+ Suze Randall Glamour Pornstar Pics/Vids, Solo & Hardcore.
+ Large Archive in Place, Tons of Stars & Long Running Site.
- Content is a Mixed Bag with a lot of Older/Classic Style.
- Video/Photo Quality Varies, No Video File Info.
User Reviews (8)
User reviews consist of pros, cons, and other thoughts.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
+ Full access 7 day trial for $10 through TBP
+ Almost all original content. Some shared DDF and Holly Randall content.
+ Lots of content: About 650 hardcore photo sets and 4800 pic sets overall and all sets have zip function. About 1500 videos.
+ Membership includes Suze Classics for those looking to fill their 80's and 90's porn fix (that site factors into all the stats mentioned here).
+ Newest pics have 2400x1600 resolution and newest vids are HD with 1080 resolution. Newest vids have a stream option and multiple download options including wmv and mp4 files.
+ Good consistent download speeds of between 1MB - 2 MB/sec up to 6 channels.
+ Starting to remaster some of the old content
+ If you like glamor porn this is probably one of the best sites to visit. Has porn star from today back to the 80's.
+ Multiple weekly updates and all updates are dated for future reference.
- Search function and tags are a mess and not real helpful.
- There is a model directory but no model info.
- No screen caps or ability to preview vids. I couldn't make the stream function jump ahead, I had to wait for the movie to buffer in order to jump while watching on line.
- Quality takes a nose diver prior to 2010 with no HD vids and pic sets maxing out at 1000x1600 with most sets having smaller pics. Older vids don't have stream capability so you have to download them to know what they're like and the quality can be almost unwatchable by today's standards.
- Fairly generic porn with mostly known porn stars.
- Some advertising on each page.
- There is a forum and FAQ section but it looks to be pretty much dead.
I last joined this about 5 years ago and dug it since it had a lot of content, decent pic sizes and decent videos for the time. However, time is not always kind and this site has been left a bit in the dust and it's caused me knock 8 points off of my original score. Here's the lowdown:
PICS: I still this site primarily as a photo site. There are more vids now but pix are what Suze got started doing back in the 70's and this is what Holly Randall, who does the shoots today, mostly focuses on. Tons of pics but most sets have less than 50 pics which is a bit skimpy. The sets, at least the older ones, also have jumbled material so when you look at them online or unzip the folders the content doesn't progress smoothly from beginning to end. This was the case 5 years ago and is so today. The oldest material (probably half) has pic sizes that work only if you view porn on your phone. They are slowly (I mean slowly) remastering some old stuff into larger sizes but only by scanning the original pics which results in some graininess. Everything has zips.
VIDS: The newest vids are great but there aren't a lot of them. As mentioned, the lack of a preview or screen caps isn't fun, especially when probably 2/3 of the vids don't have in browser stream options. The quality is all over the board to on the older vids, some are fine and others aren't worth it. Personally, I got frustrated because I'm not going to DL and watch a slew of vids just to see if I like the content.
NAV: Navigation, in a word, "bites". The navigation is the same system they've since they opened I think and it shows. You can search pix by tags but you can't search videos this way, you have to search all "hardcore" for example to find the vids mixed in with the pix. You only get 10 search results by page and you can only jump ahead or behind by a few pages. When you have 100's of scenes with the same tag this is a pain. Also, if you relied on the tag "hardcore" you would think they stopped shooting hardcore in 2010. Nope. You have to look under different tags to find the newer stuff. Some vid scenes of the same photo shoot also have different tags. A small minority of tagged scenes do not appear in the tag search results either. Basically this site is too big for this crap and it definitely hurt the final score. They need to scrap the status quo and start over on the layout and search/tag system.
I liked this site more before because I was more into glam sites since most amateur or gonzo sites didn't appeal to me. Now, when I look it and see the over saturated colors, small editors choice photo sets and porn stars past their prime doing generic scenes it doesn't do as much for me. DDF, 21stsextury, the WOW sites, teenmegaworld and others do a much better job of giving you fresh faces, quantity, quality and all in a more user friendly package.
Overall, I still recommend the site given the vast amount of original material it has and the ability to look at the "classic" porn of the last few decades. Also, a lot of the content is decent in quality and the stuff within the last 18 months or so is top notch in terms of HD vids and large pic sizes. So, it's worth a join but probably not for month, the 7 day trial is probably all you need unless you have limited time to hunt through the site to find all the goodies.
*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.
User Comments (12)
Ask a question, give quick feedback, warnings, etc.
Was last a member end of 2006. The site makeover that year was better visually, but the public area was missing the update calendar it used to have.
What's more, although you could access all of the content in the model's index, the old but very helpful calendar-year lists of ALL updates were gone. I can't understand why they'd take those out.
It's a real pain for a returning user. Who in that huge model's index has new sets since the last join? I hadn't a clue aside from the partial list of the most recent updates. Frustrating to say the least! So I've stayed away.
BTW, TBP lists the price at 14.98, but the site's price for photos only is 19.96. Guess they raised it back up.
So with the partial price rehike, why not get those pics up to 1600 or 2000px? Some may say, "What about the low bandwith users?"
The cost of broadband has finally come down enough anyway in the US -- late in the game though it was -- that it's finally affordable, and definitely worth it!
Or let them have the 10's and 12's if they're really stuck with dial-up.
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.