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).
Site Feedback Feedback and ratings from other users just like yourself.
Visit ATK Premium

Visit Site

ATK Premium

Type: Pay Site

NICHES COMPANY COST

1. Young Adults
2. Amateur Girls
3. Nude Photography

Kingdom WWW Ops.
10 Sites Listed
Partner: ATK Cash

Monthly: $29.99 (recurring)
Multi-Mo: $49.99 (2 months, recurring)
Multi-Mo: $64.99 (3 months, recurring)

View all ATK Premium Site Facts at TBP.

78.4
Feedback History  (21)

Active Reviews 2
Newbie Reviews 3
Active Ratings 0
Newbie Ratings 0
Comments 8
Review by TheBestPorn:

86.5
TBP Review

Date: 02-08-14

Type: 2.0

Maggie
+  Hot original amateur collection.
+  Great-sized collection!
-  Older scenes aren't as sharp.

User Reviews (13)

 User reviews consist of pros, cons, and other thoughts.

Shown : 1-10 of 13 Next Page >

Active
77
skippy (46) 12-06-14  04:11pm
Rookie Badge  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (22), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: Huge collection.
Many reasonably attractive girls
Network includes multiple sites, depending on what you signed up for.
Many models have different types of sets listed (masturbation, foot fetish, lingerie, etc.)
There are early sets of a few popular models here.
Site is multi-lingual
File download speed seems pretty good.
What you see in the previews is representative of what you get.
Every set is exclusive to ATK
Cons: Site is often slow
Site often crashes (lots of 504 server-database errors)
Pages time-out so you can't go back or refresh
Lots of cross selling
Can't tell how many images there are.
Can't tell how many videos there are.
Navigation is a bit more challenging than it needs to be.
Many sets are nearly identical.
Some sets appear to have been recycled (Sets in only small resolution from 2011?)
Since every set is exclusive to ATK, chances are good you will see it elsewhere on an ATK site.
Bottom Line: I'm having a hard time finding a lot to like about this website. Perhaps the best way to describe it is middle of the road. The models are your basic cross section of college-age Kmart or maybe Target shoppers. Some are attractive, many are not. None are truly stunning and almost none are truly hideous. This is a side effect of the amateur-type site status, I guess. There is a wide variety of body types from super skinny to...um...super plump, so if you like bigger girls, this might be a good site for you. These girls are all natural, ranging from nothing up top, to some giant melons, but breast size is proportionate to overall body type (i.e. fat is distributed evenly). There are no really fit or smoking hot bodies here, but a lot of nice 18-24 year-olds. The grace/awkward ratio is about even. Overall, there is a huge collection.

Navigation Is difficult. It is single threaded, and if you try to open multiple windows, the servers either throttle access or time-out...in other words getting through the images quickly is simply not possible. You can set how many thumbnails you want to see but, again, everything is single threaded so you have to wait to open a picture and then wait to return to the gallery.

The photography on this site is about average. The images are clear and consistent, but the lighting in the mostly indoor sets is not well developed or particularly flattering. You can tell that many of the sets with a model were shot on the same day in a different corner of a room or a different room in an apartment or hotel room.

The sets are a very standard formula. Girl starts out standing, clothes on, peekaboo, strip (often bottom first for some reason), show ass, spread, gaping spread, then depending on the type of set, on to other things like toys, masturbation, foot fetish, watersports, etc. "Artistic" is really just a normal set that they converted to black and white. Really dumb. This image shooting sequence makes many of the sets monotonous, even boring. In general, the girls do not look like they are having a very good time. It is all pretty much just straight show-me-the-money stuff, not very glamorous. Lots of gaping close-ups if you are into that. A handful of sets are girl/girl or guy/girl scenes but the vast majority are just solo.

Images come in three sizes, 682x1024 (who uses this?), 1080x1600 and 2000x3000.

Make-up is generally very good. No goofy eastern European eye shadow that I can find. I also noticed that the girls are generally very clean and well groomed. Mostly no pimples (anywhere), slap marks, bruises, razor burn, bad tattoos, etc. I don't think there is any or much photo-shopping...

The ranking of the models is a little odd. On a 1-5 scale (5 highest), there are a lot of unknown young models at the top of this list with only a few votes. Shyla Jennings is a 28th, Tiffany Thomspon is 15th. Early Zoey Kush is 94th. Early Jessie Rogers, complete with original Brazilian tan lines, is 62nd. Riley Marks is 85th. These model scores are not the sum of the scores of the sets, but a separate score for the models themselves. The reason I mention this is because it is not really possible to find the "best" girls or sets using the ranking system. You might find a model you like down in the 100-200 range. Oh, there are 657 ranked models. Surprisingly, most at the bottom are not bad looking, just victims of a bad photographer. Just reinforces my point about how useless the ranking system is. Might be more about the images than the girls.

There are quite a few videos of the models. Some masturbation videos are quite good, but many are just videos of the photo sets. Even a few guy/girl videos are just the photo sets, which is immensely disappointing. There are also a handful of behind the scenes videos...a big NOPE on those. Some of these girls you simply do NOT want to see before they put on make-up. Finding a video with the right combination of attractive girl and decent videography is very, very rare, but there are a few. Forget about anything hardcore, though. There are a couple, but it is extremely rare.

Perhaps the thing that taints my opinion of this site the most is the navigation speed and server response. When you try to open multiple windows, even to view images, the site times out. Oddly, download speed seems OK, though.

Bottom line? Well...if you are into amateur-ish solo photography, there is a huge collection here. Take a look at the previews and determine if this is the type of thing you like.
Respond: 1 Reply - Add Reply

Active
84
slutty (111) 03-23-13  01:05am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (47), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: -Many attractive models
-Decent sized site overall
-Navigation is good
-Good variety of softcore, lesbian, hardcore
-Camerawork is generally good
-Zips of photosets, newer ones in 3 quality levels
-Newer videos are of respectable quality, typically 4 options available (SD wmv, HD mp4, SD mp4, and portable), I generally downloaded SD mp4
-No DRM, download managers work, respectable biller
-Most girls are natural
-Frequent updates, generally a photo and video set every day
Cons: -Sort of expensive
-No network access, no bonus sites
-Older videos and photos are substandard quality and older movies are often split in parts
-Not a lot of diversity in model body type or ethnicity
-HD scenes seem larger file-size wise than they have to be
-A fair amount (maybe 1/5 or so) of the video material is "behind the scenes" type of stuff, I don't mind it, but could be a negative for some
-Some material is not exclusive
Bottom Line: Generally I think this site is pretty good, but not great. I sort of don't get the whole setup of all the ATK sites, what makes this one premium, is this site exclusively the hot girls? In general, I guess this is the case compared to some of their other sites as the hot/wtf ratio seems to be a good bit higher.

I liked the material here for the most part, but for some reason felt a bit disappointed here. Can't really put my finger on why. Most sites I join, I spend a fair amount more time poking around and checking things out, but I got tired of this one pretty fast for some reason. That isn't to say that they don't have some good material here, they certainly do, I just wasn't super-excited by it I guess.

As for the site itself, the navigation is pretty good: model index, scene ratings, scene tags, it is pretty easy to get around. The girls are generally of the thinner more natural body types, and they have both American and Euro stars.

Overall, I think I would recommend joining this site to those that never had before, but I don't know that I would recommend it as a repeat join even given the update schedule. They seem to do most things very well, and the models are generally quite attractive, so it is certainly worth a look.
Respond: 2 Replies - Add Reply

Expired
82
Claypaws (44) 06-04-12  06:39am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Pollster TRUST USER?   YES (21), NO (0)
Status: Review is over 2 years old and no longer counts toward score.
View: Read Expired Review (8 Replies) - Webmaster Replied!

Expired
70*
laxattack34 (2) 11-17-08  02:54pm
No Badges TRUST USER?   YES (7), NO (0)
Status: Review is over 2 years old and no longer counts toward score.
View: Read Expired Review (3 Replies)

Expired
79
dilbert4100 (10) 07-17-08  10:09am
Rookie Badge  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (18), NO (0)
Status: Review is over 2 years old and no longer counts toward score.
View: Read Expired Review (0 Replies)

Expired
85
WeeWillyWinky (88) 04-15-08  09:35am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Pollster  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (51), NO (0)
Status: Review is over 2 years old and no longer counts toward score.
View: Read Expired Review (0 Replies)

Expired
81
qualsite34 (33) 07-02-07  04:16am
Rookie Badge  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (28), NO (2)
Status: Review is over 2 years old and no longer counts toward score.
View: Read Expired Review (4 Replies)

Expired
89
exotics4me (463) 06-24-07  01:07am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (86), NO (0)
Status: Review is over 2 years old and no longer counts toward score.
View: Read Expired Review (4 Replies) - Webmaster Replied!

Expired
82
Drooler (220) 06-14-07  01:04pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (83), NO (0)
Status: Review is over 2 years old and no longer counts toward score.
View: Read Expired Review (1 Reply) - Webmaster Replied!

Expired
81
senorim (19) 02-22-07  06:46pm
Rookie Badge  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (17), NO (0)
Status: Review is over 2 years old and no longer counts toward score.
View: Read Expired Review (0 Replies)

*Newbie reviews and ratings don't count toward a site's overall score/rank until the user reaches the Rookie status level (5 points). This rule is needed to help prevent fake (or heavily biased) profiles and reviews.

Shown : 1-10 of 13 Next Page >
User Comments (8)

 Ask a question, give quick feedback, warnings, etc.

slutty (111) 03-03-13  12:03am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (47), NO (0)

Cross Sell

Just an FYI, for those with the time and the extra $3.99, the trial cross sell to amkingdom is full access with no limits, so at least you can get two sites (briefly) for $34. Connection timeouts are long, so you can queue up the DL manager for quite a bit.

Respond: 5 Replies - Add Reply

Capn (28) 06-19-12  10:04am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (51), NO (0)

Underwhelmed.

Well, I took a month's sub.

Whilst there are a few gems there, they really take some finding.

There is not the quantity or quality of material there that I would have expected, TBH.

I don't feel hard done by, just not quite as satisfied with the material as I expected to be.

Cap'n. :0/

Respond: 4 Replies - Add Reply - Webmaster Replied!

Capn (28) 12-29-11  06:41am
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (51), NO (0)

Style of Content?

This is one of the ATK sites I have never joined.

I get the impression it is geared towards the 'glam/artsy' style of content, but seems to feature, or used to, quite a few periphery bells, whistles & add-ons.

What is the style of content mainly, please?

Cap'n. :0/

Respond: 7 Replies - Add Reply - Webmaster Replied!

Drooler (220) 12-09-11  03:26pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (83), NO (0)

Redesigned Version Started Today

I've been hanging around this site probably longer than I should, but it was nice to see as of today that it has a new design quite similar to the one for ATK Galleria.

I was getting quite tired of the clunky, texty old way the recent updates page was, so it's a very welcome change!

It looks great and from what I experienced looking and searching around, it works pretty well, too.

And there was a new gallery of Eufrat. Yay!

Respond: 5 Replies - Add Reply - Webmaster Replied!

messmer (137) 11-19-08  12:57pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (73), NO (1)

Adding to some of the comments!

In my opinion none of the ATK sites is what it used to be.

A few years ago someone found that a certain formula worked and they've been stuck in that mode ever since. I subscribed to Galleria, a deeply disappointing experience for me (too much sameness in the various picture sets) despite the raves of others.

Re-subscribed to ATK Natural and Hairy and found, this time around, mostly unexciting photography and photographers who should either retire or change their way of shooting a set of pictures. Videos have stayed of the same quality over the years rather than advancing with the new technology available.

The one thing that really drove me crazy was the unresponsive attitude on the part of the webmasters. In their "Forum," the monthly cover states and has been stating "Amatures" for months.

I sent, not complaints, but observation after observation that for a company with the reputation of ATK, specializing in amateurs it was an embarrassment to keep misspelling "Amateur" on the cover of their monthly magazine and never got an answer or a change. Months later it probably still reads "Amature!"

Respond: 6 Replies - Add Reply

Sickboy3 (0) 11-19-08  07:00am
No Badges TRUST USER?   YES (1), NO (0)

Use of download managers

If you use a download manager, they will suspend your use for 10 days.....this is not good......I will do business elsewhere!! Here is their statement:

It appears that your login was disabled for download manager usage or other automated downloading. We regret that download managers and automatic or robotic downloading methods are not supported by our sites and will cause you to be disabled for up to 10 days. Use of robots such as download managers or queuing the downloads in any way are not allowed under our terms of service as this is considered data mining.

Respond: 0 Replies - Add Reply

exotics4me (463) 05-18-08  08:54pm
Rookie Badge  Talk Back  Comments  Pollster  Top Monthly User  Hardcore Badge  Trusted User  Male Profile TRUST USER?   YES (86), NO (0)

New, lower price

This is a site that I have enjoyed because I see it as different than the typical site with pretty original sets, including some of the models staying dressed from start to finish.

The price is now $24.95 instead of the previous $29.95.

Respond: 0 Replies - Add Reply

Sharkhunter (0) 06-23-07  09:30am
No Badges TRUST USER?   YES (1), NO (0)

Not as good as it used to be...

This was one of my favourite sites, in that it truly lived up to its 'premium' title and stood from the regular ATK site. The selection of models, although small, was excellent in that it included such names as Sophie Moone, Lenka Horakova and Monika Matejovska (Sharon M). Most of the photosets were tasteful nude, though there was a nice selection of harder material.

However the site experienced a fair bit of downtime in April of 2007, and despite its return promising great things this has not been the case. The classier models appear to have disappeared, and more recent updates have included girls who must have missed out on the initial auditions and selections many times over. To be frank, some have been pretty ugly and not worthy of a site of this type and reputation.

All in all, while I would have been happy to subscribe to this site a year or so ago, these days it is simply not worth the money. Rather than 'premier' it has become somewhat third division - and the regular ATK site is these days a lot better in terms of quality and content.

Respond: 0 Replies - Add Reply

Visit ATK Premium

Company Sites Top sites from this company.

      Site Name (Reviews) Score TBP
1. ATK Natural & Hairy (2) 89.0 87.5
2. ATK Premium (2) 78.4 86.5
3. ATK Petites (0) N/A 87.0
4. ATK Galleria (0) N/A 86.5
5. ATK Exotics (0) N/A 86.0
6. Aunt Judy's (0) N/A 84.5
7. ATK Girlfriends (0) N/A 84.0
8. ATK Archives (0) N/A 83.5
9. ATK Movies (0) N/A 83.0
10. AT Kingdom Network (0) N/A N/A

View All: Company Sites (10)

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 0.64 seconds.