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).
User Review A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Springtime Beauties

Springtime Beauties (0)

Active
76
Drooler (220) 10-25-08  06:24pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (85), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: +Lots of never-before-seen content
+2 updates per day, 7 days a week
+Members get a preview of the next 3 updates.
+53 models; many beautiful, sexy teen-like girls (look Russian and/or Ukrainian)
+406 photosets to date
+Photosets are at least 1232 pixels. Some are 1536, and some are 3456.
+Photos are generally acceptable, overall good quality; varies a bit.
+82 videos to date
+All videos in 5 versions: WMV hi (720x480), med, or low; mpg; and Quicktime.
+Can browse all, only by photos, or only by videos
+Allows use of DownloadThemAll in Firefox
+Search engine finds all content of a model in lieu of a models index
+Visitors can preview all content (representative pics or screenshots)
+Not much toy content, at least so far.
Cons: -NO ZIPS for photos
-Even recent photo updates are sometimes only 1232 px. You never know what size they'll be.
-32 updates per page (photos or videos) means a lot of scrolling
-More variety in models would be helpful. (There’s way too much of their “Iveta” if you ask me.)
-One girl, Lusy (50 photosets), is very beautiful but never gets fully nude (panties stay on)
-Video downloads are too slow. 360Kbps on a 510MB download (20Mbps connection).
-Videos are usually solo and “quiet,” (no music). (Probably a pro for some.) But one of Roxy had the tinny sound of techno music being picked up by the cam mic. And the frame rate was choppy on it and on another, too, making the wicker couch "come alive" like some LSD-induced hallucination. And that was at 720x480.
-Seven of the videos are in black & white (?)
-Not all content is exclusive, though most is new to me.
-Watermark usually not intrusive, but its style is sometimes in odd contrast to the photo content.
Bottom Line: PornUsers familiar with MetArt, MetModels, Nubiles, TeenDreams, HegreArt, ATK Galleria and/or Amour Angels will recognize some of these girls.

One standout is “Andrea,” (Shannon at Nubiles; Lena at MetModels). Would some think she’s too skinny? Well, it’s a healthy, firm-toned skinny, and she’s got good-sized natural breasts for her frame and a very cute mouth. And playful eyes. About half of her 33 photosets are at 1536 pixels; the others are at 1232. Too bad that the one video of her solo is also choppy with the frame rate!

Another is Nella (Anastasia at Nubiles; Martina at MetModels). Cute face. VERY cute butt. There are about 6 photosets of her and 1 video, which was nice! All of her pics are at 3456. One set, in a sauna, is also at TeenDreams, where she’s “Kate.”

Then there’s Roxy, who is really sexy and nicely round in the back. Same goes for Monica. But the thinner Ally and Sindy deserve mention, too.

Stephanie has a lovely, serene face. Might be the most truly beautiful girl on this site. Also has appeared at Nubiles as Aimee.

Finally, I’ll mention “Koika” as she’s known here. One of the cutest blonds anywhere. She’s been at some of the other sites, too. There are several vids of her here, where it looks like she’s been in an accident (stitches on her shoulder and arm). But the charm still comes through.

So yes, the models here are for the most part a feast for the eyes. And though the pros do add up, especially in the amount and freshness of the content, the cons still bring the score down under 80. Number one is of course no zips. Number two: The slow vid downloads.

Just the same, fans of these kinds of models and this kind of content would probably enjoy the site -- at least for the photos. I can’t say that I regret joining it myself. But if I were more of a video fan, I'd avoid it because too many of the videos are poor in quality.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (0)

Replies to the user review above.


  Be the first to reply to Drooler!

  Reply To Review


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 0.01 seconds.