Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Review A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Matt\'s Models

Matt's Models (0)

Mr Fountain (50) 07-26-09  04:54pm
Rookie Badge  Trusted User TRUST USER?   YES (38), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: # most models(18-23) are genuine amateurs; first timers flown into LA from all parts of the country
#pretty girls- I did not see very many models that I would pass
# nice shoots; provocative poses; girl next door; amateur quality; pretty girls-
I respect their model quality- poses; none have a stripper look to them- girl next door.
1303 x 2000 rez pics ( sets shot in 2009)
1063 x 1600 pic size; 2008 shoots.
884 models; 1048 vids; 249,995 pics
some models set pic count up to 200 per set.
videos: masterbation, interview; backstage, audition tapes- get to know models; lesbian; boy
girl hardcore all have links that seperates them out- dont have to got to fill in the box search page
recent 06'-09' vids 797 X1200 size; good quality. ##windows media or quicktime
#photoshoots start with sofcore- with plenty of nakedness towards the end
# behind the scenes photoshoots
#ccbill processor- reliable cancels and join
Cons: # great looking models are spoiled by poor resolutions for any shoot shot between 2001- 2004. 2005 set sizes are bare minimum
acceptable size. Sets any older than 2005 and get tinier and tinier.

797 x1200 pics rez shot in 2006
546 x 683 pics sets shot in 2001 (who wants to see sets this small?)- 2001 sets should should
be scrapped- save the space
800 x 1067 sets shot in 2002.
711 x 1056; 711 x 1091 rez pics for set shot in 2005
# updates are inconsistent; and pic count inconsistent.
#vids are broken down into clips; and aren't offered in various sizes.
# they should resize or drop the sets from 2001-2004 and then reduce the membership price to 24.95. #29.95 is a bit too high. Though I'd pay that if they upgrade 2001- 2004. But may be better to drop it and then charge $24.95 for a smaller site.
# some models portfolios are three updates or less- though most are four or more with about three photosets to one vid ratio
Bottom Line: I was a complete man slut this month and joined a new site to look at pretty girls. It was a long time since I tried a new site. Matts Models was one site that I was looking at for a while. i saw some great reviews on it- which is why I gave it a shot.

This site is for those who like pics; amateur models, lesbian vids; masterbation vids. The models are mostly students from all over the country who are flown in to LA for a few days. Some are genuine first timers- others can be found on other sites. Some have never done this before- others are not.

Most vids are shot in an apartment setting which give it an amateur look.

The pic quality is good- not great; the same goes for the vids.and I liked both the pics and vids. The pics primarily should satisfy pic lovers.

The problem with trying new sites is that you don't know what you are getting. The reviews don't always help either.

They did deliver on the models; beautiful models; provocative poses; with good resolution.

a lot of the models are from all over the country- and are flown in to LA for the shoots.

but this site is the best dating back to 2006 with 2005 being the last real year for acceptable quality. Any older than that- there are still beautiful models; but the size starts getting too small.

I would say- from 2006 on, Matts Models is a pretty decent site. The photosets are not
watch4beauty quality. I am a pic lover and they satisfied me.

This sites videos are fair to good quality and comes in 797 x 1200 size on screen; full screen mode is available.
Some random videos come through in a larger; hi rez size larger than 797 x 1200.

Photo quality 2006 to present is 8/10
model quality is 8/10- they said amateurs and most are
vid quality 7/10
updates 6/10

So, again, Matts Models is a good site 2006 to present.. Anything older than 2005 starts to get pretty sub standard.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (0)

Replies to the user review above.

  Be the first to reply to Mr Fountain!

  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.


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.