl/girl with Monika Vesela.

All galleries are also in 1200 and 2000px, and all sizes are zip downloadable. You can also change the default single pic download size to sm, med, or large.

If you’re expecting all future photosets to max right near 5000, don’t. Most recent ones going back to mid-May ’07 do, actually, but how can we really be sure?

I recommend this site if you’re a Marketa fan (a pulse is helpful) and join more for the archives than for the updates, as they are only 1x per week. Also, the photo content isn’t really quite as sexy or provocative in the more recent sets, but there’s plenty that is otherwise.

Download speeds vary from 200Kbps to close to 500Kbps (5Mbps broadband connection).

Search feature works only for finding galleries by title. That's just freakin' brilliant.

All things considered, I rate this site in the 80's.

10-04-07  03:19pm

Replies (0)
Visit ATK Premium

ATK Premium

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +295 different models; many attractive ones
+huge collection
+exclusive content (mostly)
+most photosets in 1536px; some max at 1024
+photos can be browsed by category: solo, toys, boy-girl, girl-girl, artistic
+search feature by name, characteristics (age, hair, tits, tatoos, etc.), dates, or photographer
+download photos all in one zip, or a zip of each page (helpful with long photosets)
+better navigation: back button no longer throws you back to page 1 of a gallery
Cons: -only 4-5 new photosets per day (M-Sat); sister site ATK Galleria has 16 per day (T-Sat.) for the same price
-some videos single file in WMV (640x480) or Quicktime, but some even new ones are only in mpg (single file or segments)
-tour site doesn’t show updates nor clearly link to “new this week” page (free.atkpremium.com/main.php)
-original, unique design of the site gone
-“artistic” sets: a nice euphemism for “boring,” usually
-too many shoots are uninspiring
Bottom Line: It’s OK as a video site, with lots of solo, lez, g/g and b/g content. (Noticed a HC vid of Julie Silver seen on a Defrancesco site, so I say “mostly” exclusive.)

As a photosite, there’s tons of exclusive pics, some hot, some not, but plenty to look through.

This site goes back to least early 2004. Then, it was “special,” with a unique design, larger photos than ATK Galleria, and an emphasis on the model’s personalities. Unfortunately, that meant models doing mudane things such as laundry, makeup, cooking, and cleaning, partially or fully nude.

Earlier this year, a major crash brought it down for several weeks. Once it finally returned, in mid-April 2007, the new sets no longer featured household chores – thankfully – but the site lost its unique design and personality.

Gone are the archives of complete monthly update lists with thumbs of all galleries and videos. The design and organization are now quite plain and very much like those of ATK Exotics or Natural and Hairy.

Re: organization, you now can click “solo” and then “2007 06,” for example, to see all of the solo sets for the month. It’s quite clear and easy to use.

This change means, however, that now only ATK Galleria has a design unlike any of the other “Amateur Teen Kingdom” sites. And although it pads itself with non-exclusive stuff seen at Denys Defrancesco sites and TeenDreams, with photos now also at 1536, it still offers more for the regular resubscriber than this “premium” site does.

06-14-07  01:04pm

Replies (1)
Visit Snap Girls

Snap Girls

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Hot Euro-models, very good quality exclusive pics
+Zip downloads of galleries in 2000px size; singles are smaller
+All updates listed in public area
+Very basic, straightforward design
+You know very clearly how much you’ll be getting
+OK price ($19.95/month) considering content began in January 2007
Cons: -Only 24 pics per gallery, updates every other day
Bottom Line: At SnapGirls, they keep it simple. You get 24 new pics every other day plus the archives.

There’s not much chance that the pics will be duds. They’re selected with care.

Want more? Too bad.

There are no videos. It’s a photo site. Softcore.

If you joined today, you'd get over 90 galleries (new this month plus the archives).

Might be a fair trade on your Jackson.

But I sure wouldn't mind if they'd be just a little less austere with the pic quantities and raise the limit per gallery to, say, 50.

06-04-07  12:26pm

Replies (0)
Visit MPL Studios

MPL Studios

Status: Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros: +Some great quality exclusive photography of very pretty girls of the Russian Federation
+Max pic sizes 1600, 2000, or 3000 from at least the fall of 2005
+Archives that go back to Sept. 2003; complete thumbs listing in public area
+Eye-pleasing site design
+More recent videos in 1280x720
Cons: -Very annoying placement of zip files away from the galleries. You must FIND the model in an index based on shoot location (as if you know), then find the gallery (sometimes among MANY).
-Overly complicated navigation
-Max pic sizes in galleries vary, but not shown in the updates section
-Too much “artsy” stuff with props, excessive darkness or light, blurriness
-Non-nude “postcard” photosets (a plus for some)
-Some non-exclusive, poor quality content from early in the site history
Bottom Line: As a repeating member (first in Dec. 2003, when it only cost $20), I can say that it certainly has gotten better in the visual site design and in the quality and sizes of the pics. But it needs further improvement:

1. Navigation. Gallery thumbs should just open to the gallery, not to the frivolous “cover shot.” Pics in galleries should open in a separate window. Zips of all sizes should be accessible from INSIDE the gallery. (Too many sites don’t do this. What’s so non-intuitive about it?) And right now, zips are only of the largest size, and fucking hard to get to.

2. Transparency. In the updates and the model pages, put all of the pic sizes under each gallery thumb, as in “800/1200/1600.”

3. Model indexes. Do away with the shoot location indexes, and just have an alphabetical model index listing by thumbs, and not that growing, long list of text-only names next to the thumbs.

4. Photos. Fewer poses of the model looking away from the camera. Do the “art” in a way that will also please the average, horny philistine.

I really like this site. It has a personality all its own, and you do get a sense of intimacy with these nubile, post-Cold War cutie pies. But it’s got more layers than a Matryoshka doll, all over the place.

Please: Simplify.

Correction: Zips of photosets are of 2 or 3 sizes ("hi res" 2 and 3000; "low res" 1200). My apologies for the error! They've also upgraded their server and I've found the response to be faster with pages and a bit faster with zips.

06-03-07  03:39am

Replies (0)
Visit Pure Beauty Magazine

Pure Beauty Magazine

Status: Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros: +Large, mostly exclusive collection of some very hot Eurobabes going back to April 2004 (daily updates start Feb. 2005)
+zips in 3-4 sizes depending on gallery, largest ranging from 2560, 3264, 3872, 4992px, etc. (Up to April 2005 there are some that max only to 1200; some go much larger.)
+nice autologin (no username or pwd needed!)
+nice preview section in public area
Cons: -lack of light in too many galleries
-blurriness in photos (too often!)
-other ANNOYING “artistic” (mis-)treatments such as excessive redness, blueness, graininess, etc.
-awkward auto-resizing of the window when you open a gallery; happens every time you return from viewing a single pic! Why not let it be full screen? Plus it always takes you back to the top of the page, not to where you were.
-small number of pics in most galleries recently acquired from former “Max Archives” site
Bottom Line: This is a purely softcore photography site with no toys. If you’ve never been, you’re in for a real treat with many established Euro-beauties such as Kyla Cole, Tereza Ilova, Veronica/Lola L, Lenka Horokova, Jennifer Max, Kathy (the Czech blond with hee-uge tata’s), Monica Vesela, etc. I do recommend it as such for at least one join.

It has only 48 videos, so that’s not a priority for them. Formats include Windows Media, DivX, and QuickTime in 640x480. No DRM!

It tries to be a kind of “lifestyle” site, including extras such as exchange rates (“Time to buy Euros? Damn, look at that ASS!”), an amusing “news” section (e.g., “Boy Kills Monster Pig Larger Than Hogzilla”), world clocks (NYC certainly isn’t accurate), and insights into photography.

And this brings me to my biggest complaint about it: its artistic pretensions, its greatest and most tragic being that what WE want is to see the models bathed in dark blue light and so forth. After all, it’s “art.” Uh-huh. Well, I’ve been wanting to say this for a long time, and this review is as good as any to say it in:
Fuck art.
I mean, “FUCK!” “ART!”

There. Enough wasting OUR money so that you can enjoy your lousy “art.” We’re PORN USERS here, not art lovers!


05-28-07  06:08am

Replies (4)
Visit My Glamour Site

My Glamour Site

Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: +beautiful E Euro babes, especially stunning Evelyn Lory
+zip downloads in three sizes (2500, 1280, 800 px)
+pretty straightforward navigation
+generally good to excellent photo quality
Cons: -rather small collection to date of only 57 galleries and videos combined
-oversized watermark that's VERY annoying and ugly to boot. Why any site would layer a fat ugly watermark right over a model's body is something I'll never understand, but lots of them do, right?
-a tendency now for Evelyn to keep the threads on throughout a gallery (less nudity than with earlier site)
-price of 29.95 is too high for 3 updates per week
-sometimes silly "artsy" photo retouching
Bottom Line: Evelyn's World is actually gone now, and it's been redone as "Evelyn's GLAMOUR" (evelyn.glamOur.com/evelyn). It has bigger pics and a more visually appealing design, but frankly there's not enough content that "turns the heat up," so to speak.

It may be a nice find for glam lovers who have never been to Evelyn's former site, but it wouldn't merit more than one join.

You can visit the site yourself, click "Glamour Tour" in the top left, and see a pictorial list of everything it has.

Here's hoping that it will get "hotter," and less artsy, in the future and that they'll take out that watermark!

Raising the score from 77 to 82. They've replaced the watermark with a better, less intrusive one on ALL sets. Thanks! Would go higher if it was all exclusive (see JustTeenSite and you'll see it's not) and if Evelyn put out more sweetness and charm and less of her cool and detached approach towards posing.

04-12-07  03:33pm

Replies (5)
Visit Private Worlds

Private Worlds

Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive content
+Choice Czech models
+Photos at 1497x2246 pixels (and the reverse for “landscape” orientation)
+Each gallery has at least 60 photos; some go past 160
+Good quality photography and image files
+Good download speed (400-450 kbps)
+Nice quality videos (wmv, 1920x1080, 8040kbps), though they are few
+Videos have music and/or the sounds of the girl playing with her pussy
+Updates every other day
+Reasonable price, especially through TBP
+Log in once and you’ll only have to click “members” at the site to go straight to the member’s content area each time you return
+About 3 weeks of planned updates are shown in case you’re having second thoughts about quitting
+The girls use their paws to get themselves off instead of some damn plastic doogie wacker
Cons: -Unusual, confusing signup and initial login process (Be sure to read the bottom line.)
-Small number of models (eight)
-Pics are in .rar files, not zips, so be sure to have a working uncorker handy (e.g., 7-zip)
-For almost every two or more galleries, you notice that they came from the same shooting session
-Not all galleries end with full nudity
-Slo-o-w navigation (takes 7-10 seconds to go from one page to another)
-Navigation is awkward, too
-Tacky, throwback site design
-Site went down once for a day
-Only 10 videos; 8 are of Eufrat (Allow it to be a photo site and it’s a non-con. Or if you dig Eufrat, which means you’ve got a pulse, then it’s more of a pro.)
Bottom Line: The choice eight models here are Eufrat, Jenni “the bubblebutt” Gregg, Billy Raise, Kami (the tall, supercute, superkissable redhead), Kala Ferard, leggy languid Lilly, Melissa (the “butt”), and Vanessa Kovacikova. Vanessa (aka Jaime J) will be added next month, which should be nice as she’s good about showing off her ass.

There’s more of Eufrat than any other model, which is fine by me.

There are currently 84 galleries. About the business of one shoot being broken up into two galleries, that I don’t really have a problem with. I do have problem with the way they do it: Both begin with stripping, so it’s the same story twice, different pics and a completely different gallery name. Anyway, if I want “the whole thing,” I put the earliest part of each one together and so on. That’s extra work. It would have been better if they’d just done a “part 1” (begin stripping) and then a “part 2” (get naked and prance around and pet the kitty). I mean, no one’s being fooled here.

The navigation is also kind of a problem. They do offer two ways to do it, whole-site chronologically or by model index, but if you want to do it by model, you have to
1. get the alphabetical list to pop down, then choose, say, “Models A-E”
2. select a model (a submenu appears to the right)
3. select a gallery (adds a submenu to the right)
4. select the “full set” of that gallery (adds yet ANOTHER submenu, to the r---)

What’s the difference between 3 and 4? Part 3 is the sample gallery for visitors, not members. Members, you have to go that extra step (4), which for me means a submenu that almost completely disappears to the right of my screen. It’s all because they have the visitor’s pages and the members pages kind of mixed together. Sure, logging in as a member and then seeing “Join Now!” plastered all over the place is something that you can get used to. For a member, it just means “You’re in the wrong place.” Why there are wrong places to be, that I cannot say.

And there’s something you’ll have to get over, too, which is the signup process. I was expecting to get a ccbill page when I signed up. Well, not at first! First, there’s something else that asks for your email address and the username that you’ve come up with. THEN you go to ccbill to pay up. THEN you check your email to get the password that they create; at least that was immediately available. THEN you log in, but it’s not the Private Worlds site; it’s this place for you to develop your profile and tell more of the world about your little ol’ self. Eh? I skipped that, FINALLY found the link to the goddamned site that I’d signed up for, and headed for Eufrat territory.

At least you don’t have to go through the above more than once. Suggestion: Not at all would be ... better!

Happy, Positive Ending Note: The first page at signup said it would cost $19.95, but I’d gone through TBP and ccbill charged me $14.95. So be sure to go through TBP and your “WTF” will give way to “Ohh. Okay.”

05-14-11  02:37am

Replies (2)

Shown : 26-50 of 3085 Page :    < Previous Page - Next Page >

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 2.18 seconds.