Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Feedback History A detailed history of activity from this user in all different categories.
User : Drooler (218)  

Feedback:   All (2930)  |   Reviews (115)  |   Comments (236)  |   Replies (2579)

Other:   Replies Received (1446)  |   Trust Ratings (85)

Ratings & Reviews

All the reviews and ratings from this user.
Shown : 1-25 of 115 Page :    Next Page >

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
Review
1
Visit Foot Fetish Daily

Foot Fetish Daily
(0)

84.0
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: +Exclusive content
+Large collection of photos and videos
+Quite a few "name" models who appear elsewhere
+Fast download speeds (1-1.5 Mbps)
+Zips of photos at 3000 pixels from 2008 to present
+Some zips of photos at 1500 pixels (earlier)
+Videos in wmv HD (1280x720), wmv standard (640x360), and MP4 (more recent); wmv standard for earlier; many videos stream also
+166 "hi def" videos are hardcore b/g or g/g videos; but there are lots more of interviews and solo footsie fun
+Allows use of download manager
+Foot fiend navigation niches: find only the stuff for dangling shoes, or tickling, or food, or another of many choices.
Cons: -Navigation is too complicated; well, the site is too complicated, really
-Inconsistencies in video formats available even in the same part of the site history
-Quality of wmv "standard" videos not so good
-Photos in 1500 pixels not in zip files once they began offering "full scene" zips in Jan 2008
-They don't make it clear that the "full scene zipped photo sets" usually contain ALL of the photos of a model, even the ones that are shown in earlier sets such as "Meet" and "Living" and "Self-Sucking" and so on.
Bottom Line: I'm not much of a foot fan, but overall I liked the content of this site. In fact, my hunt for nice pictures of girls showing their asses was my "sole" (a-hem) purpose in joining.

The photos from 2008 on are nice quality, if not super professional. There are plenty of hot models (Veronica Rodriquez, Ashley Jane, Jynx Maze, Marlena, Sammi Rhodes, Elle Alexandra, Emma Mae, Georgia Jones, Nikki Brookes, etc.). And it's all exclusive material, and it goes all the way back to 2004. (Wow, the quality sure has improved since then!)

You can also watch interview videos of the girls telling you about their sexual experiences and turn-ons. Beyond that, well, you can watch a lot of them getting down to gentle foot-and-pussy play with another girl, and/or foot/pussy fucking with a hardened male.

But there are problems with consistency in the offerings and with how things are presented. You can get hi def versions of many videos, but not all. You can get zips of some sizes of photos, but not all. You see the thumbs of only the hardcore photos, but actually the zip file has hundreds of photos that include the softcore and solo foot stuff of a model. You click the "Hi Def" movies link, but that's not all of the hi def movies. And the foot niches drop-down menu appears on some pages, but not on all of the pages you'd like it to. You may find yourself opening multiple tabs or windows just to keep part of the navigation at hand, which means that you're having to compensate for less-than-stellar web design. And in so doing, you'll wind up making the experience of the site more complicated.

About the complexity of the site, some may say that it just has a lot of navigation options, which can only be a good thing. After all, you can look at content that's only "Kick Ass Feet," or only "Flowers Exclusive," or only "Mark Archer Exclusive," or only "Barefoot Confidential." But do these terms mean anything to you? The term "exclusive" got me thinking they were different from what I was seeing on the page until I realized (by looking at the bottom of the page) that each entry is color-coded for these terms. Oh, well, now that's nice. Flowers is blue; Mark Archer is green; Kick Ass is pink; and Barefoot is purple. Well, I don't have to learn the color system, but I have wasted my time by wondering if I should.

Plus, there are 16 bonus sites included, but each one contains only 8 galleries and/or videos. Some are only videos ... And some are really old stuff (but not all). And you're given an offer in the bonus sites to join the "Kick Ass Network" for only $14.95. The "Kick Ass" bonus section includes that offer as well. So there's "Kick Ass" bonus and "Kick Ass" network and they're probably not the same thing. You know what? Fuck it.

I mean, I've already spent $30.

Anyway, I do recommend this site for its abundant quality exclusive content, but be forewarned that if you're not careful, the design and complexity could lead you to needless distraction.

12-28-11  04:18pm

Replies (4)
Review
2
Visit Autumn Riley

Autumn Riley
(1)

74.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +British Columbian dynamite beauty Autumn Riley, a sexy model who has a lot of presence in front of a camera
+Photos are quite professionally done in image quality
+Photo galleries are at least 2000 pixels on the long end, if that’s the only size
+Most shoots are done indoors where the lighting is easier to control
+Videos are H264 mp4’s at 1920x1080, and are downloadable, but see the cons
+Fast download speed for videos (around 4-500 kbps)
+Navigation is easy and intuitive
+Fairly simple and straightforward design
Cons: -No zips for the photos
-Doesn’t allow download manager to grab pic batches
-Photo size selection varies a lot depending on the gallery. Sometimes they’re only 2000 px on the long end. A small handful are only 4000. A few have 1200, 1600, 2000, and 4000.
-Videos are jerky on playback, at least on my system, both streaming and downloaded/offline
-Videos come in only one humongous size
-Updates content once a week; it’s growing slowly, currently with 36 photosets and 20 videos
-Calendar doesn’t indicate when future updates will be posted
-Blog hasn’t been updated since May this year
-Visitors don’t really get enough of a preview of the site content
Bottom Line: Autumn Riley is both the model and, from what I can tell, the webmaster of this site. She’s also really busy, it seems, going to college at the same time. AND she’s a smokin’ beautiful 18-year-old with lustrous dark hair and dark eyes; as for the rest, I don’t believe it’s possible to be disappointed. She’s a got a couple of small tattoos, but they are placed tastefully.

She poses mostly in bathrooms, on living room couches, in beds, in the kitchen, and on a boat. She often gets completely naked in the photo galleries, but not always. Usually, she poses solo, but there are a couple of photosets and videos with a female friend.

For a site that is amateurish and inconsistent in some ways, the quality of the photo content is really high. It is better-looking content than I’ve seen at some of the more “professional” sites, with no shirking on file sizes, either. The 59 photos I saved of her “Blue Tank Top” strip in a kitchen take up 287 megabytes of storage space; that averages 4.86 megabytes each; it was one of those that was only available in the 4000 pixel size. And the 2000 pixel photos will average over a megabyte.

I’m not complaining (my hard drive can handle it), but prospective members might want to know.

So what’s to become of Autumn Riley? Will she continue modeling? Will she start appearing at other sites? (I’d love to see her at TorridArt, for instance.) Will her own site get a new infusion of energy and attention, and start flourishing?

Or will Autumn keep her glasses on, not to take off during a photo shoot, but to study even harder and get through college and on to a career doing something else, and live on in Facebook/Twitter obscurity? Could this be one of those sites that comes and goes, the kind that winds up with that “no longer active” notice at PU?

It’s anyone’s guess at this point, I’d say, along with “Might Recommend,” as long as you don’t mind saving the photos of Autumn one at a time.

09-18-11  05:12pm

Replies (0)
Review
3
Visit Just Cute Girls

Just Cute Girls
(0)

82.0
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)
Review
4
Visit Private Worlds

Private Worlds
(0)

81.0
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)
Review
5
Visit Lizzie Secret

Lizzie Secret
(0)

83.0
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)
Review
6
Visit Alp Girls

Alp Girls
(0)

75.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Lovely European ladies, many of them the tried and true
+Exclusive content!
+Launched with lots of content in Nov 2010. Currently has 156 photosets and 100 videos.
+Video streaming available, full-screen with built-in FlowPlayer, but see cons.
+Videos (mostly 10-20 minutes long) downloadable in both wmv and mp4, but see cons.
+Large photos: 3456x5184 pixels and vice versa
+Zips download quickly, but see the cons!
+Some girls who have been off radar for a while: Ally (Eny), Gwen/Pia, Lucy Lee (but only 1 set), and Monica Schimkova. They all look great!
+Some variety in shoots (indoor, outdoor, solo, girls together, lingerie/no “Alpine” dress). But it’s mostly “Alpine dress.”
Cons: -Navigation: AWFUL
-Some purely non-nude sets, and in many, the girls don't get completely nude anyway.
-No model index
-Thumbs of galleries only viewable 10 at a time
-Thumbs of pics in each gallery only viewable 10 at a time
-One photo size in zips: 3456x5184
-EACH ZIP is of the TEN PICS in a gallery you’re viewing (but see the neat workaround tip from anyonebutme in the replies to this review).
-Each zip in a gallery has the SAME NAME: modelname_pics_gallerynumber.zip, so YOU have to rename each one.
-Individual pics available only at 954x634
-Paging through galleries is sometimes slow.
-Videos are 320x240 in both MP4 (425 kps, 25 fps) and wmv (520 kps); full-screen playback looks bad.
-Streaming playback image is good, but bandwidth lacks, so it’s choppy on the computer monitor.
-Watermark is too big and winds up on the subject sometimes.
Bottom Line: I sure don’t care for the navigation. It’s not confusing so much as it’s tedious. It’s clear enough what you have to do to get the photo content: It’s the porn site equivalent of stamping, addressing, stuffing, and sealing 500 envelopes by hand. Why not have all-in-one zips?

And why not have them in more than just the mega-cutie 5184 pixel size? I’m sure that some folks would prefer an option of 1600 pixels at least some of the time.

And the videos, those I guess are intended for unoccupied-hand-held portable devices. They probably look nice on those. Well, maybe not a big ‘ol iPad.

More on the videos: Never heard any music playing on the ones I viewed. It’s mostly just the girl at first undressing (sometimes not very much), and the sound doesn’t kick in until she’s grooving down on her hot pocket and causes an avalanche. And sometimes the director talks to the girl, too. Kami was flirting and the director proclaimed his marital status.

Oh, yeah. Forgot. There’s no hardcore.

What action there is here is very formula driven: Girl takes off panties, drools on her own tits perhaps, hoists up alpine skirt to show pussy and maybe some ass, then grabs a toy (usually) and sucks and jabs. Sometimes you’re treated to 200 photos or more of this routine.

Alp Girls is a funny site. The pics are colossal. The vids are shrimpy. The navigation and photo downloading will induce fatigue. The babes are hot, but this user was pretty disappointed just the same.

01-28-11  02:38am

Replies (11)
Review
7
Visit VIP Area

VIP Area
(0)

87.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Great photo and video quality
+Over 130 exclusive photo galleries, mostly of well-known attractive American models and porn stars, by photographer Tammy Sands
+Additional over 44 non-exclusive galleries
+Galleries are labeled in the site as exclusive when they are (except for a few of Kayden Kross)
+Most photos max at 2000 px; a few galleries max at 3000
+Zips in 2000 px, and with a few galleries 3000 (“HQ zip”)
+Photos can be viewed and saved individually in 3 different sizes (800 px long, 1200, or 2-3000)
+Over 58 exclusive videos downloadable in three quality levels each for wmv, mov (Quicktime), and mp4 (iPod) formats: low (480x272, 1646kbps), medium (1024x576, 4278 kbps), and high (1280x720, 10624 kbps). Even “low” sets the bar kind of high.
+Excellent flexibility in navigation and viewing
+Search box feature works well
+Good trial and monthly prices
Cons: -Visitor’s area browsing by updates shows only the most recent
-Visitor’s area browsing by model doesn’t show all of the updates for each model
-Rate of updates is somewhat erratic (12 to 18 per month for photosets; 3 to 8 per month for videos, and usually closer to 8)
-Photo zip download speed is between 300-400 kbps, which isn’t criminal, though it’s getting toward the lower end of “acceptable” these days
-Video downloads for the highest quality are slow (around 200 kbps for a 700 MB file takes quite a while)
-Mic noise (pops and clicks) occurs sometimes in the videos and can be a bit distracting
Bottom Line: I thought I’d pretty much seen all of the exclusive stuff I could find of girls like Adrienne Manning, Georgia Jones, Valerie Rios, Ashlyn Rae, and Sabrina Marie. But there’s more here!

I really don’t have a lot to complain about regarding this site. The points about the visitor’s area are not only a concern for potential customers, but for the site itself. If visitors had a better idea of what’s inside, they might be more likely to join.

Some scenes have toy play and some are girl/girl, neither of which I personally care for, but there wasn’t so much of either that they became “issues” for me. Well, whatever! Watching Capri Anderson and Adrienne Manning masturbate each other with a glass toy is a hell of lot better than watching a lot of other things, I’ll have to admit!

Really, this is one of the better sites to have come along recently, if you’re into basically into softcore and glamour style material. And most of it is exclusive now.

So yes, just ignore the comment I made about it earlier here at PU. The site has turned out to be a lot better than I at first thought it would.

I joined for a month, not for the trial term, and I’m happy with what I’ve gotten from it.

Recommended!

PS: I should point out that a few of the Kayden Kross galleries are labeled at VIParea as “exclusive” even though they also appear at clubkayden. But the good news is that the pics are better at VIParea. They’re 2000 px (not 1600), they only have one watermark (not two), and they are better in quality as well.

10-01-10  04:24pm

Replies (5)
Review
8
Visit Sweet And Nude

Sweet And Nude
(0)

83.0
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
+NO TOYS!!!
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)
Review
9
Visit 66 Beauty

66 Beauty
(0)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive softcore photo and video content of beautiful Russian women -- 46, not 66, so far
+If you’re an ass lover, there is some great stuff here
+All pics are available at 3000, 1600, and 800 pixels on the long end in zips, 3000 px individually and sometimes in the lower sizes
+Galleries have at least 100 pics each
+Simple but tasteful and uncluttered layout
+Straightforward navigation
+Updates every other day with a photoset, beginning July 2009
+Videos in iPod, WMV 768x576 (1086kbps in sample vid), and QuickTime H264 1024x576 (1.6 Mbits per second), which is superior quality to the wmv here.
+Downloads at around 330kbps are OK, if not great
+Good visitors preview for overall grasp of the content
Cons: -Irritating login problems. You never know when you’re going to get prompted to re-enter your usepass.
-Semi-transparent grey border around every pic gets on the subject. ANNOYING!!
-Pics of goofy or angry expressions not edited out.
-A few galleries don’t display any thumbs!
-Some links to individual pics are 404! True in many galleries for all 1600 and 800 px sizes.
-Corrupted files in zips (a few)
-Photo thumbs are only 80x120 pixels; too small!
-Some shoots are segmented as separate updates. OK since each update has lots of pics, but not OK that the segments are often 2 months apart.
-Video updates are only 4-5 per month, and those are often partial shoots, too.
-Some very amateurish videocam work, or call it a lack of editing. They’re of the photo shoots. At least there’s no flashing light.
-Blurriness and light control problems come up, but it’s not chronic.
-There’s just a little bit of toy play here and there, so it’s a con whether you like it or not.
Bottom Line: If you’re a fan of the Russian girls, you’ll probably recognize Yulia (often Guerlain elsewhere), Yana (Rose at AvErotica), Susi (Kylie atAvErotica), Mocca (Anita at Errotica-Archives and TeenDreams; Danita at MPL Studios), Danny (Millis A or Mandy Dee), Bella (see Chloe at MPL Studios), and Lola (Bans, Cathy C, Ekaterina, Faith, Inga, Kat, Katerina, Lindsey, Nastya, Scarlet, Svetlana, Tori, Vikki), so she’s been at 14 sites so far! I don’t get the “66” part.

The sets are a mix of outdoor, indoor, and studio locations. There’s at least one photoset of each girl, and some have a lot. Several girls don’t have any videos. Visit, and you’ll see who does.

I still don’t get the “66” part.

The site is in English, though there are telltale “as a second language” signs. And speaking of second languages, there’s a bit of German, too, in the model pages, to tell you how many photosets and videos the girl’s got, assuming your lazy ass can’t do the arithmetic. And in the “favorites” section: “Hier könnten Ihre Favoriten stehen.” Hey, vatevah. My favorites may start global, but they always wind up local.

One standout beauty I haven’t seen before is their “Jennifer.” Wow, and HOWL again! Mandy Dee is a marvel of curvaceous femininity here, btw. And “Mocca” (Anita) has the most kissable lips!

One zip download had 3 copies of EACH file in it, about 380 in total. Delete, delete, delete ...

Oh, one video I looked at suddenly blanked out for a whole sleepy-town minute and showed nothing but a pattern that looked like it belonged to a dingy table cloth. Then the girl suddenly reappeared and continued posing. Was that intentional?? Talk about tease! And that was both in the wmv and QT versions.

In another, there was a spell of just the giant paper roll the girl had been posing on. No girl, just the paper roll. Was this some oblique attempt at product placement? How’s the Brawny supply holding up?

I would say this is primarily a photo site, anyway. The videos are “extra,” more extraneous than extraordinary, though with enough sampling and tossing, the surviving QT versions can make for pretty good eye candy.

Might as well be. There’s no sound.

But there are management issues. The login problems, the empty links for smaller pics, the missing thumbs, the lack of editing ... Most of these you can work around fairly easily, but work around you will.

And that’s for the exclusive photo content here, which is plenty good enough. Actually, this is the first site I’ve reviewed since last August that I’ve been especially happy about joining, in spite of the flaws.

I do wish they’d get rid of that grey border around the pics! Ughhh!

06-22-10  07:49pm

Replies (0)
Review
10
Visit American Kittens

American Kittens
(0)

77.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Features some hot models not seen much elsewhere: Chasen Love, Kayden Love, Reanna Mae, Sarah Peachez, etc.
+Exclusive content EXCEPT for stuff at other featured models’ sites
+Models show lots of personality
+Nice pic sizes at 2000 to 2300 px long end for portrait, 3000 to 3500 for landscapes
+Nice thumbnail size in galleries: 400x400 px!
+Zips
+Over 200 videos, WMV (720x480, 5464kbps), plus h264 (720x480, 1.62mbps), mpgs, Quicktime, and Flash. Caps are available.
+Good download speed: starts around 400 kbps then climbs to 700-950
+Good navigation
+Tags (e.g., petite, indoor, shaved) let you find things fast, and you can suggest tags
+Responsive, friendly customer support
Cons: -Must manually enter on each login, plus a captcha
-(Added late May): They've redesigned and DIDN'T INCLUDE A MEMBER'S LOGIN LINK on the home page, so bookmark it from the start! And that's quite an oversight, no?
-Gallery pages too wide for 1024x768 screen resolution
-Thumbs show only half of each pic
-Only one pic size available for each gallery
-Inconsistent photo quality: quality glam, ‘shopped/glossed glam, grainy glam, amateurish/poor. So is lighting. And pose orientation, sometimes with 50% headroom or too far off to one side.
-Videos are mostly casual and amateur in style
-Videos vary greatly in length, ranging from 10 seconds to over an hour. Enough are 10+ minutes.
-A few vids are lower in quality
-Watermarks are a bit of a nuisance
-Clowning around by the girls is cute, but can get old
-“Nude” tag: Some of the girls NEVER take it all off. (Too much non-nude of Sarah Peachez)
Bottom Line: Fresh, exclusive content is presented here in myriad inconsistent and frustrating ways. With every click to a new gallery, you wonder.

It’s like this: How many thumbs will I have to enlarge to see what I think I’ll see? (What’s the point of thumbnails if not to show what’s in the entire image???) Will the next gallery be nude or non-nude? Will it have 1 page of pics, or 4? Will the lighting be OK, or will it be too dark? Will it be 150 watts ... 75 watts ... 40 watts depending on the picture? Is the model going to make a bunch of goofy faces?

And the videos? Well, it’s mostly of girls talking, often with men and/or other women. Sometimes there’s stripping. There’s not a whole heck of a lot of masturbation, nor girl/girl, nor boy/girl. The 2 hardcore vids of Kayden Love, with horrible lighting, color, and camera work, are entirely missable. And there’s one of Sarah Peachez just getting a “first-base” fondling by some guy.

You know how some sites can continue to draw you in? This one doesn’t. You have to force yourself to keep looking through more content to make sure you don’t miss anything that might actually be good.

There are many sites that charge around $30 bucks for a month (or less) that are better than this one, though along with the pros technically it does have some very nice and unique things to offer in content. There just wasn’t enough of them for the dough and all of the browsing time that had to be spent. The best stuff, I thought, was of Kayden Love, followed by Reanna Mae. At least there’s plenty here of those two. And they have nice asses! ;)

Bottom bottom line line: American Kittens has a lot of personality – more than a lot of really professional glam sites do – but it needs to standardize in key areas (nudity, for one) ... or come down in price.

05-15-10  08:39pm

Replies (4)
Review
11
Visit Goddess Nudes

Goddess Nudes
(2)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +$5 US for the first month’s membership; recurs at $9.95 per month
+Updates regularly, M-F, one gallery per day
+138 galleries posted so far
+All photo sets are in two sizes: small (1400 px portrait; 1600 px landscape) and large (usually over 3000px, sometimes over 4000, and sometimes even over 5000 pixels)
+Zips are available for all sets in both sizes
+Server downloads at about 340kbps where I am, which isn't a huge pro, but it's not a con if you ask me
+Content is largely exclusive to this site (not the same as on Domai), though some scenes may match with content found on Domai or on other sites
+Discounts to members who add Domai (1 year "non-recurring" is $89, compared to $109.95 as listed at TBP. There’s also a monthly plan starting at $21, but that's far more than the $9.95 starting price at TBP. It decreases by $1 a month, but hey ...)
Cons: -Content index is one looooong and growing page of links to thumbnail pages
-The 22 earliest galleries have no thumbnail pages, just zips in both photo sizes
-A few galleries are not exclusive and can be found at least partly at Erotic Destinations
-Some galleries don’t have that many pics
-Some galleries are boring "nude art" stuff
-Some models might not appeal
-No model index
-A few models have names that are unique to this site (Anya of MPL is "Irin," Paloma B of MetArt and MetModels is "Alima," etc.), but this is doesn’t happen that often.
-Limited visitor preview
Bottom Line: Eolake Stobblehouse, the guy who has been running Domai for many years, is now offering up this new site, which launched late last October. The last time I was at Domai, it worked pretty much the same way, but the "large" pics weren't as big as they are at Goddess Nudes.

I think this is a great deal for people who like nude women, in photographs, very large, and who don’t mind going on a little "treasure hunt" for some real gems. Admission charge: Only $5. Skip an order of cheese fries and go for this, I'd say.

I really got inspired to write this review after seeing today's post of Marketa Belonoha, in a set I'd never seen anywhere before, starting off in a fuzzy pink top and wedgie shorts and showing off her cuteness and curves in 96 pics. As Denner would say, "Wauw."

But there are some other nice surprises in here, too.

Oh, I didn't mention videos yet. There aren't any. It's a pic site.

I like pic sites. This one rates pretty well 'cause it's a good value.

04-08-10  03:16pm

Replies (3)
Review
12
Visit Bella 1010

Bella 1010
(0)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Completely exclusive softcore and toy play content
+Some hot models, including Shay Laren, Rita Lovely, Lena Nicole, and Riley Jensen
+Photos in zips at 3000 pixels
+Updates every day, usually with 2 items (videos and/or photo sets), sometimes with 3, rarely with just one
+Good visitor’s preview
+Navigation is clear and easy.
+The videos look great. They can be streamed in a player that allows you to select low (crappy), med (default and plenty good), or high quality. Some even have an additional “HD” option for those with blazing connections and muscular video hardware. View full screen if you like, and jump from one part of a scene to another (click the icon of 4x3 squares).
+Videos downloaded are hi def, 1280x720, 1.98 mbits/sec.
+”BellaTV” offers brief BTS or outtake scenes that stream and download. See Shay Laren prove that you can’t laugh and jack off at the same time.
+Good “self-help” section
+Responsive support if you have a question
Cons: -Photos to download come in only one size: 3000 pixels
-Photo galleries range too much in number of pics. Some have over 100, but others have just 20-30.
-Previewing photo galleries is difficult: pics are not arranged in any particular order; thumbs are small and are not wysiwyg; and to get them wysiwyg, you “enlarge” them (but not to full size) in the viewer.
-Zip downloads take about 15 seconds to really get going
-Zip download speed around 340 kbps (not a major con, perhaps)
-Pics are randomly ordered in the zips as well.
-The watermark in the pics is large enough to be distracting. It should be at least 50% of its current size.
-Videos available in only HD MP4 or iPod (might not be a major con).
-Street noise can be heard in the videos; it’s a bit distracting
Bottom Line: I signed up for the site as a “premium” member rather than fiddle around with the credit purchasing system they have. I hate those things, especially during tax season.

I like the overall look of this site, but of course it’s fairly new with only 51 photo galleries, 54 videos, 12 “Bella TV” scenes, and just 20 models at the moment.

In the photo galleries, even though there is some toy insertion, and sometimes even multiple insertions, the emphasis here is on “sexy” rather than sex. Full nudity is also pretty uncommon; the preference is for the model to have on a dress or some article of clothing draped over her which she can lift up. There also seems to be a preference for natural light, so indoor shoots are often near large open windows.

It’s a rather unique approach. The sites that seem closest are Breath-Takers and GirlFolio, but Bella1010 has a better control of light and there aren’t as many pics with heavy contrasts of amber light and shadow as you’d find at those other two.

The videos are another matter, and they are the real strength of the site. There’s more prolonged nudity and plenty of masturbation with the digits or the old “Dan-o.” They’re actually pretty exciting. You’ll be sitting in your computer chair, rooting for Shay Laren to get off, forgetting all about baseball or football or whatever for a moment.

I do have suggestions that I think would make the site better:
- Get rid of the photo viewer and just put thumbs – larger thumbs – on the gallery page. (See my PU poll “How do you prefer to view pics at a porn site?” With 25 responses so far, no one likes “photo viewers.”)
- Arrange the photos in “start to finish” order, not “52-card pickup” order
- Allow a smaller photo option as well as the nice 3000 px, for both single pic downloading and zips. 1200 or 1280 px.
-Make the watermark smaller.
- Show the girls completely naked more in the photo shoots
- Show the girls really showing off their asses. (I had to put that in.)

Doing that would give the site two notable strengths – videos AND photos. There are some people who prefer pics over videos. Keep them happy too and Bella1010 will probably have even more people delving into its treasures.

04-02-10  08:06pm

Replies (18)
Review
13
Visit Judy Jade

Judy Jade
(0)

82.0
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
+NO TOYS!!
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)
Review
14
Visit Defloration.tv

Defloration.tv
(0)

71.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive content
+Archives going back to 2001
+Many known and some lesser known Euro babes from Czech, Hungary, Russia, etc.
+Photos might look too “shopped” to some, but I think they look nice
+DownloadThemAll works with the photo galleries
+They no longer do their own billing. Now it’s through vsx bill.
+Site assigns you your usepass. Mine began with "Hym," which was mildly amusing.
Cons: -High price of nearly $40 (converted from Euros)
-The “faux defloration” bullshit might not appeal
-Almost no zips for photos
-Photo sizes vary from 1200 to 2000 px. They often max at 1350, even recently.
-Watermarks on photos are too big. 2004 and earlier, they are absolutely ridiculous: 5 lines long! And they aren't samples; they're on EVERY pic!
-Doesn’t update that often
-Videos download rather slowly at an unsteady rate of 360-500 kpbs.
-No separate section of just videos for quick access
-Videos are all avi. Dimensions and quality varies (larger and better are more recent, of course). Avi is a big con to me because even though I have the most recent DIvX player with the most recent codec, it’s shitty software. (But some play nicely in Windows Media Player. Figure that!)
-Downloads have quit and had to be restarted (not often)
Bottom Line: You might recognize a lot of these girls, but not necessarily by the names they have here. A sample: Amelie Loren (Angelica Black), Lulia Lesovitch (Peaches), Rita Hartman (Lauryn May), Anita Koromislo (Leanna Sweet), Natasha Pushkina (Suzy Black), and Vivien Piaf (Blue Angel).

Now, imagine that some of these girls lose their virginity at this site. That’s what you’re supposed to do. They speak in their own language with the stud, but there are English subtitles. “Do you know why you’re here?” “Yes, to lose my virginity.” I really like Blue Angel, but I doubt that it was a major life event for her. And for a girl about to lose her innocence, she gave a damn nice blowjob.

To assist you in your suspension of disbelief, the girls “bleed” when their “hymens” are “broken,” and they might ask the guy just what that creamy white stuff is that’s coming out of his cock. Yes, this guy, Tommy, is busy. He educates as he ejaculates.

Photo “evidence” of the hymen is also presented. Bigfoot, eat your heart out.

Not all of the girls are here for a cherry-poppin’ good time, though. Don’t expect Peaches to go seed-to-seed with Tommy. But I’m 98% sure that their “Nora Phillips” is also Rebecca C of MetArt, so that makes for a rare find. Video included. Pretty hot!


Now for some nitty-gritty. Posted updates are shown in both a left-side text column and a main thumbnail area. By year, the number of updates in the main area have been:
2001: 12
2002: 11
2003: 15
2004: 12
2005: 17 (final year of “one model per update”)
2006: 20
2007: 41
2008: 43
2009: 52
2010: 3 so far

These are photo updates. Some girls have solo and/or hardcore videos linked from the last pages of these. And some don’t.

Final word: For a site this expensive, it should obviously have 1. easily accessible videos in a video section, 2. photos at least 2000px as standard size, 3. zips of all photosets, and 4. videos in wmv as well as trouble-prone avi.

Even now, I think it rates about the same as what exotics suggested a year and a half ago.

01-09-10  02:08pm

Replies (3)
Review
15
Visit APD Nudes

APD Nudes
(0)

65.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +The usual hot Euro babes such as Ariel/Piper Fawn, Chikita, Iveta B, Zuzana Zeleznovova, Katka Novotna, Samantha/Nina, Jana Mrhacova, and of course Jenni (bubblebutt!)
+Photos in two sizes: 1200 px and 3000-3500px
+Large photos are high quality and can individually be in the 1-4 MB file size range
+Zips for both sizes
+Good zip download speed at 1.8-2 Mbps
+Simple and clear design (but see the "quirks" in the cons)
+Low price if you sign up for a month. (It costs MORE per month if you sign up for 3. Weird.)
Cons: -A FIVE-FILE per week download limit that the subscriber is given NO WARNING about.
-A lot of non-exclusive material, and sometimes fewer pics than you’d find elsewhere
-Small site so far (52 photo sets and 11 videos)
-NO VIDEO DOWNLOADS. Only streaming in Flash player! And they don’t look that great.
-Updates every 2-3 days (not a major con)
-Quirk #1: upcoming photo updates are in the "photos" section, not the "updates" section
-Quirk #2: viewing from the galleries, you only get small (380x750) "enlargements" of the pics, which then can be clicked again for 666x1000px. But to get anything larger, you must download the zips. (That’s what I’d recommend. No use clicking yourself to death.)
-Quirk #3: doesn’t let you open galleries in a new window from a model’s profile page
-Quirk #4: if you DO have more than one window open of the site (doable by user sometimes), it won’t let you use the back button on that window
Bottom Line: "We have all been here before/We have all been here BEFORE ..." (Time for that old CSNY classic.)

Well, there’s having been there, and then there’s REALLY being there. Example: Chikita’s swimming pool set at TeenDreams is at 1600 px, but here you can get it at 3000px!

And once you do, you’ll be hoping that you never see it at any other site at that size. ;) And maybe you won’t! Why not be optimistic?

Well, sure, there is TeenDreams, Hungarian Honeys, MyGlamourSite, and JustTeenSite, to name some of the sites that some the photo material has appeared in. But those sites are more expensive!

Well, they DO have a lot more content, sure, but ...

Anyway, it isn’t just one photographer’s site. You see the work of such professionals as Stefan A, Michael Ancher, Bruno, Phillipo B, Christof, Iain, Roman Korovin, and Tom Veller. (Or is that Vellar? They spell it both ways.)

And there’s Chris Rugge, with the awful, "Days of Olde" murky-toned treatment of what could have been a wonderful color set of classy Michaela. She’s beautiful!

Since first posting the review, the webmaster has been in touch with me (see replies). Seeing how so many sites are doing more videos than photos these days and how some good softcore photo sites have gone away (such as Denude Art), I'm going to root for the underdog on this one.

Well, was ... Now they've imposed this five-file per week download limit which they spring on you after you've plunked down your payment. That's bad enough, but it's even worse when you get a "bad gateway" error when trying to download a zip and it gets added to your meager weekly allotment, which is what I suspect has happened to me.

They don't even tell you when a week begins and ends.

What the fuck difference does the 12.95 price make when you're going to be dicked around like this?

Don't make the mistake I did and wind up being SOL at APD.

And here's a little personal note for SteveB, the webmaster: You get a one-time-only-to-dick-me-around opportunity, and you've already gone and spent yours. That's the end of it.

12-12-09  11:11pm

Replies (7)
Review
16
Visit Peter Girls

Peter Girls
(0)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Drooler Plus Point #1: ASS gets a lot of “worship” here, and yes, it CAN coexist with toy play!
+Hot babes sometimes, BK Booty Babes (nod to jd1961) other times.
+Fast download speeds for pics. Plays well with DownloadThemAll. 15 Mbps!
+Studio pics are mostly nicely lit and sharp. Blurriness happens, but not often.
+Plenty of good quality images ranging from 300-800k each, but see cons and BL.
+Galleries generally range from 60 to over 300 pics, though there are a few with fewer.
+Includes 3 bonus sites (see some of the girls fuck and suck!)
+All exclusive content.
+241 updates and growing. Daily since Sept. 09.
+Most videos available streaming or download at 3 bitrates: 3300 (1440x1080), 1000 (1440x1080), or 500 kps (640x480), all in wmv. Audition vids stream in small viewer only, but I didn’t find many of those.
Cons: -No zips.
-The WATERMARK on the pics. TBP says it’s “medium-sized.” See the Bottom Line.
-Are these really the first nude photos of these “amateur” girls? Sometimes, I’m sure!
-10% older, recycled content, posted as 2009 updates, but the WATERMARKS on the pics fairly shout “2007!” and “2005!” (BTW: Different watermarks, still way too big.) Well, this site was launched in 2007, but the “updates” begin in Jan. 2009. Go figure.
-Pic sizes. “All = 2106 x 1372,” says TBP. Oopsies! Actually, it’s about 90%, but some older pics are as small as 800 px! See BL for excruciating details.
-Studio set might get boring.
-Beach pics are usually too dark and weak in color (lower quality camera?). Dance pole pics are usually too dark, too.
-Slow video DL speed (280 kps), especially with the highest quality vids.
-Older vids are nominally 2100 (720x480), 1500, and 758 kps. Viewed a 2100 of Kylie Wylde. Ugh! (Not her, of course.) And some vids are older still (e.g., Shy Love’s)
Bottom Line: Peter Girls? It’s not what you might think. This is a softcore photo and video site of “anatomically correct” women. (For b/g hardcore, see the “bonus” video sites.)

Some of the girls here might look, or even sound, familiar: Addison (of ATK Galleria, KarupsHA, etc.), Bree Olson, Destiny St. Claire, Isabelle Skye, Montana Raye, Nicole Graves, Shawna Lenee ... Ring any Dinglebells?

There are also some that I’ve not seen before, like the tall blond Jennifer. Whew! She’s got it comin’ and goin’! Fake tits that actually look pretty damn nice! And Sasha Von, from Denmark, is very sexy, and 100% as nature intended.

They strip. They smile and show off their asses a lot (!). They sometimes get the groove on with Plasticy Dan. And on the Hawaiian beaches, they get moist sand on their tushies, often in the light of sunset, or even sundown. Sometimes the camera angles are very POV, but it isn’t like those totally-from-below “Upskirts and Panties” sets you sometimes get, like at ATK Galleria. You do get a fair number of “normal” shots, too, which include lots of sexy facial expression closeups.

I’d say the biggest problem here is the WATERMARK on the pics. It’s always CENTERED at the bottom of the newer PICS, but when you find yourself selecting which pics to DISCARD just because of it, because it’s so LARGE, so very THERE, that it’s on the girl’s ASS or overlayed on her LABIA MAJORA, well, let’s just say it’s your CONSTANT COMPANION.

Maybe it meets the definition of “medium-sized” at the TBP, but the effect on the viewer is what really counts. Such an unpleasant distraction cannot simply be mentally “tuned out.”

The solution? Reduce it to 25% of its current size! Then it would be closer to the size of the watermark at their bonus site “POVporn,” which is less of a nuisance.

Factoid Corner: The following models were all posted in 2009 in photo sizes smaller than 2106 pixels, usually with watermarks that predate 2009. It’s about 10% of what’s on the site:
1400 px on the long end: Gizelle
1200 px: Mallory, Tiffany
1024 px: Christina Applebottom (another is at 900px), Molly, Nia, Ria Lynn, Roxanne (another is at 900px), Shy Love, Veronica Jett
900 px: Barbie Addison (but another is good at 2106 px), Carli Star, Megan Joy, Summer Jewel, Autumn Breeze, Scarlet Fey, Summer Lynn, Shawna Lenee (but another is good at 2106 px), Sandy Sweet, Tuesday
800 px: Taryn Thomas, Tera Bond, “Jennifer Love” (not the better-known, Romanian Jennifer Love, btw)

The “older” videos roughly match the older pic updates.

I’d recommend this site to lovers of female solo masterbation captured on video. It’s more of a might barely recommend for pic lovers, thanks to the blasted watermark.

11-27-09  04:20pm

Replies (3)
Review
17
Visit Girls In Nature.org

Girls In Nature.org
(0)

72.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +beautiful models (mostly); Ukrainian, mostly if not all
+impressive photography
+quite a lot of the shooting is done indoors, regardless of the site name
+exclusive content
+images at over 4000 px (except for April 2005 and before: 3000 px)
+allows use of DownloadThemAll
+OK price if you view it as an “archive” site
+Videos are avi, 1280 x 720, softcore posing, music for the sound track
Cons: -pages of gallery thumbs can be very slow at loading sometimes
-a total of only 185 galleries; the site goes back to January, 2004, so clearly “daily updates” are not part of the idea here
-no zips
-images only available in one size (HUGE)
-navigation is a bit of learning experience and is somewhat cumbersome
-few updates per month (sometimes only one; sometimes NONE)
-some models have different names than at other sites
-galleries in 2007 and before sometimes do not include the model’s name
-too many girl/girl sets
-a few of the models are not very appealing
-only 32 videos
Bottom Line: Photographer: If you’re a MetArt fan, you’ve probably noticed the name Sergey Goncharov amongst the photographers. Girls in Nature is his own site of exclusive softcore photography.

Navigation: After you log in for the first time (and “Style 1” works fine), the home page just lists, with thumbs, several of the most recent galleries on a very long page. It’s better to go the “collections,” which are organized by year. For a given year, you’re given a list for each month on separate page. You can start from the top of that list and then click, page by page, through the thumbs of each gallery for that month. I’ve found that it’s useful to open the first gallery for a month in a separate window so it’s easy to return to the list for the month when it’s time to go to the next month.

Models: Several of the models have also appeared at other sites, but as is especially typical with the ones from "out east" there, they go by different names on different sites. Here’s a list of some of them as they are named at Girls in Nature: Anna or sometimes Anya (Atena A at MetArt; Paulina at FemJoy); Irisha (Katrin B at MetArt); Karina (Karina J at MetArt); Meris (Sofi A atMetArt); Suri D (Monyka at FemJoy).

I feel satisfied enough with the site content, but it was a chore with the navigation, the need to use a download manager, and the server response, which actually got so bad that I had to quit a couple of times and return later. All such things considered, it’s a “might recommend.”

11-11-09  02:41pm

Replies (4)
Review
18
Visit Sweet Lilya

Sweet Lilya
(0)

75.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +High quality photos and videos of Lilya, a very sexy Russian girl
+Zips for all galleries
+154 galleries; about half are exclusive to this site alone
+Photos at least 2000 pixels on the long end; in many galleries, they go up to 3000
+Lilya's "diary" has 27 more exclusive galleries, though they only go up to 1200px
+Videos available in wmv (720x540), avi (720x528), QuickTime mov (640x480), and iPod (320x240)
-Downloads are OK. They climb into the 340kbps range.
+A decent price if you're a true fan
Cons: -Site no longer updates
-Only 25 video postings in all; 4 fewer than that if you discount the "part 2's" of video shoots
-About half of the photo galleries are also found at MPL Studios
-Lilya's "diary" is only photographs. No big deal, but the term "diary" is a bit off, IMHO.
Bottom Line: Pro or Con? Depends on you:
+/- 13 galleries are "Postcards" which may not have any nudity, but candid shots have their appeal
+/- 8 galleries are "Shoot Day" (BTS) style, and again the same comment as with "Postcards"

I took a liking to Lilya pretty quickly when I first saw her at MPL Studios. She's very sexy and photogenic. There's a chameleon-like quality about her, not only in her personal changes such as hair color and style, but also in how well she works in the variety of settings you'll find here. She can look elegant or simple, classy or frumpy cute.

She's got an infectious smile and a fabulous ass. Her tits are small -- and real.

The videos have music tracks. "Body Heat" is an appealing blend of classical guitar and Lilya exercising naked on the floor; the rear-end views are gratifying! "Ask Lilya" has her answering "fan mail," speaking in heavily-accented English and obviously reading a script from a laptop. I'm not complaining; she's very cute!

But I didn't care for the amount of content overlap with MPL Studios. I suppose you could say it's good for "pure Lilya" fans who would never join MPL, which at this time has a couple handfuls of newer galleries that aren't at Sweet-Lilya. Do such fans exist?

Myself, I got enough stuff to beef up my Lilya collection, which from MPL alone was rather small. Now I've got 5 times as much as before!

But I won't be back! No hard feelings, of course.

09-26-09  12:19pm

Replies (0)
Rating
19
Visit Rookie Babe

Rookie Babe
(1)

69.0
No Review.
09-15-09  01:35am

Review
20
Visit Ero Berlin

Ero Berlin
(0)

83.0
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)
Review
21
Visit Only All Sites

Only All Sites
(0)

85.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Many, many beautiful women
+No toys and almost no “messy” stuff with food or bath goop
+Intuitive interface
+Fast downloads, sometimes over 2Mbps
+Can preview the content of upcoming 3-4 updates on each site
+Earned or purchased ” FastTracks” allow full access to galleries or videos of your choosing ahead of their posting schedule
+VOLUMES of all-exclusive content available now, plus several hundreds of updates yet to be posted (Coming soon --> select “View all sets available for FastTrack”)
+Very user-friendly site/network. You get 10 free “FastTracks” in a calendar month (whole network, not per site); set several viewing and browsing preferences; and go from one site in the network to another with ease once your use/passes are stored in your browser.
+Photos from the past couple of years come in three sizes: 1066, 2048, and 3000 pixels.
+Consistently good lighting and clarity in photos from Jan. 2007 on.
+No DRM
+Model pages list other sites, outside the network, she appears in
Cons: -Occasional slow navigation and sudden timeouts
-Thumbs with dead links (rare)
-Must train browser to auto-enter use/pass for downloads on subsequent logins (separate for pics and videos); doable with Firefox, but it’s still 18 times for everything in the network: (access + zips + vids) x 6
-Zips before Dec. 2007 require drilling through five levels of folders to get to the images folder (hold cntrl down while drilling to prevent desktop clutter).
-Some unattractive women
-Quite a few women never get fully undressed, like Gemma Massey (too bad!)
-High monthly network access price ($44.95)
-The “fast track” system is rather complicated; note expiry dates and other restrictions
-Boring videos: Only avi, 640x480, 3-6 minutes long. 40-50 per month (whole network) in 2009. (Image quality improves through the years, but it’s never nearly as good as the photos. Sound might be techno muzik, the girl talking, or just the air near the mic.)
Bottom Line: I thought this network would be nothing but undressing to panties, if that, so I stayed away. But one day at OnlyTease, I tried their search (for visitors) and found nearly 2000 items that were at the “figure” level of nudity.

Now I’m glad that I waited -- and that I finally joined. Mind you, it’s usually the same women who do get fully naked and fun with it: Angel Dark, Elen (the blond Russian with the devilish smirk), Eve Angel, Jana D (Jamie J), Lola, Lucy Stratilova, Misa/Michaela Kaplanova, Mili Jay, Zuzana (Deny Moore), ETC. Considering the volume here, it’s been a bona fide candy store for yours truly (or “drooly,” I suppose).

Special mention goes to “Tammy” (aka Vendula). She’s the BEST.

The “Only” sites are photo sites, and the photos are DAMN good. If most models on this network showed off their asses the way Misa does, I’d be totally hooked! It would have EVERYTHING: great outfits, great stripping, and satisfying full nudity in excellent quality.

But they’d rather specialize at putting foreplay at the forefront, and this they do very well. I found myself grabbing “stripping only” sets of a few girls for whom I have “nude onlys” to combine them with. Kind of like “FemJoy and OnlyTease – together at last!” ;)

Here are some stats on the “Only” network sites:
OnlyTease: started July 2002. Around Nov. 2007, began occasional 3000 px photos, which became standard in March 2008. 3 updates per day!
OnlyOpaques (dark hose): started Aug. 2006; 3000 px photos most of the time from July 2007; 1 update per day
OnlySecretaries: started October 2007, with 3000 px photos from the start; 1 update per day
OnlySilkAndSatin: started Nov. 2008, with 3000 px photos from the start; 1 update per day
OnlyCarla: started Sept. 2005, stopped in April 2009 (lots of photosets, all it of tease-stripping)
OnlyMelanie: started April 2005, stopped in Feb. 2009 (same as with Carla, but REALLY cute!)

Finally, a little more about those FastTracks. One can be obtained by recommending three sites (not previously listed) that a model is on. (Must be used by the end of the current month.)

NB: You can view the thumbs of a set before deciding to FastTrack it.

I got a few that way, thanks to my application of library and information science, Lucy Lee, Tereza Ilova, etc. in the subject index.

But remember, it’s best not to join at the beginning of a month since you get 10 for free each calendar month. That’s a nice touch!

BUT be sure to download your FastTracked stuff right away, because access to it expires at the end of the month!

You can also buy 10 “Permanent FastTracks” for $9.95. These don’t expire as long as you stay a member, but they can only be used on the site you buy them on.

AND redeeming them on the site is a hassle: find the page before the billing page, click to redeem, get authorization code ... sheesh!

08-01-09  04:34pm

Replies (3)
Review
22
Visit Holly Randall

Holly Randall
(1)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Professional quality
+Dated updates (site started in Feb. 2009)
+Videos in 3 formats: Flash, QT, and WMV (720x540 with bitrate over 2700kpbs)
+Video downloads exceed 1 Mbps
+Photos in three sizes (800x600, 1024x754, 1600x1066)
+Zips, but only of 1600px photos, even though the unzipped folder might be named "1280" (?)
+Variety (solo, lesbian, b/g hardcore)
+Easy to use model's index
+Nice search features for narrowing things down (videos that are hardcore for instance); there are many options listed (all natural, blonds, red lips, girl girl, tattoos, smoking, Latina, etc.)
+Discussion boards that show some activity
Cons: -Only 41 models so far (though they seem pretty carefully selected)
-Only 93 photosets so far
-Only 53 videos so far (9 are hardcore b/g)
-"Holly Recommends" ads might annoy some folks
Bottom Line: I "took the plunge" with this site, given the Randall brand name and the agreeable price of $19.96 to join. And quitting wasn't that hard; just be sure that you get to the page that really confirms that your subscription IS cancelled.

This site updates M-F, and it is slowly growing. It does a lot of things right; it's just that there isn't a whole lot here yet unless you're into just about everything the site offers. You'll be happy with it for sure if you're a "porn goat."

It's visitor friendly, so you can browse the offerings and see for yourself.

Me, I'm not into fetish material and not really into the kind of hardcore at this site (bored now with big-titted mamas). But I did find a lovely photoset of Julia Crown, who really revs my motor, and a nice hc vid of Jennifer Dark, who looks great, in heat or not. And a few other things.

07-31-09  02:45pm

Replies (4)
Review
23
Visit ATK Petites

ATK Petites
(0)

84.0
Status: Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros: +Updates are always exclusive content, of their “featured petite” models, every day from site launch
+Exclusive featured petite model photos are 1600px
+Usually (not always!) 2 updates per day (2 photosets, or 1 each of photo and video)
+Zips of all photosets
+Videos in up to 5 formats: Flash Stream, QT, MP4, WMV (854x480), and WMVHD (1280x720, 4025 kbps)
+621 “bonus” petite models with tons of content – but see the cons
+Fast downloads to 2Mbps
+Great search engine that allows many kinds of searches
+ The results of your 10 most recent searches are automatically stored and easily retrieved
+No DRM
Cons: -Only 14 “featured petite” models so far, and they vary in appeal (looks and whether or not they do hardcore, if you’re a hard core hardcore fan)
-Bonus content is previously published material from other ATK sites such as ATK Galleria, ATK Premium, ATK Exotics, and ATK Natural and Hairy
-Some bonus content is pre-2007 (max pic size 1024px; vids not as good as these days)
-Most featured petite models have also appeared on other ATK sites, so quite a lot of their content is also not really exclusive to the ATK Petites site
-Even recent videos not always available in all formats, including HD. Saw one hardcore of Dani Cole in only 2 formats, though the wmv vid looked fine.
-Visitors cannot view recent updates or browse listings of models
Bottom Line: Us guys are not such a varied lot; we’re a lot like the fare at the local pizzeria. Women, on the other hand, I’d liken to Asian food. There’s so much variety! To say nothing of delicious! This is true among the petite girls here (“bonus” stuff, too). They’re by definition trim, no taller than 5’4”, and no heftier than 110 pounds. From there, the possibilities are nonetheless staggering.

The “featured petite” models are Aundra (10 galleries, 5 videos), Camila (23, 7), Dani Cole (26, 5), Emma (11, 4), Emy (44, 15), Evie (16, 5), Jana Foxy/Jordan (42, 12), Jayme Langford (48, 12), Kaylee (3, 2), Lexi Belle (33, 6), Marie McCray (100, 12), Nicole Raye (50, 13), Olivia, seen at FTV Girls as Lidia (9, 3), Stephanie Crane (19, 9). NB: Figures include both “Petite” exclusive and other ATK site content.

Not that I’m “staggered” by each and every one. Aundra is too skinny! Marie needs to watch it with the high fructose corn syrup, or whatever the cause might be. Emma has acne, though she’ll get past that and probably blossom into a full-blown woman soon enough. She does hardcore, and I’ve heard that sex helps clear the pores.

One standout is Jayme Langford. Some of the photosets of her reveal subtle nuances of mood that are worth slowing down to take in. Well, obviously I’m smitten.

It’s not easy to score this site. Petite fans, especially those with no ATK site experience, would probably love it. Those with credit card statements reflecting one or more ATK site purchase might want to hold off longer until the exclusive content has grown more. Still, it wouldn’t be fair to knock the site for simply being fairly new. So whether you agree with the score or not, I hope you now know enough to make an informed decision about whether or not to subscribe.

07-04-09  03:13am

Replies (6)
Review
24
Visit Zemani

Zemani
(0)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Daily updates ... but only from June this year
+144 Slavic models; quite a few never seen before, and some of them are darlins’!
+All exclusive material
+Mix of indoor and outdoor shoots
+236 galleries (avg. 126 pix each)
+Pics at 800px. 1200px, and 3-4000px
+All three pic sizes available under each photo thumbnail for individual pic saving
+All three pic sizes are zipped and linked on each page of each gallery
+Good visitor’s preview with demos of those pic sizes, a face shot of each model, and a “calendar” of updates you’ll want to familiarize yourself with before making that “buy” decision
+Good, consistent organization of content within models and galleries
Cons: -A fine mess of a model index. If there’s any organization here, damned if I know how.
-A few models are too low in body mass index, and a few others are easy on the eyelids.
-A few photosets are 2 from one shoot
-In case you were wondering, it has not updated every day since 2006. Scan those dates carefully. (The year 2006, btw, will take very little time!)
-50 videos, which might not suffice for those who crave photos in motion
-All vids are only in avi -- the gold standard for nude art, no? But they’re not “HD.” Specs of the sample I suffered through: 656x496, bitrate of 1744. Kind of amateurishly done, too.
-Vid audio is teckno muzik – the gold standard again!
-Occasionally has one or more of the problems typical of soft nude sites: excessive shadows, blurriness, lack of light, and models being made to be anti-photogenically “not really there.”
-Downloads kind of slow at around 280 – 340 kbps or so, but that means you can grab a beer! (hic)
Bottom Line: Pro or con, your call: Lots of models have only one gallery up, at least so far.
------------

Not sure who Zemani is, if anyone. Have seen theories that, if it’s related to “Zeman,” it’s either Spanish, from “Zamora,” or Czech, meaning “small landowner.”

Maybe it’s a line of haute couture? Whatever.

There’s no “Master of Nude Art Zemani” here that I’ve been able to lay my finger on. Fact is, this site shows the work of various photographers and, as one might predict, variations on satisfaction are guaranteed.

Some of the girls seem very amateurish in both attitude and looks, so what you get are nude photos of average girls looking pretty ordinary.

Generally, though, I’d say I’m pretty OK with this site. Found some new material of Vika H, Lena, Rudi, Lolli, Jasmine, Jozel, Hannasya, Lenusya, Alena, and Alsa. Those are their names here. At MetArt, MetModels, etc., they’re nymed otherwise, of course, as is typical for Russian models.

But what have we here?? Lika, Mara, Evzha, Vita A, and Allana, who’s the cutest, jail-baitiest-lookin’ honey I think I’ve ever seen! Now mind you, I like ‘em skinny if they look healthy and have a nicely formed orb ‘round back. Anyhow, those are some of my never-before-seen choice babes. With so many amateurs, some are bound to be winners.

Well, I didn’t think I could possibly find another site in the soft nude genre, but here it is. And this one’s off to a good start with the now daily updates and its considerable “back” catalogue (yuk-yuk).

06-17-09  01:02am

Replies (7)
Review
25
Visit Riot Girls

Riot Girls
(0)

70.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive content
+Included with membership to Bikini Riot
+Some of the most beautiful American models (details in bottom line). Every single girl here is stunning.
+Videos are a very nice quality 1280x720 wmv if downloaded as one complete vid (segments are half-sized at 640x360)
+Streaming the vids is also available
+No DRM
+Photos look gorgeous at 1500x1000
+Zips for photos
+Fast downloads. Getting 1.3 Mbps
Cons: -growth has always been slow, and is even slower in 2009 (see my recent comment)
-visitor’s area does not show updates (but see the complete breakdown in the bottom line)
-if you don’t like solo masturbation with toys, you might not like this site, because it’s in every scene
-The 10 “BTS” videos have the camera constantly flashing, out of 43 videos total
-Only 27 photosets to date (the first update was before Feb. 2008, but not dated at the site)
Bottom Line: If you think of this site as a real bonus to Bikini Riot, then you might avoid disappointment after forking out $24.95 for the package that includes this site as well (and the Euro model site, which has more toy play yet).

But I can’t do that! The quality here is so good that of course I want more! And even though I’m not into the “toys business,” the girls are so breathtaking that I’ll overlook that little problem.

Well, to date, here’s what, and “whom” you get if you join:

Andi Valentino: 3 photosets, 4 videos
Carli Banks: 2 photosets, 4 videos
Celeste Starr: 2 photosets, 4 videos
Jana Jordan: 2 photosets, 5 videos
Jayme Langford: 2 photosets, 4 videos
Karlie Montana: 2 photosets, 3 videos
Lena Nicole: 2 photosets, 2 videos
Melissa Jacobs: 2 photosets, 2 videos
Michelle Maylene: 3 photosets, 5 videos
Neveah: 3 photosets, 3 videos
Renee Perez: 2 photosets, 2 videos
Tiffany Brookes: 2 photosets, 5 videos

What a lineup! Short, yes, but sweet, sweet, sweet! That’s reflected in the score, but so is the lack of quantity, for a site that seems to have gotten started almost a year and half ago.

05-26-09  04:44pm

Replies (0)

Shown : 1-25 of 115 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.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

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 0.92 seconds.