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 Comment A note about the site and any replies from other users.

Visit Simon Scans

Simon Scans (1)

pantycleft (0) 01-15-07  09:39am
No Badges TRUST USER?   YES (0), NO (0)

Never mind the quality ...

I paid a month's subscription for Simonscans about a year ago but gave up checking it out after less than a fortnight, because although the quality and quantity was outstanding and the girls were all very pretty, I found the sheer overwhelming obsession with what they have between their legs unutterably boring. And yes I AM normally aspirated - I love girls every bit as much as the next fellow.

But in most of the sets here the girls were far too quick to get their kit off, so the tease element was frustratingly thin. Very little subtlety, very little tantalising, very little reality - just pink, pink, pink all the way.

This site is no doubt fantastic for those who are fascintated by gynaecology, but that's not what does it for me.

Reply To Comment

Comment Replies (8)

Replies to the user comment above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

wishdj (14) Well said! You are referring to people like me who love gynaecology like poses!
Only problem with this site is that I don't like the way the photographer blurrs the models face when they expose their private parts.

03-06-07  05:07am

Reply To Message

2

Drooler (218) I'm with pantycleft on this. Simon really overdoes it with the toys and long series of ever so minutely varying insertion shots. There are other aspects of the girls he should give more attention to, especially their lovely behinds!

It's kind of tragic when everything else is so good but one thing -- here, constant "toy obsession" -- makes it a bore.

03-11-07  01:37am

Reply To Message

3

DivBZero (13) REPLY TO #2 - Drooler :

Drooler - Can see where your comment hits home here.

I really quite like Simons' use of toys, but I really wish that he would organise toys of the right size and variety that ordinary girls use on a daily basis. Girls like the right size and fully strong vibration.

I'd happily lose the close-ups to see a little more expression.

And as usual I think that 3000px would be exquisite given Simon's photographics skill.

That said, I still rate the site most highly

DivBZero

06-12-07  03:58pm

Reply To Message

4

Drooler (218) REPLY TO #3 - DivBZero :

Dear DivBZero,

I'm not much of a toy fan, as you can probably tell, but I don't mind them at all really so long as my "niche" -- the girls looking back in delight as they show their equally displayed fanny cheeks, without hands on them -- is given some "air time." Trouble is, when the toys come out, whether it's at Simon or elsewhere, it's almost always "pussy time" from there on in, and "ass time" (as described) is over.

Kinda funny, this "competition" between pussy and ass, though I'll admit I can't prove it statistically. For that, there needs to be a study ... and grant money. ;)

I think we both like seeing the girls faces as they get off. Nothing like a girl really enjoying horny pleasures.

And 3000px? Absolutely! Wow! YES!

I recently visited SimonScans and he mentioned having fewer "toy" shots and just having the girls work things out more "mano a gato," so to speak. Wonder if the dude's reading our comments here at PU.

06-13-07  12:25am

Reply To Message

5

Denner (233) Thanks to pantycleft for the "beware"

I enjoy solo-girls a lot - but all that close-ups in "the gynaecology-way" do not get me off.....

I've thought about this site, but you can afford them all - and it does not look that exciting.

Is it anywhere near Nubiles or Teendreams - solo-wise?

08-16-07  08:49am

Reply To Message

6

badandy400 (103) REPLY TO #5 - Denner :

Honestly I believe that nubiles and teendreams were a bit better. Siminscans is good though. The girls on nubiles are much better looking though, and the videos are a higher quality. A good handful of Fugly chicks on simonscans. Teendreams from a years ago still beats simonscans on quality.

Simonscans does have quantity of photos though. About 70 GB worth. But only about 330 videos as of early march.

03-10-08  09:06pm

Reply To Message

7

Simon of Scans (5)
Webmaster
"Very little subtlety, very little tantalising, very little reality - just pink, pink, pink all the way."

Sorry, that's just not true. We shot long sets, we have sets where the tease portion alone is longer than the entire set on other sites. - Plus our girls end up doing the porn!

But tease isn't what we're about, and I won't even begin to apologise for shooting porn that's rude.

New models never really get the tease thing anyway, they're often not that good at it, but bored old old pros, they can drag out taking their pants down for 2 hours while making it look "real".

The "reality" is, once a girl wants to get naked, it won't take long. :)

12-12-08  06:38am

Reply To Message

8

Simon of Scans (5)
Webmaster
REPLY TO #6 - badandy400 :

"A good handful of Fugly chicks on simonscans."

Yes. But we take chances, there's also a lot girls you'll find on no other sites at all. We work at finding new girls, sometimes it works really well and other times not so well. On balance, we think its worth taking the risk to turn up girls like Jenna.

12-12-08  06:45am

Reply To Message

*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.

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.