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 (220)  

Feedback:   All (3000)  |   Reviews (116)  |   Comments (237)  |   Replies (2647)

Other:   Replies Received (1459)  |   Trust Ratings (85)

Ratings & Reviews

All the reviews and ratings from this user.
Shown : 51-75 of 116 Page :    < Previous Page - Next Page >

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
Review
51
Visit Misha Online

Misha Online
(0)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Many beauties: Jamie Lynn, Lela Starr, Andie Valentino, Zdenka Podkapova, Jana Cova, Crystal Klein, etc.
+Much improved navigation since my last visit (Sept. ’06): pics and vids in separate dated archive sections; alpha model index; search feature by cup size, hair and eye colors, and ethnicity/nationality
+Improved pic sizes (usually) to 2000px from July ‘07 (with a few exceptions, which are repostings of earlier photosets)
+110 solo videos; 36 “lesbian” vids (but on pages “under construction”); see the con’s, too!
+Good price considering archive size – but only for the pics!
+Dated postings
+Good server speed for vid and zipped gallery downloads
Cons: -Signup: Requires that you retype your email address and pwd. Then the confirm page (with the link for canceling) shows for under 1 sec. before switching to your homepage. How convenient!
-Rate of updates: Only 121 pic sets in 2007; only 32 vids in 2007, and none since November
-“Hi quality” vids wmv or QT are 400x300, 1602kbps and look BAD
-Pics sometimes overly airbrushed or odd in color; some b&w’s, too
-Not all exclusive. A number of photosets also at Penthouse, such as Andie Valentino (5/4/07), Nicole Graves (2/18/08 and even has the Penthouse watermark); also at Danni: Jana Jordan (1/18/06), Karli Montana “Study Hall.”
-Watermark gets obstructive on smaller-sized pics
-Pic sizes before July ’07 range between 1200 and 2000 (inconsistent); are 1024px or 1280px between from May ’06 to end of ’06; most often are only 1024px before May ‘06
-Management: Photos "all" link ends at 2/20/08; "solo" link goes to 3/12/06. Inconsistent new window or not in opening galleries.
Bottom Line: This site’s been on online since Dec. 2003, yet it has been left unreviewed by both TBP and PornUsers for all this time!

First off, if you don’t like stylized softcore glam, solo or soft lez, forget it, ‘cause that’s what the site’s about.

Second, if you’re a vid fan, skip it! (They do have places on their vid pages to eventually add “Super Hi Quality” vids, but none are on as if yet, as far as I could tell.)

#3: The Penthouse sets have larger pics (usually up to 4000px) on the Penthouse site, so why go here for those? And if you like Danni’s site, the 2000px there are also 2000px here.

However, if you’re satisfied with pics at 1024px, there’s a nice volume of truly exclusive content here from the site inception, and most of the models are very fine indeed. What I question as a business decision, though, is the sacrifice of the brand identity of this site by making too much of the content, from 2006 on, available at Danni and Penthouse. Why not have pics up to 4000px here and keep it all exclusive? Just wondering.

The site has made great strides to improve the navigation, which, along with too-small pic sizes, kept me away for 1.5 years. It used to be very difficult to find updates past a certain point, and there were too many separate, small, unresizable windows. Glad that’s over!

I also see that they now use the same tricky cancellation form as DigitalDesire and Danni. I recommend CONFIRMING that cancellation is complete.

03-15-08  08:11am

Replies (3)
Review
52
Visit AV Erotica

AV Erotica
(0)

83.0
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)
Review
53
Visit Torrid Art

Torrid Art
(0)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +All exclusive content
+Photos, singles or zips, both in 3 to 5 sizes in each gallery; max is usually 4000px (and at least 3000px)
+All zips accessible from both gallery page and each model page
+Monthly archives going back to September 2006
+Some very fine American women, some well-known
+Some photos look great and most are clear
+Plenty of attention to the loveliness of ass (but not in every gallery)
+Good visitors preview
+Usually good server speed, but ...
Cons: -server occasionally takes a snooze break for a while
-Updates only 12-14 times per month and most shoots are in two parts (a part = an update), but at least the file numbers in part 2 follow in sequence from those in part one
-Only 37 models
-Models seem limited to 6 updates each
-A few of the models aren’t very appealing
-Some photos lack good color
-Blurriness not usually a problem, but it does happen a few times
-Lack of good light sometimes a problem
-Realism may not appeal to some (scars, bruises, rashes and zits are not airbrushed out)
Bottom Line: Allen Ginsberg once wrote "Under the World, There’s a Lot of Ass, a Lot of Cunt." Well, under my nose has been this site for the past 17 months, and there’s a lot of Ass, a lot of Bending Forward, a lot of Cheeks Beckoning.

The best of these, IMHO, are Addison Rose, Charlotte, Charmane Star (very squeezable), Hailey Young, Jamie Lynn (!), Jenny, Kacey, Karlie Montana, Kimberly, Kina, Lindsey, Marlie Moore, Nina, Sabrina Sweet, and Tiffany Brookes. Austin is also very beautiful, but you do have to accept that long scar on her back. But most of these girls have nice clean hineys, and man, do they ever offer them up!

And Alexandra has a nice clean butt, too, but the photos are not so hot color-wise.

Celeste Star, Hanna Hilton, and Ginger Lee are big favorites of mine, but most of the poses didn’t satisfy my lustful cravings. Wish they’d posed ALL of them as they did Lindsey in her “Bench” set, part 2. Damn!

And yes, this is a photos-only site, but why not, just as there are video-only sites?

Oh, it has also has 4 articles on sex and a blog on nude photography. What I read was long-winded and unfocused. Someone should send ‘em a copy of Strunk & White.

It’s great to find another mega-size photo site of American women. The only others I know of are Bare Maidens, which is too weird and even slower with updates, and Penthouse, which doesn’t do ass right nearly as often (though the photo quality is usually better). Anyone know of others?

Follow-Up:
They've changed to only twice-per-week updates. Reason? They want to develop the site with more features and are short on resources. For how long? Indefinitely. I've lowered the score from 86 to 80, which I think is more than fair to them.

I can explain. I'm a consumer, and I have a year long subscription to this site based on the good faith notion that it would update 3x per week. I don't like the "bait-and-switch" any more than the next person. It's not a good way to retain members (= financial resources).

I also do not agree that they even need to develop the site more outside of adding more content. It works fine as it is. New content should be priority #1.

Should they reduce updates to once a week, the score will drop futher as soon as they do.

01-29-08  03:08pm

Replies (0)
Review
54
Visit Helen's Planet

Helen's Planet
(0)

75.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +large photos (2858x1900)
+most photosets have good lighting
+zips
+videos in 2 sizes (large is 1280x720, wmv)
+no DRM
+screen caps for videos are at 1200px
+seamless login -- just go to the site and you're in
Cons: -Photos are rather amateurishly done. Too much cropping out of top of head, arms, butt cheek, etc. Some are blurry. The occasional funny faces and awkward body angles detract from what could have been a more arousing experience.
-Only one size of photos
-Only 44 photo galleries to date since the launch date of Aug. 20, 2007. (Updates are SLOW.)
-No new photosets since Jan 9, 2008 -- to end of subscription in early Feb.
-Only 9 videos to date
-Pitches to "friends" sites are in the left column and in a section all their own. They aren't much of a nuisance to me. They might bother some people. For others, they could wind up being a financial "black hole."
Bottom Line: Helen, as she's called here, is a very naturally sexy girl! She's been making the rounds in the softcore universe, appearing at a constellation of sites such as FemJoy, JustTeenSite, MetArt, MetModels, Nubiles, Pretty4Ever, and her own planet's co-orbiting GlamDeluxe. (Fortunately, have not seen any duplications of material between the two.)

One video is of an "interview" with her in a moving car with two jovial, unseen guys. They all speak good English (slight Russian accents), but there's a lot of cutting as Helen, while friendly, doesn't give way to questions about her private sex life. In part of it, they turn on loud music (distracting).

Another is of her on a couch, stripping and showing her stuff. Music is the audio track. Sexy, with some full "mooning," but it has the "nebulous" feeling of something done with little forethought.

Same with the photos. There are better ones at most of the other sites mentioned. Though I wasn't terribly disappointed, a pretty, sexy girl, a good camera, and good lighting aren't enough to make great photosets. The understanding of having poses a certain way, composed in the frame a certain way, for the essential purpose of building the turn on in the subscriber needs more consideration here.

Overall, it's an OK site for guys like me who "have it" for sweet, lovely Helen, but it isn't good enough for the price they ask. We'd need better quality and more frequent updates for that.

01-26-08  11:19am

Replies (15)
Review
55
Visit Stuffed Petite

Stuffed Petite
(0)

82.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Great hardcore action
+No DRM
+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)
Rating
56
Visit View Pornstars

View Pornstars
(0)

60.0
No Review.
01-16-08  11:01pm

Review
57
Visit TDF Girls

TDF Girls
(0)

62.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Exclusive content
+Pics at 1800 pixels individually
+Pics at 1900 pixels from zips
+Videos in wmv (720x) or DivX (960x) are pretty clear in quality
+Voting on photosets and videos
Cons: -Small number of models
-Not enough full-nudity sets
-A few models not that good-looking
-Photo image quality is only so-so
-Only 18 videos. One of the DivX's I saw had a low frame rate and was jerky.
-Awkward navigation
-Poor, "early web" design
-Slow server speed
-Expensive! Even $20 for a site like this would be on the high side.
-See my earlier comment for more details
Bottom Line: As I write this, the site has actually undergone a redesign, but if you look at it, I doubt you'd be impressed. At first it looked like something from, say, May 1999, and now it has just added a few months to that!

Worse is that right now, it's having serious problems. Some banner images aren't loading, and error messages are popping up on the pages. The age listed for their most recently added model is "1198904400." (Maybe jd1961 would know how to convert that?)

One consequence of the redesign at this moment is that the member's access at the top DOES NOT WORK! The "Members" link is simply inactive. Khan pointed out that the text link at the bottom works, so I can still get in that way. (Thanks!)

I have no idea if the problems at the moment are due more to incompetence or just plain bad luck, but my rating is of the site is as it functioned before the current mess.

I'd gotten a small number of photosets. My subscription officially ends in a day or two.

And that, my friends, will be that.

01-13-08  05:16am

Replies (4)
Review
58
Visit Glam Deluxe

Glam Deluxe
(0)

73.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +51 models, predominately Russian, some hot! (188 galleries)
+Photo quality has been improving, especially in 2007
+Most photos are between 2000 and 3500px on the long end
+Good server speed
+Login first requires typing in use-pass and a displayed code, but after that, just clicking the member’s entrance gets you straight in.
+Prompt technical assistance
Cons: -No zips!
-Only about 12 photoset updates per month in 2007
-Photos in only one size
-Some earlier photos as small as 1024px
-Ugly watermark on pics
-Videos? Most links to videos in the models index are inactive.
-Videos? They’re slide shows! (Actually, they’re called “flix” on this site.)
-Only 23 “videos,” 7 of which are of the same model (Nadja)
-Sample file sizes: 16mb (wmv), 18mb (DivX), 124mb (Quicktime). The quality doesn’t seem THAT different.
-Not totally exclusive
Bottom Line: I wonder if the term “flix” here is somehow intended to distinguish them from actual videos. As they are really awful, I also wonder who would want them. They are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside three video format enigmas, especially Quicktime, which is about 5 times larger than the wmv or avi versions with no discernible improvement in quality.

The pics, on the other hand, are making me happier and happier as the quality is getting better, and some of their recent models are really beautiful and hot, including
Abigail (Anastasia atNubiles)
Darina (Emanuelle at Nubiles)
Francesca G (Olga at JustTeenSite, Ofemija at FemJoy)
June (aka Bianca, Ekaterina, Kamea, Katya, Tatyana)
Kayla
Lea (Masha at TeenDreams)
Victoria (Ira H at MetArt)
Yana, and of course
Helena (of Helen’s Planet).

One set, of their “Abril,” is the same as one on My Precious Virgins (as “Gaby”) – hence the “not totally exclusive.” Could such a thing happen again?

I do wish that the thumbs didn’t cut out part of what is in the actual photos, which sometimes is the case. “What you see is what you get” (WYSIWYG) would be a better approach.

That foamy green-colored watermark looks completely out of place on the pics, too. Yech!

And it’s about time that they at least provided zips (they do at their Helena's Planet) and 2 pic sizes (the current large size and one half that size). That would help the score.

01-03-08  06:47am

Replies (9)
Review
59
Visit Jenni's Secrets

Jenni's Secrets
(0)

64.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +30 exclusive photosets of Jenni, the blond Czech beauty with sparkling blue eyes, an angel face, and a bubble butt that is surely the gold standard. She’s on sites like MetArt, Evelyn's Glamour, Nubiles, and FemJoy.
+Exclusive galleries usually have lots of pics.
+Zips
+Updates from May to the present, listed in monthly update calendars, but do read on.
Cons: -Promos, ~43% of the calendar updates, to sites such as Errotica, MetArt, MetModels, and OnlyTease.
-Most Jenni photos max at 1145px, small these days.
-Site claims to visitors “For each photo set a BONUS gallery is posted with high resolution up close images of the photos.” (Note the present tense.) Fact: There are only THREE, ranging on the long end from 2250 to 3880px. Claim inside: “Additional Zip files of High Resolution Galleries will be added frequently.” Yeah sure.
Bottom Line: Came upon this site through erohtica, a site of softcore sites. It’s pretty nice, actually, as it gives free updated preview galleries from many. Now on to Jenni’s Secrets. This tell-all spells it out for you:

R is for redundant, as >20% of the Jenni content here is elsewhere in larger pic sizes (such as Evelyn's Glamour), and the “Secrets” magazine is just more non-exclusive stuff, in small pics. It even features the infamous orange couch!

I is for incomplete. Some calendar links don’t work, and the “Uro” magazine is only covers.

P is for parceled out. Every Jenni gallery is broken into 2-5 pieces on different dates.

O is for outrageous having subscribers pay for small galleries (of small pics, some even of Jenni herself!) that are just promotions of other sites. (And you DO pay for them because you don't get them unless you subscribe.)

F is for “Friends” on the main member’s page = even more promotions of other sites! And that's ALL it is.

F is also for fraudulent bonus galleries claim: “For each photo set a BONUS gallery is posted with high resolution up close images of the photos.” Is that ever icing on the cake. I wouldn't have joined had I known there would only be 3 such galleries.

So what’s that spell? Yes. For $25, I definitely think so.

Site claim: “Jenni’s Secrets is the most unique membership site on the Internet.”

This may very well be true. I surely haven’t seen anything quite like this.

12-26-07  03:50pm

Replies (7)
Review
60
Visit MC Nudes

MC Nudes
(2)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +All exclusive content
+Many stunning women, 93 in all
+Daily photoset updates from March 2005, but still more back to Oct. ‘04.
+3 sizes: 600, 1200, and 2-5000px (zips or singles) from Feb. 07 (prior to then only 1000’s and very large)
+Voting on models and photosets
+Zips at good download speeds
+78 artsy videos (17 are g/g) in avi (1280x720 by far the best), wmv, qt and ipod
+Extensive public preview area
+Very attractive site design
+Not many g/g pics
+NO TOYS!
Cons: -VERY sluggish when navigating
-Some photos are way too grainy/have too much noise, some are too dark, and there’s too much “detached” posing. (It’s “art,” you see.)
-Photosets vary from only 1 page to 5 or more
-Model index is disorganized
-Model search engine OK by hair color or bra size, but by country, name, or age it’s hit or miss. Example: The very popular Hungarian blond Britney/Brigitte Hunter is here as “Luisa” from the United States.
-Video d/l is slow, around 100K
Bottom Line: #1: They need to get their page (and video) servers up to speed. They update at precisely 11 p.m. GMT, and apparently lots of eager droolers (self included) know this. Sometimes it’s been impossible to log on around this time, and once I finally do, each page load takes the better part of a minute. Even in off hours, a 35 sec. click ‘n wait is no surprise. Every time.

I also wonder about security. I had a 365-day membership that ended earlier this year, and just days before it did my access got blocked; it had been hacked and shared. Their support promptly gave me a new pwd along with some barely veiled allegations. Did I get hacked or did they? (If interested, see replies to this review.)

About their models: They’re very selective overall. Aneta Smrhova, Ariel/Piper Fawn, Ellena, Ivette Blanche, Katy Gold, Klara/Zoe, Lenka Horokova, Marketa Belonoha, Simi (as Olivia), Susana Spears, Zuzana Zeleznovova, ETC.

Some of the photos are among the finest I’ve seen, but it’s still a crap shoot because others literally made the con’s point above. Example: Zuzana in the sauna -- so grainy that the silo ends its life as a double entrendre.

Of course there’s no hardcore, but asking for hardcore at a site like this is like expecting Twinkies at a hardware store. Do we ask hardcore sites to go softcore? See what I’m saying?

I’d certainly go from “might recommend” to “recommend” to lovers of softcore if they’d fix those persistent server problems.

12-26-07  06:03am

Replies (5)
Review
61
Visit Nubile Art

Nubile Art
(0)

69.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Professional quality photography
+Nice design (reminiscent of FemJoy before their very recent redux), easy to navigate
+Choice of basic viewing options: all updates, photos, videos, models, or favorites
+Options for zips or gallery viewing at 3 photo sizes (3872, 1200, or 800px)
+Setting photo size in a gallery view stays with you in other galleries
+160 galleries for current 9.95/month
+AVI videos all in H264 (720 or 640), or pod-sized 320 m4v; no DRM
+Quick downloads
Cons: -VERY softcore; I’m a MetArt and FemJoy fan and I was really bored
-Not that many really appealing models
-Models almost never look back when their backs (butts) are to the camera
-Only ten videos; downloaded one and the DivX player told me it had no video track
-Several gallery pages have NO thumbs, but at least the zips work
-Can’t set “view all” as a constant preference for all galleries
Bottom Line: The only model here that I’ve seen before is their Angelina (blond here, but reddish as Sheree at MyPreciousVirgins). She’s a doll! Along with her, only a few of their 45+ models I think are truly hot: Raisa, Debi, Vika, both Yana’s, and one of the three Inna’s.

But no matter. I went through nearly every gallery on this site and got very little. Although sometimes there was a good amount of sex appeal coming through, too often the models were just standing around, looking away from the camera. One in particular, a very thin and grumpy blond named Elena (not on the model list) looked like she’d started her day with an extra bowl of Bitch Flakes.

It would help too if more of the models were better toned. Several are just too out of shape for prime-time.

I also agree with roadie that there’s too much noise in the largest sized images in some of the galleries. I found that, for instance, with Jasmine in “Strip Teasing.” Nice poses of her belly flat on the floor (not nearly enough of that here!), but her butt’s all pixelated at 3872. Shit.

If this site had more tight, sexy models who convey more “Oh, yes baby!” and less “Ho-hum, here I stand” in nice, clear, well-lit pics at all resolutions in galleries and videos that all work like they should, I’d rate it higher.

But as things stand, I can't even say I might recommend a site that did so little for me, even though it has a lot of good features.

12-24-07  07:54am

Replies (3)
Review
62
Visit Earl Miller

Earl Miller
(0)

78.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Approx 300 well-known and new pornstars and models, North & South American & Euro
+Professional photography by a seasoned master with a signature style
+Huge archive: photosets & videos
+Videos in WMV or QT, “high” (wmv 720x404) and “low” for both formats
+No DRM
+4 ways to go through the site content: 1. model hair color (LONG lists, though), 2. name, 3. reverse chronologically for pics or videos, or by 4. “Penthouse” or “Amateur” or “Monthly Centerfold” or “Pornstars."
Cons: -Public area does not show much about new updates
-Updates come slowly
-Recycles content
-Pics rarely larger than 1280px; plenty max at 1024.
-Too many pics are overly retouched
-Lots of masterbation with toys
-Videos are of photoshoots, including hardcore (suck-pause-camera flash, slow-fuck pause-camera flash).
-A bit of weirdness in zip downloads: No “right-click save as.” Click the zip link, and you get asked if you’re sure you want to download the zip. (Click "Yes.")
Bottom Line: I’d been getting offers to rejoin at a special price, $14.95 for a month, so I finally thought, “Why not?” after being away 7 solid months.

The number of photosets added since I’d left? 56. That’s 8 per month.

The number of “new” photosets that were actually recycled content? 8, which was a whole month’s worth for me. They weren’t enlargements of older sets, either. Just “old” presented as “new.” As old as from early 2006 on, when the site started doing photos at 1280px. It’s been around at least since 2003, so you can imagine there’s a lot of stuff at 1024.

The “zip weirdness” makes me think of the old dial-up days, when a zip download just might have been something of an issue. Thing is, zip files (and the "last chance" button) got added to this site only within the past couple of years!

It’s hard to stay a fan of a site that just hypes itself but is obviously behind the times in image size, rate of updates, and the approach to hardcore videos. The recycling bullshit doesn't help, either.

But for a first-time, one-time subscriber, a membership at the TBP discount price of $19.95 might still be worth it if you don’t mind the limitations already described. There is a lot of exclusive content of hot babes here: Adel Sharp, Amy Reid, Andie Valentino, the blond Lena, Riley Shy, Georgia Jones, etc. as well as older stuff of Alexa Kai, Angel Cassidy, Tyler Lee, Jassie, Tera Patrick, etc. to name just a very few.

12-16-07  02:09pm

Replies (7)
Review
63
Visit FM Teens

FM Teens
(0)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Many fine young Russian (?), Ukrainian (?) women with LOTS of sex appeal
+Exclusive content
+Pics at 1010x1515; good (albeit quirky) size choice
+Very good image quality from Issue 9 up: very few pics are blurry, dark, or color compromised. At least from that point, it seems to be a real priority.
+Zips
+Speedy server!
+No DRM
+Visitor’s preview: good samples of the lovelies and a taste of the clunky way it’s organized, too
Cons: -Organized, but very awkwardly
-In issues 1-8, images are really amateurish.
-Big watermark gets on the goods!
-More g/g than I care for
+All vids in avi only; a smallish 576x320; some look pretty cheesy.
-Too much body covering with strings of beads, frilly see-through garments, puzzle pieces, bath goo, smeared-on foodstuffs, knick-knacks balanced on butts, and flowers. Lots of flowers, sticking out of butts, etc. (Why the high price? The FLORIST! These are GOOD flowers. Not cheap!)
Bottom Line: Here’s what it’s like getting photo zips here. I login and work down to an issue, #13. Two models, but no names, so 2 clicks back up and over to the model rating page, the ONLY place where the names are. Oh, they’re BOTH named Natasha! Ok, “Natasha lighter” and “Natasha darker.”

Back to the issue #13 page, scroll down a few screens, then open to the pages of a gallery of “Natasha lighter.” The address bar shows “13-12,” which helps. Issue 13, Gallery 12. Ohh, nice! Get this one! Then alt-left arrow to get right back to the “gallery list” page -- the only place the link to the zip is. (Click the “home” button inside the gallery and you’ll lose your place; you’ll be at the TOP of the issue page and have to scroll down again, looking for that number 12. No, they don’t label the galleries by number, either.)

Extract the zip. A folder named “images.” Open that to find another folder, named (drumroll) “images” (cymbal crash).

The above, times 20 issues and counting x the number of galleries you download.

It’d be a helluva lot easier if they’d 1. put the model names and gallery numbers where they’re USEFUL, and 2. flatten the navigation. See, you have to go one step above the photo galleries to access the videos, too. It’s “old fashioned” web design, up and down the tree.

All the same, I was very pleasantly surprised by how much I got from this site. And at least content quality improvement is getting priority.

But that watermark has got to go!

12-12-07  06:27pm

Replies (6)
Review
64
Visit Babelicious

Babelicious
(0)

92.0
Status: Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
Pros: +570 photo sets to date, usually of very HOT Euro and American babes
+Just 37 of the photosets are hc (a + for me; a - for others, though)
+Pic sizes max at range of 2500 to 4000px
+Zips or pics à la carte in 1000, 2000, and max size for each photoset (usually)
+Flexible, intuitive navigation and gallery viewing options
+Very easy and helpful search functions
+265 vids (35 are b/g; 20 are lez)
+Detailed info (for each vid, too) available to visitors
+8 bonus sites (3 are really good!)
Cons: -Most of the content is not exclusive, but generally done better than other sites do.
-Too much toy content; would like more good solo ASS content, like Claudia Oct. 28, photo number 62. (THAT’S what I’m talkin’ about!)
-Wish they had thumbs corresponding to the main activities in each vid segment; they have good thumbs for the content overview of each vid, though.
Bottom Line: I’ve seen LOTS of these photosets at BlueFantasies, TeenDreams, Xisty, ATK Galleria, and the now defunct BrandNewBabes, BUT Babelicious offers larger pic sizes and more flexible viewing and download options than most. (I like to view all the pics on one page, and it’s a snap here.) And Xisty puts only a fraction of their content above 1800px in a “special” section of their site; at Babelicious, it’s just normal to have pix at 2500px or higher. So Babelicious does ‘em best, that’s for sure.

Add to the pros:
+You can vote on each model and on each photoset and video, and you can post comments
+Previews of the next 10 photosets to come and the next 6 videos
+Highly responsive, friendly support
+The bonus sites SexyBabes.tv, DreamBabes, and Eurobabez update 5-6 days per week. From Sept this year, SexyBabes got an improved interface (similar to Babelicious’) and has been offering larger pics, sometimes to 3500px, as well! DreamBabes offers a lot of MatrixNudes content, usually at 1600px. Eurobabez also does 1600px most of the time. All of them also have even more videos! And all have zips.

Add to the cons:
-The bonus site content isn’t exclusive, either, except perhaps BabesUK, which updates infrequently and erratically and has a “bleached” quality in the photos.

Among those sites that specialize in the non-exclusive (hey, someone has to!), Babelicious is probably the best there is. It’s very user-friendly, with valuable features and tons of content.

12-09-07  10:52am

Replies (7)
Review
65
Visit Club Nella

Club Nella
(0)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Lovely, sexy Nella (aka Jana Miartusova), your Czech “girl next door,” and many other knock-out Euro babes
+A small but growing collection of exclusive pics at 2500 (and 900) px
+Nice navigation options: browse all content or by one of several niches
+Visitors can view entire content list of site
+Newer vids in WMV “hi def” 960x540 (720i) and “medium” plus Flash videos (for streaming or download). Music + moaning.
+No DRM
+Diary section is fun & interesting w/ lots of “real-life” pics.
Cons: -Well over 2/3rds of the content is non-exclusive or “non-original” (see “Bottom Line”) AND in lower sizes
-Downloads are SLOW (HD vid at around 220KB/sec or less); slow for zips of pics, too
-“Poster” option is a “McFeature” -- ONE pic of a gallery even larger than 2500px, but you don’t even know what it is until you’ve downloaded it. Never kept any myself.
Bottom Line: The first approx 160 galleries max at 1600px and are non-exclusive/original (with about as many companion videos). That’s from page 32 (the “end” at this point) of all content retro to p. 11. They’re pre-dated from May 2005, but the site launched in March 2007. This “older” content looks great, but much of it is up elsewhere and used to be on Evelyn Lory’s former site, Evelyn’s World.

That’s the non-original: formerly exclusive content of Evelyn that got put here, not on the newer “Evelyn’s Glamour.” (Some of it is HOT, though. M-my!)

But the non-exclusive issue doesn’t end there. In fact, such stuff, again maxing at 1600px, is on even most recent pages, but it’s mingled with the really exclusive Nella stuff. I mean except for the Nella stuff that’s on JustTeenSite. Or the gallery that just got posted on Pier999. Or the girl/girl thing with Evelyn that’s also on Evelyn’s new site. And the Mili Jay 2-part series from VivThomas. (At least here the pics max at 1600, not Viv’s own miserly 1280.)

Nella has been all over the place: ALS, Club Sandy, Erotic Destinations, HegreArt, Karupspc, McNudes, MetArt, TeenDreams, Teenrotica, Twistys, VirtuaGirl, VivThomas, Watch4Beauty, etc. She must be a sweetheart to work with, but can you imagine joining all of those sites to get Nella content?

Fortunately, ClubNella has put lots of Nella and friends together in one convenient place, for one easy payment of $30. Just don’t expect a lot of it to be really exclusive.

12-08-07  08:09pm

Replies (0)
Review
66
Visit Euro Babes Fever

Euro Babes Fever
(0)

68.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Zips
+Quick zip and page downloads
+Prompt, helpful support
+Usually lots of pics in a gallery
+Usually good/acceptable image quality of pics
+Beautiful Eurobabes (Bambi, Lenka Gaborova, Mili Jay, etc.)
Cons: -66 models total (plus 3 listed but NO content yet for them even after 3 weeks).
-Non-exclusive content.
-Login security code sometimes doesn’t show.
-Non-intuitive updates page. Not dated or alphabetized. Ordered by first time the model appears? Hard to keep track of where the new updates are!
-Pic sizes usually just under 1200px
-Some vids are crappy quality even at 640x480 (the size of the vids, all wmv). All are broken into segments (no single file of a whole vid).
Bottom Line: Photosets: To date there are 58 solo, 37 lez, and 10 hardcore sets.

Short video segments: 46 solo (with toys), 22 lez, and 28 hardcore. Add to that six “extra” videos in a separate section, all hardcore and all broken into 4-6 segments.

That's about 120 video segments! Wow. That sounds like a LOT. (Too bad they're each only about 2 min. long. and some of them look like they were chewed on by your pet bulldog.)

Under each model is a place for photosets (labeled "solo," "hc," or "girl/girl") and video segments. One “S” means one solo segment; one “HC” means one hardcore segment, etc. So "HC HC HC HC HC" means five hardcore video segments.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Uh- ... Ohhh, yeah!

So, once you log in (their support gave me their default login code since the variable code doesn’t appear sometimes), you try to figure out what’s new. If you can and it’s vid ... SEGMENTS, the quality is often poor. If it’s pics, the size is small and sometimes they’re non-exclusive and larger versions are at sites like Euro Pornstars, TeenDreams or even VivThomas.

And does this site really update every day? They claim to, but that's bullshit.

$30 for this?
Even once?

NO.

12-08-07  07:57am

Replies (4)
Review
67
Visit My Precious Virgins

My Precious Virgins
(0)

84.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Photos mostly at 2048px (some larger, some only 1280px)
+Many lovely models (not all); several recognizable from MetArt, FemJoy, MPL, etc. Their names on this site are Annaliese, Bianca, Cherry, Dana, Donita, Doris, Elena (Helen’s Planet), Isela, Jamilla, Marbelle, Marit, Nica (Britney, nice ASS pics!), Raven, Ricci (Lena at TeenDreams), Rita N, Sophie, Vallerie S (Jasmine Gold, but only in 1280s)
+Most content from end of 8/07 is really brand new
+Visitor’s page shows all of the models
Cons: -No videos (sorry, old chap!)
-Claims on visitor’s page that are NOT true: 1. 325 models (I counted 300, and 1 has two names); 2. zips for both high and low rez (there’s just one); 3. the only site with photos up to 4000 pixels (yeah sure)
-Bulk of content has been migrated from other sites of this company
-Inexplicable drastic changes in light in many photosets
-Updates show only new models; must revisit top of member’s page every 1-2 days to see when a new set is added for a model
Bottom Line: I think this company decided to create a photos only site. Their sites TeenStarsMagazine, TeenCharms, Real8Teens, and TeenageDepot, all of which I’d been a member of at least once, have either gone “video only,” or have been languishing with few if any updates for awhile. Content I’d seen on those sites has been migrated to this one.

So the more you’ve been a member of those other sites, the less chance you’ll find much really new content here until late Aug. 2007, and saying that doesn’t preclude future “encore” presentations. If you’ve never been a member of those sites, though, there’s a LOT of fresh photo content here to enjoy.

But note these additional cons:
1. A few of the models never get completely naked
2. Some pics are very blurry
3. Thumbs sometimes don’t show the entire photo (not WYSIWYG)
4. Watermark looks completely out of place (ditch it!)
5. First time logging in, must enter UN and PWD twice. Train your password manager and you’ll only need to remember the first character for the first login.
6. Bloody annoying timeout that doesn't accept your login anymore (after an hour or more).

I’m actually fairly satisfied with the new content I’ve seen, but it’s certainly not loaded with truly exclusive material. And the photography is not really professional, but there's enough decent stuff.

An 82 is more than fair considering the problems with this site. It's equal parts delightful and irritating.

Follow-Up:
Update: 24 models added since last review, new pics are exclusive and usually 3500px (making that watermark much smaller), image quality is better, and updates are usually every day (not always). Raising it to an 84, but, NB: about 18% of the models are less than fully nude, not just "a few" (yes, I finally did a fuller accounting). Newer models, though, nearly always change into their finest birthday suits.

10-14-07  04:16am

Replies (3)
Review
68
Visit Teenrotica

Teenrotica
(1)

80.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Mostly very hot and beautiful Eurobabes
+Excellent quality photos in 600, 1000, and 2000px. Girls nearly always look happy and sexy and look directly into the camera. Nice visceral “encounters.”
+Color and styling. The pics are very attractive and professionally done.
+HUGE archive. Daily photo updates from 10/23/05. Sets have lots of pics. 2000px zips often > 100mb
+150+ videos (solo and lez) in DivX, 720x576
+Visitors can browse all of the galleries and videos (but not the thumbs)
Cons: -Pussy and toys! Pussy and toys! If that lights up your brain, this site should be heaven for you. For ass lovers, though, the photosets are a bummer. The photo shoots are extremely “formula driven,” and lovin' that ass isn't part of it.
-Zips only in 600 or 2000px. (Why not 1000?)
-Vids look really crummy in their WMV (360x288) and Quicktime(400x320) formats. Don’t even bother.
Bottom Line: Here’s the formula:
1. Get the girl in a very good mood.
2. Get her to slowly take her clothes off in various positions. Don't forget the camel toe!
3. Once she’s naked, have her put her hands on her cheeks and spread them and the pussy lips in EVERY such shot.
4. Have her go at it with an exotic-looking toy in various positions, after she's sucked on it through several frames.
5. Mostly likely, finish with her sitting on the toy, still looking very happy.

And most definitely, do not take any shots of her standing or lying face down, top of head to upper thighs, amorously looking directly back without at least having a leg or two in the way and/or keeping her hands on her butt. Or making part of the shot blurry. This is true nearly every time, like 98%. I shit thee not. I’ve looked at every photoset on this site, folks.

So to me, a genetically hardwired ass fanatic, this site, which outclasses LOTS of other sites in many if not all ways, is and continues to be incredibly, even astoundingly tragic. How difficult would it be to put in each gallery just a few shots, as described above, for those of us who drool for the derrière? And should give it a 65? Don’t matter how good it is otherwise if ass is this sorely neglected! Amazing!

But if you love pussy and toys and can’t get enough of that, it’s around a 95. Just get the DivX player if you haven't already and download those vids.

OK, then, I’ll compromise and pin an 80 on it. (Grumble-grumble

10-07-07  07:48am

Replies (7)
Review
69
Visit Marketa 4 You

Marketa 4 You
(0)

82.0
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)
Review
70
Visit Body In Mind

Body In Mind
(0)

72.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +A good amount of professional quality photography
+Archives back to 2002; 350 galleries to date
+2-4 pic sizes depending on how recent. 2005 to present, 778 (medium), 1556px (large), 3-4000px (“extra”) is a rule of thumb.
+Navigation allows browsing by models, or reverse chronologically by undated thumbs or an undated text list (model and title). The galleries themselves do contain dates.
+Visitor’s area gives a complete preview of who is in the galleries and how many photos there are.
Cons: -Only updates about 7-8 times per month
-Pic sizes are inconsistent. For example, pre-2005 galleries may max at anywhere between 1280 and 3000px.
-Gallery zips in only one size, usually “medium.”
-Some non-exclusive material by Erro, Manfred Baumann, Petter Hegre, Ron Harris, and Martin Krake (here as Victor Lindenborn).
-Image quality is mediocre to poor in some earlier galleries.
-Only 6 (six) videos to date. Nothing impressive about them.
Bottom Line: This is a very softcore nude photography site. In fact, it’s more about female beauty than it is about sex. There are no toys, no masturbation, and not that many provocative poses for that matter. There's a lot of what jd1961 has coined "JC Penny poses," meaning that the models look away from the camera, stare blankly, and generally assume a mannequin's aura. This isn't always true; personality does come through sometimes, but it doesn't seem like anyone is making it a requirement.

Some of the women are very beautiful, and some are recognizable: Marketa Belonoha, Marketa Brymova (here as Morgana), Claudia O (here as Klaudia), Raylene Richards (aka Zuzana), and Yvette Blanche are among them.

The design is very simple in the member’s area.

Individual gallery pics open in a new window.

While some of the material is not exclusive, especially in earlier years, those who like this niche will probably find enough that hasn’t appeared elsewhere to make it worth a one-shot join. The 3-day trial price of $9.99 might be acceptable for quick collectors with time on their hands. (That's what I did.)

10-01-07  02:20pm

Replies (0)
Review
71
Visit Apex Glamour

Apex Glamour
(0)

70.0
Status: Was a member approx. 6 months prior to this review.
Pros: +Some great professional quality glamour photography
+Collection has nearly 320 photosets to date
+Approx. 130 models; mix of white, Latina, black, and Asian
+Some beautiful women; some known (Sanja Matice, Courtney Simpson, Chelsie Rae, Neveah, Puma Swede), some "new" faces
+All exclusive content
+Pics in 2 sizes (600px and 1200px)
+Good visitor's preview of updates list and models index
+Simple navigation
+Good design
Cons: -No zips, so gathering photos means first choosing the size, then repeating "click, open window, right click save, close window" for EACH photo. What fun!
-Updates come rather slowly (about 2-3 per week) and are not dated
-Join page mentions videos, but where? TBP said there were 2.
-Some of the women aren't attractive; some are too muscle-bound, overly tatted or pierced, or obviously beefed up with silicone
-Some photosets are too dark
-Some shoots are divided into 2-3 photoset updates
Bottom Line: Yes, it's been nearly 6 months since I've been a member of this site, but looking at the visitor's pages, I can go out on a 1-inch limb to say that the fundamentals haven't changed.

What needs to change most is having zip files. Sorry, I don't know if download managers work with this site. The "Contact" link doesn't work, but the "Support" link leads to a customer service page; an interested person could try asking there.

Of course, I'd also like pic sizes larger than 1200px, too.

It's a simple site that may interest and actually be a pleasant one-time join for glam fans, assuming you can use a download manager!

Finally, I've figured out the right "spin" to put on the fact that I've been away this long: I've thought about it several times, through two seasons, but I still don't plan on rejoining. How many "current members" can say that?

Follow-Up:
For visitors, they've now removed access to the list of updates and replaced it with a glammed-up set of "teaser" pages. Is the site still updating? No way to tell now! Bad move. Lowering the score from 73 to 70, but don't really know for sure what to score it now.

09-30-07  11:50am

Replies (2)
Review
72
Visit Eve Angel

Eve Angel
(0)

89.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Huge collection, from April 7, 2005, of EXCLUSIVE pics and videos of Hungarian supercutie Eve Angel and friends; some of the friends are hot, too
+All galleries available in zips at 2048px or 980px
+Videos are good quality at 640x480, 1.5Mbit, WMV or QT; 384 or 768Kbit WMV or QT also available. No DRM.
+Calendar organization helps a lot with navigation
+TBP discount is a sweet deal for the first-time subscriber
+Good previews of models and content volume for the visitor
Cons: -Lags behind in updates; “daily” certainly does not mean “on time, every day”
-Individual pics download as 2048px bmp’s only
-View a gallery, then must click one way or another to return to zip download page (esp. tiring for a first timer, esp. with large galleries)
-Some of Eve’s friends are “funny valentines”
-Section of collected galleries and vids of Eve is a confusing, disorganized mess
-On login, annoying upsell page for meeting people in my locale; click to continue to Eve’s site
Bottom Line: Actually, it was discovering that Mia Stone had made several appearances here that got me speed typing the signup form back in 11/05. Several other wonderful Eurobabes have guested here as well, though the ranks have been thinning to where it’s only Eve this month. Up to Sept. 19th, anyway. It stops there. My subscription ends today.

Would you be happy with that?

I’m not, of course, but I still recommend this site for its substantial existing content. I would have rated even higher if, in addition to corrections of the con’s, there was less darkness in some of the pic sets, less prolonged toy sucking and shoving (not my thing), and removal of those small enlargements in the calendars. (They stick to your cursor and are very, very distracting and annoying!) But it has improved since ‘05: the added smaller sized zips, fully controllable videos (not just play & stop), and the TBP discount (a very nice price).

As individual model sites go, Eve’s is either tops or close to it. There hasn’t been any recycling of content, as is the case with Mya Diamond’s site, and there are far more updates per month than at Lara Craft’s. And Eve herself is a divine beauty and seems to be a beautiful person, too.

BTW, if you’re looking for b/g hardcore, there’s only a very small handful of it here, in 2005. Eve herself goes only so far as to tease a guy with her dominatrix boots and getup. (She’d quit real hardcore by then.) There is a fair amount of lez stuff, though.

09-29-07  05:59am

Replies (8)
Review
73
Visit Pix and Video

Pix and Video
(0)

86.0
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Mostly gorgeous and sexy Euro porn queens plus lots of newbies (410 models to date)
+Visitor preview of every month’s calendar of offerings
+46 monthly archives; nearly 1400 daily updates
+Solo, b/g variations, g/g variations
+Pics usually in vivid color; sets and girls are nicely styled
+Zips of pics by the gallery page or all-in-one
+Videos in both segments or complete form, wmv or avi, good image quality. HC action is HOT.
+Navigation is mostly easy and straightforward
Cons: -Way too much toy sucking and jabbing for this reviewer, but could be another’s treasure
-Login requires TYPING user name, pwd, and a code; sometimes rejected even though it is accurate, I swear!
-Server response consistently within a range of speeds slower than most sites I’ve joined
-Pics still max at 1280, as they always have (1600+ would be great!); sometimes too dark.
-Vids are 400x300. Small!
-Models list alphabetical, but within 21 numbered pages; no model search feature
Bottom Line: Have been a returning member since Dec. ’03, when only PixAndVideo and ClubSandy were the 21st Sextury network (it’s now about 34 sites). Back then, the archives started in early ‘03; now they start Dec. ‘03. I’ve seen some of that early content showing up at those other sites.

August ‘07 had 19 solo, 8 b/g, and 4 lez sets, each w/both pics and video, plus one video only. This breaks a pattern, several months long, of having only “backstage” videos most Sundays.

PixAndVideo is the sine qua non of the network, but here’s especially how I think it should improve. In this list, I’m going to take the liberty of really having my own personal say:
1. Better server response! Wouldn’t it be nice to read PU posts here that laud the server speed instead of complain about it?
2. Pic sizes to 1600 or more. (Predictable, aren’t I?)
3. More head to upper-thigh pics of the solo girls looking back amorously as they display, in equal proportion, their lovely butt cheeks, hands off ‘em! Even just ONE SHOT in each gallery. It’s all I ask! ;)
5. Vids at least up to 640x480!
6. Fewer sets that involve toys. (They bore me to death!)

Do the above and I won’t put off rejoining for 7+ months any more. I guarantee.

This site has always had a lot going for it, but I can hear a ticking sound: it’s starting to date itself. Solution? First, get the speed up. Second, get the pic and vid sizes up. And remember that booty call!

Ta-dah!

09-23-07  06:43am

Replies (18)
Review
74
Visit AT Kingdom

AT Kingdom
(0)

89.0
Status: Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Massive collection. Updates photos Tues. to Sat. every week.
+Many hot American and Euro babes
+Photos usually at 1536px since Jan. 2007
+Much content not seen elsewhere.
+Many niches: amateurs, coeds, babes, lingerie, uniforms, masturbation, feet, lesbian (“experimental coeds”), blowjobs, hardcore action, etc.
+Excellent, unparalleled search features by months, single days, model names, and many model and niche types
+Member participation in voting on models and on each photoset.
Cons: -Photo quality varies greatly, even now, from vivid color/clarity to poorly lit, “orange skinned models,” etc.
-A few “no way” models
-Non-exclusive content, same as from sites like TeenDreams and 1byDay; smaller pic sizes, too (but still good at 1536). 1by sets split between SC and HC galleries here. (That’s really cheating!)
-Vids segmented over weeks! Ugh!
-Zips of photos are by-gallery-page. 10 pages = 10 zip files to compile together! Such menial tasking is no fun.
Bottom Line: Like other PU members who’ve written about it, I’ve been a long-time fan of this site. How many sites offer 16+ gallery sets per day, meaning 80+ per 5-day week? 6,400 galleries is the total on quick estimate; could be more. Can’t beat it for value if you’re a photo fan. On pic size as well, they whip other large collections such as Twistys.

I also like that voting on photosets is distinct from voting on models. I’ve avoided voting on sites where only the galleries get rated as I haven’t wanted some models to suffer “collateral damage,” so to speak. I don't know how much much effect the voting actually has, though.

As for the vids, ~24 new HC, lez, and solo ones come each Monday. 213 such collections to date. 640x480, WMV and QT options for each, 70 to 160MB/7 to 12+ min. each, going back at least 30 collections. At least more recently the segments are longer. Some I've seen elsewhere, but, not bad!

Improvements needed, in priority order are:
1. Provide all-in-one zips! (ATKP Premium does!) That pop-up thing that replicates downloading by the page is utterly superfluous.
2. Improve image quality where needed. Stuff that looks like late ’90’s crap doesn’t cut it anymore, even at 1536px.
3. Do as little non-exclusive content as possible.
4. Reduce the obsessive upskirt and toy shots. Drop “pregnant.” (Too scary!)

Was really tempted to rate this site in the 90’s. Came very close! Call it an 89.9. I recommend it for sure, with a few caveats.

09-20-07  06:59am

Replies (12)
Review
75
Visit Hegre Art

Hegre Art
(0)

92.0
Status: Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
Pros: +MANY beautiful European, S. American, etc. women (some well-known, some less so)
+Exclusive photos, very highly professional and often intensely detailed
+Daily photo updates, all well represented in visitor’s area
+Zips or singles in 600, 1200, 2000, 3000, 4000, and often 6000px for each photoset since May 2006; at least 2000px, usually, from 2002
+227 videos; about 50% are in 5 formats including wmv, divx, iPod, QT, and PSP, some hi-def
+Quick server response
+Friendly, helpful support
Cons: -too much shadow and darkness in some photosets
-photosets of over 200 images can get repetitive
-a few models are on the “cool” side and/or aren’t that appealing
-thumbed models index by numbered pages should be replaced by alphabetical list by name (though there already is a drop down list with names, too)
-video quality can vary (though it’s usually very good) and some vids are pretty boring (to me, at least)
Bottom Line: This is a softcore nude site, with NO TOYS, and I hope they will always keep it that way. Those of us who can do without all of the obsessive phallus shoving and formula driven hardcore saturating the porn world need some place to go, and this is one of the few spots to definitely head for. Definitely.

Whether it adds a video or not, this site always has a photoset update every day. And although I don’t like the amount of shadow that photographer Petter Hegre works with sometimes, I still say that he’s one of the absolute best softcore nude photographers ever. The images are staggeringly real. Only Tim Fox, Peter Janhans, and Martin Krake come immediately to mind as being in the same league.

Some of the better known models here include Amandine, Marketa Belonoha, Sandra Kalerman, Helena Karel, Nella (as Mirta), Roxy Carter/Veronika Hanacova, Sophie Paris, and Yvette Blanche, but most of the lesser known girls are also very sexy and appealing. Evi, Jaqui, and Keity are especially m-m-m-m-m-m-m.

A few of the models are skinny, and a few are a tad homely, but most of them are just fine in body weight, good looks, and sex appeal. Check out the model index, as a visitor, and see for yourself.

This site is one of the very best of its kind. If softcore nude photography is a favorite niche of yours, I highly recommend it.

09-17-07  06:31pm

Replies (3)

Shown : 51-75 of 116 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.

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 0.91 seconds.