PU - Met Art - All Activity

RE: rearadmiral's Review

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:28:07 PST

Met Art (7)

01-15-12 11:28am

REVIEW REPLY by Monahan (37)

To rearadmiral (141):

I'm with RA on this. I prefer "racier" stuff but MetArt is still a good join for those of us who dig Bang Bros.

Occasionally a true pornstar shows up (Mandy Dee, for example, appears as Millis A and shows off her obvious "Talent" in 10 softcore photo sets) and a member will tag a set or a model as a pornstar.

While the vast majority of video is simply a video of photo shoots, there are a few well done and erotic videos. The only other negative about the videos is that several are the artsy-fartsy type with slow motion, lots of cut-aways, "creative" lighting, etc.

All that said, I'd love a little more "edge" to the offerings. The models never ever touch their pussies and only occasionally (rarely) touch their tits. There is absolutely no insertion of anything at any time.

Some of the models with larger boobs do arm squeezes, but that's about it.

One more characteristic that seems common. If a model has an unusually large pair of labia lips dangling deliciously between her legs, the photo sets tend to have several close up shots of that feature. Same thing with large areolae and puffy areolae and stiff, erect nipples. These are good things, of course, but if they let the babe play with them a bit, it would be so much better.

In other words, they portray all of their content as being of "innocent" and unassuming gorgeous young ladies who would never do anything more overtly erotic than posing with their legs spread wide whilst on camera.

Oh, I almost forgot. They do have a few lesbian photo and video sets where there is a small amount of semi-erotic touching (such as peck on the lips kissing and some hand touching of the other model's tits) which can create a bit of heat.

View Thread (10)

RE: rearadmiral's Review

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:34:14 PST

Met Art (7)

01-11-12 09:34am

REVIEW REPLY by rearadmiral (141)

To otoh (34):

Yeah, after I thanked you for steering me away from the site with your review it seems odd that I'd join. But the offer was good. I think if I were really a fan of the site I'd need to spend a much longer time there to apprecaite it. And regardless of hardcore or softcore preferences, I think it's safe to say those of us into hetro sites are all into beautiful women. And Met Art has them by the hundreds.

One thought that kept going through my mind was "where do they find all these stunning women and how do they get them into nude modelling?" Obviously a big draw here is that these women aren't being asked to stick baseball bats up their bottoms, so that increases the potential number of models right there. As for the site size, I assume that based on the type of material they also pay less and therefore can shoot more.

But I'll admit that I was surprised at how much I liked the site. It certainly does well at what it does.

View Thread (10)

RE: rearadmiral's Review

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:23:30 PST

Met Art (7)

01-11-12 09:23am

REVIEW REPLY by rearadmiral (141)

To tangub (101):

Thanks for the comments. I agree if you like softer, glamour-style photos and some videos this site could keep you busy for a long time. It's an excellent value at full price and even better when the offer a discount.

View Thread (10)

RE: rearadmiral's Review

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 03:35:43 PST

Met Art (7)

01-11-12 03:35am

REVIEW REPLY by tangub (101)

To rearadmiral (141):

An excellent review as always RA, interesting to read the opinions on this site of someone who prefers hardcore. I think Met Art is once of those sites everyone should join at least once in their lifetime whatever their preferred niche is as the models here are simply mesmerizing. This site is definately in my comfort zone and will probably keep me busy for the next 3 or 4 months.

View Thread (10)

RE: rearadmiral's Review

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 01:03:28 PST

Met Art (7)

01-11-12 01:03am

REVIEW REPLY by otoh (34)

To rearadmiral (141):

Wasn't expecting to see a review from rearadmiral on this - but I too am easily swayed by a good offer and I'm glad you liked the site!

Perhaps as a hardcore fan it's more a breath of fresh air to see softcore; whereas I tend to soft/midcore material so found this lacking in tease/playfulness a bit; it's not even the nudity levels since I've found non-nude material that I find more exciting. Agree with Ergo Proxy in that their better stuff seems to be from a while ago; many of the sets I downloaded were a good few years old.

I'm glad you expanded on the technical aspects of the site; I didn't stress enough that it just can't be faulted in size or features.

And definitely concur about the animals :| I am fond of animals, but not in that way; I prefer my smut without any at all!

View Thread (10)

RE: rearadmiral's Review

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:23:31 PST

Met Art (7)

01-10-12 04:23pm

REVIEW REPLY by rearadmiral (141)

To Ergo Proxy (13):

I don't know why, but I just can't go for animals in a porn. If they producer needs more living creatures, throw in another 20 year old chick!

View Thread (10)

RE: rearadmiral's Review

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:22:26 PST

Met Art (7)

01-10-12 04:22pm

REVIEW REPLY by rearadmiral (141)

To Capn (27):

I was surprised that I like Met Art as much as I did. I probably should join Bound Gangbangs or something in case I start going into hardcore withdrawl. The strange thing is that I'm only moving mildly to hardcore after that with a membership at Nubiles. I haven't been a member for years and I'm looking forward to seeing what's new.

As for animals, I find their use in erotic photography to be distracting and even disturbing. That might say more about me than it does the photographer...

View Thread (10)

Met Art Comment

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:20:48 PST

Met Art (7)

01-10-12 03:20pm

COMMENT by Capn (27)

This is doubtless an iconic site but.....

I think given the quantity of material and the iconic status they have acheived, they could well afford now to relax their rigid formula so as to reduce the mind numbing blending of one set preview thumbnail into the next.

Cap'n. :0/

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: rearadmiral's Review

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:20:15 PST

Met Art (7)

01-10-12 10:20am

REVIEW REPLY by Ergo Proxy (13)

To rearadmiral (141):

Yeah, I also agree on the animals topic. Even if the girl is totally naked it's not totally awkward or disturbing if there is a cat or dog in the room. There is also this nice thing where girls are riding buck naked on a horse without a saddle but I don't know if it's ever been the case at MetArt.
One point which maybe interesting to others is that the most creative and experimental photography can be found in the time between 2000-2003. The pictures of Ronin etc. are outstanding. I think they lost some creativity in the last few years but how many intelligent variations can there be considering their 1 Gazillion galleries?

View Thread (10)

RE: rearadmiral's Review

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:15:55 PST

Met Art (7)

01-10-12 10:15am

REVIEW REPLY by Cybertoad (77)

To Capn (27):

Posing with is ok.
Posing in, on top, or
with massage oil, would be a whole other site :-)

View Thread (10)

RE: rearadmiral's Review

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:00:53 PST

Met Art (7)

01-10-12 10:00am

REVIEW REPLY by Capn (27)

To rearadmiral (141):

An interesting trip for you out of your comfort zone then, RA.

As regards animals.
Whilst I don't think it adds much to a photoset or video,
I think at times they perhaps might get away with a cat or dog, or pushing it a horse, or two. :)

It really depends on the level of intimacy! :0P

Cap'n. :0)

View Thread (10)

RE: otoh's Review

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 06:53:12 PST

Met Art (7)

12-31-11 06:53am

REVIEW REPLY by rearadmiral (141)

To otoh (34):

I understand that subjectivity makes up a big part of any score, but... what makes a better review is when the writer explains the reasons for those biases. You definitely did that. Met Art is one of the most respected sites out there but thanks to your clear explanation of why you don't like it I'm 99% sure that I wouldn't like it either.

I'll take a peek at Juliland. Thanks for the tip.

View Thread (7)

RE: otoh's Review

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:27:15 PST

Met Art (7)

12-30-11 04:27pm

REVIEW REPLY by otoh (34)

To rearadmiral (141):

Thanks readadmiral & Denner for your replies. My opinion is of course very subjective - some folk may find the stuff here exciting and sexy - but my tastes are generally pretty tame and this just doesn't work for me at all.

I would, though, again recommend my previously reviewed site Juliland - possibly art, but creative, exciting stuff.

View Thread (7)

RE: otoh's Review

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:31:10 PST

Met Art (7)

12-30-11 12:31pm

REVIEW REPLY by rearadmiral (141)

To otoh (34):

otoh (and I mean no disrespect for the other members who also reviewed this site), but this is the best Met Art review I've read! Like you, Met Art has been on the list of sites to consider but regularly got bumped down by something else. But thanks to your review I'm going to remove it permanently from the list. You succinctly and clearly build a case for why I shouldn't join, but you also build a case for why someone may want to join. I prefer harder sites but have nothing against soft sites, but when I read your line that the site "seems to be to emphasise the beauty of the models at the expense of any sexuality" that really made your point clear. And when you wrote "there is little teasing, no touching, and rarely even a lewd glance" that finished any interest that I may have had in the site.

I'm sure there are many people who would love Met Art's style of porn, but I'm not one of them. Thanks for saving me $30!

View Thread (7)

RE: otoh's Review

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:07:41 PST

Met Art (7)

12-30-11 09:07am

REVIEW REPLY by Denner (227)

To otoh (34):

Met Art is our old time kind-of-site here, for sure.
And the fact that this site just keeps going on and on with so many updates is just great....but:
Like otoh points out in the bottom line area hits the fan:

"..........that the material here just isn't exciting."

Exactly!

Met Art is a goldmine for models - but it drowns in some weird kind of massiveness - too much, but not too sexy/erotic.

A lot - lately tends to be way too: la,la,la in order to keep up the massive updates. Jeeeez, no problems with massive updates....but may be it's a question of quantity/quality...

Thanks, otoh - FINE review!!!

View Thread (7)

RE: otoh's Review

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:41:39 PST

Met Art (7)

12-30-11 07:41am

REVIEW REPLY by Capn (27)

To otoh (34):

No, I don't think so.
I share your concerns.
Perhaps that was what gave me an element of unease whilst browsing the site.
With a few sites the personality of the model leaps out at you, which I really like.
With a lot of others it is noticeable, here it appears to be dourly supressed, in the name of 'art'.

Not good!

Cap'n. :0/

View Thread (7)

RE: otoh's Review

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:15:07 PST

Met Art (7)

12-30-11 07:15am

REVIEW REPLY by otoh (34)

To Capn (27):

Thanks for the reply, Cap'n. I agree about the thumbnails; it's not at all easy to find anything that leaps out from the sea of them while browsing.

After discussing the site with a friend, one other point occurred to me about the 'Met Art' look - that, by somehow desexualising the models, it somehow objectifies them even more; which bothers me slightly, since like I hope most folk here do, I have a huge respect for all the girls we ogle over. Would you agree, or am I just overanalysing? :|

View Thread (7)

RE: otoh's Review

Fri, 30 Dec 2011 04:18:40 PST

Met Art (7)

12-30-11 04:18am

REVIEW REPLY by Capn (27)

To otoh (34):

I agree with you, otoh.
It is another one of those frustratingly 'nearly' sites.
Rather than striving to crash through the barrier and make a rivetting site, they do more, more & more of the same, which obviously does work for some folk.
This only serves to add more to the frustration for the likes of ourselves wanting a step or two beyond.

What I found most frustrating was that the thumbnails for each set looked identical after a little while searching.
I think it is a problem with sites that have pretentions of 'art'.

Cap'n :0/

View Thread (7)

RE: Cybertoad's Review

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:54:14 PST

Met Art (7)

12-11-11 03:54pm

REVIEW REPLY by Cybertoad (77)

To RLane (2):

I agree with you on the pixels, but in quality I found the way it was done was ok. I think knowing it was a large picture I thought would give a better photo then it did. There are other sites with large HD video and the quality is still not better then smaller sizes. To give a site a 90 I think it is done very well. I don't give out any reviews above 89 unless the site is exceptional. And why the site is very good, I found it has room to grow. Problem is the better a site is, the more picky reviews get above 90 for me. I start looking at details and ease of site. Things other sites strive to get reviewed, So I really like this site, I am just really picky on my reviews at 90 and above.

Appreciate the feedback.

CT

View Thread (8)

RE: Cybertoad's Review

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:02:32 PST

Met Art (7)

12-11-11 02:02pm

REVIEW REPLY by RLane (2)

To Cybertoad (77):

Very nice review, but the picture quality is better than okay. Sometimes for new updates they have either 7000px or 5000px sets.

View Thread (8)

RE: Special Thanksgiving Deal - $14.97

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:51:24 PST

Met Art (7)

11-23-11 04:51pm

COMMENT REPLY by rearadmiral (141)

To tangub (101):

I don't recall that I've ever had a membership at Met Art so this is a good chance to try it. I'm mostly into mainstream American b/g hardcore, but lately I've been trying some new stuff. It's paid off in a couple of cases and not so much in others. Met Art is highly recommended around here so I'm looking forward to it.

View Thread (4)

RE: Special Thanksgiving Deal - $14.97

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:14:28 PST

Met Art (7)

11-23-11 02:14pm

COMMENT REPLY by tangub (101)

To rearadmiral (141):

LOL, the annoying thing is I just went and paid out $32 on another subscription 3 days ago because I couldn't find any decent special offers around so i'll have to sign up here by the 30th to get the special price and put it on the back burner for a week or two while i finish with my current subscription. I've never been a member at Met-Art before so just ordered myself a new 3TB external from amazon in preparation for trawling through 10 years worth of archives.

View Thread (4)

RE: Special Thanksgiving Deal - $14.97

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 12:21:11 PST

Met Art (7)

11-23-11 12:21pm

COMMENT REPLY by rearadmiral (141)

To tangub (101):

Damn tangub, you beat me to that comment! First Young Legal Porn and now this. The cashiers at Costco must wonder what I do with all those external drives I buy.

Well, Milk Enema bumped In the Crack and now it appears that Met Art will do the same...

View Thread (4)

RE: Special Thanksgiving Deal - $14.97

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:01:47 PST

Met Art (7)

11-23-11 10:01am

COMMENT REPLY by tangub (101)

To Vegas Ken (Staff):

Damn that's almost too good to resist....i think i need a new external hard drive asap :-)

View Thread (4)

Met Art Comment

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:34:51 PST

Met Art (7)

11-23-11 09:34am

COMMENT by Vegas Ken (0)

Special Thanksgiving Deal - $14.97

Met-Art is offering a very special low price of $14.97!

The offer will run thru November 30, 2011. This is a recurring price, so actually you will get to enjoy Met-Art at $14.97 a month till you cancel.

Don't miss this great opportunity to score a great deal on a great site!

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

Met Art Comment

Sat, 08 Oct 2011 00:14:08 PDT

Met Art (7)

10-08-11 12:14am

COMMENT by otoh (34)

Odd combination with VideoBox

I'm on the Met Art email list for news and offers etc. The latest one struck me as odd; a combined deal for Met Art and Videobox. I figured they'd be very different markets; I wonder how many folk have/do subscribe to both?

BTW I find it amusing that when searching here on PU for 'Met Art', I also got Heavy Metal Pussy Party.

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Cybertoad's Review

Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:55:17 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-24-11 12:55am

REVIEW REPLY by Capn (27)

To Cybertoad (77):

A solid review of a classic site.

I'm afraid though what I said in my comment last year still holds true for me.

'I appreciate this purports to be an artsy site, and I can take that at face value.
What really disappoints me about this site is the lack of variety & creativity.

It is all very formulaic & repetetive.
Sure beautiful girls, scantily clad to nude, usually outside.

Most of the thumbnail set 'covers' blend into each other.
There is so much material, I am bound to have missed a few gems in there, but searching through the 'covers' to find one that stands out gets dull.

A shame, but that is the way it strikes me.'

Cap'n :0/

View Thread (8)

RE: Cybertoad's Review

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:12:25 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-23-11 07:12pm

REVIEW REPLY by Cybertoad (77)

To lk2fireone (116):

Hi Ike,
Yea I did dabble with a thought of a higher score. The repetitive stuff in my head made it hard for me to give it over what I did.
But it was not easy if that helps. I guess I was thinking in 12 years, maybe a tad more cutting edge should occur. How they would do that ? LOL I have no idea, but my brain tells me would be interesting to see where they would branch and how. It was Kinda like watching happy days back in the 70's/ At first it was like wow what a concept going back to the good old days, wen cool was cool. But seasons went by and cool became eh its cool. I think in repetitive thinking I am there with this site, its cool ...... but kinda thing. Hope that helps you have an idea where I got the score from.?

View Thread (8)

RE: Cybertoad's Review

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:31:17 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-23-11 10:31am

REVIEW REPLY by BradlyH (11)

To Cybertoad (77):

Nice review Toad, You are ripping the site up with Reviews lately, it's awesome.

I was a member at met art about half a year ago and i enjoyed it too, I received a discounted price also which made it that much better. I agree it does get repetitive after a while, the sheer size and amount of models almost start to blend even when the camera work is as it's finest. But at least we couldn't complain about Lack of Content !

View Thread (8)

RE: Cybertoad's Review

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:39:39 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-23-11 06:39am

REVIEW REPLY by gaypornolover (14)

To Cybertoad (77):

It might be pricey but WOW what a huge site! A million photos - it didn't realise such a site existed! It would certainly take a long, long time to look at all those pics! Photo sites aren't my thing but this is an excellent review, well done.

View Thread (8)

RE: Cybertoad's Review

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 04:25:37 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-23-11 04:25am

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (116)

To Cybertoad (77):

I think your review makes sense. The major point I disagree with is you only scored Metart as 90. I personally think it deserves a higher score.

But I can live with that. Lol.

View Thread (8)

RE: Cybertoad's Review

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:42:26 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-22-11 11:42pm

REVIEW REPLY by slutty (92)

To Cybertoad (77):

Nice review Cybertoad, I agree with all your good and bad points, this site is definitely a great soft site.

View Thread (8)

RE: Met Art Adds Vastly Improved Naming Feature

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 09:21:52 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-10-11 09:21am

COMMENT REPLY by Drooler (218)

To lk2fireone (116):

I have the same issues with hard drive space, but I do manage to look at them twice. Just not a third time ...:)

View Thread (8)

RE: Met Art Adds Vastly Improved Naming Feature

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:29:26 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-10-11 03:29am

COMMENT REPLY by lk2fireone (116)

To Drooler (218):

What you say convinces me, once again, that beauty (or sex appeal) is in the eye of the beholder. I downloaded the farm girl photo set of Barbara at Errotica and then deleted it after viewing, because I just didn't like it.

I'm trying to be a little picky. Because even though Hard Drive storage is so cheap, I'm filling up these external hard drives with photo sets and videos I will probably never look at twice.

View Thread (8)

RE: Met Art Adds Vastly Improved Naming Feature

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:15:38 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-10-11 03:15am

COMMENT REPLY by Drooler (218)

To lk2fireone (116):

Yes, I've seen the same kind of thing with same model, same photographer, different in level of appeal. It's been hit or miss with Barbara D photosets. BTW I've seen her at Errotica-Archives and, as Xana, at FemJoy. Her sex appeal comes off OK at FemJoy (IMHO), and second set of her at Errotica, the cowgirl, is pretty hot.

View Thread (8)

Met Art Comment

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:41:56 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-09-11 09:41am

COMMENT by lk2fireone (116)

PU/TBP price for Metart does not reflect the PU/TBP discount.

With a PU/TBP link, you still get the great $19.99/month (recurring) rate.

I saw the PU/TBP rate listed as $39.99/month (recurring), and it was like a kick in the head. Metart is probably my favorite site, and I thought that one of the great bargains in the porn world had disappeared.

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

Met Art Comment

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:27:57 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-09-11 09:27am

COMMENT by lk2fireone (116)

Metart has a relatively new search feature that I just noticed.

This search is available to members and non-members alike.

Go to
http://guests.met-art.com/models/top/
At the top of this page there is a search thingy. Type in the name of the model you want to search for, and it returns:

1) a thumbnail of the model so you can see what she looks like.
2) the model's bio data:
current age, breast size, eye color, hair color, country, etc.
3) the sets the model has: date of set, photographer, set title, thumbnail of the cover photo, and a hot link to the set.

This is a really great feature, and it makes it so much easier for someone who wants to search for a particular model's sets, and it helps to catalog the sets for each model.

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: Met Art Adds Vastly Improved Naming Feature

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:14:06 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-09-11 09:14am

COMMENT REPLY by lk2fireone (116)

To Drooler (218):

I really liked Barbara Ds first photoset, but I found her other photosets to be much less appealing. It continually amazes me how a single model can look extremely attractive in one photoset, and so much less so in other photosets. You might expect this variation due to different photographers shooting the same model. But even the same photographer can make a model have a large difference in how attractively she is presented.

Anyhow, I agree that the new naming convention at Metart is more descriptive. But like Drooler states, the older system was far easier to use, in the sense the identifying section, e.g. SRT_141, was easy to list and keep track of. I am still trying to figure out how to keep a record of these long file names for a photoset.

View Thread (8)

RE: Met Art Adds Vastly Improved Naming Feature

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:56:49 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-08-11 07:56pm

COMMENT REPLY by dracken (213)

To Monahan (37):

I see Drooler's point, but to be honest I love it when a site at least tries to name their sets something that makes sense. As a guy that has a huge Misc-random-crap folder this is a nice improvement. I hope other sites follow the example :)

View Thread (8)

RE: Met Art Adds Vastly Improved Naming Feature

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:31:40 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-08-11 09:31am

COMMENT REPLY by Monahan (37)

To Drooler (218):

I see your point. It really does look like a (much) younger version of Cybil Shepard. But Barbara D's breasts look they've had some aftermarket enhancements. Don't think Cybil had any adjustments made.

View Thread (8)

RE: Met Art Adds Vastly Improved Naming Feature

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 05:09:27 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-08-11 05:09am

COMMENT REPLY by Drooler (218)

To Monahan (37):

BTW, don't you think that Barbara D bears a striking resemblance to Cybil Shepard? Just have a look at MetArt_GAZING_BARBARA-D_by_ALEX-SIRONI_medium_0012.jpg!

View Thread (8)

RE: Met Art Adds Vastly Improved Naming Feature

Wed, 07 Sep 2011 11:15:55 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-07-11 11:15am

COMMENT REPLY by Drooler (218)

To Monahan (37):

The newer folders and individual files now do have more descriptive names.

I guess it works for some people, but it's not going to be that way for everyone.

One problem is that the longer names mean longer path names. My system chokes on the longer names often enough that I actually shorten them before opening a zip. Otherwise, folders just don't open or thumbs don't render.

Also with individual photo files, which I always keep in clearly named folders, the only file name info I care about is the file number. Now I have to stretch the folder windows open wider than a Gapeland babe just to see past all of that irrelevant info to the 3- to 4-digit number at the end. Not a pain that bears repeating.

And inserted numbers like "_625d3_" don't seem particularly salient, except perhaps to the folks at Met-Art.

Besides, I have my own conventions about naming, and I'm sure lots of people have theirs, so while I think the Met-Art staff meant well, they overdid it in redoing theirs.

View Thread (8)

Met Art Comment

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:29:17 PDT

Met Art (7)

09-06-11 11:29am

COMMENT by Monahan (37)

Met Art Adds Vastly Improved Naming Feature

One annoying complaint with MatArt has been their naming convention for downloaded material. I'm very pleased to report that they now have much more descriptive names.

For example, one of today's updates is:

MetArt_2011-09-06_PRESENTING PIPER-PIPER-A-by-TONY-MURANO_625d3_high

By contrast a typical August 2011 download was labeled:

MET-ART_sg_604_hires

While I doubt that these folks will be going back and renaming the earlier stuff, just the prospect of all new offerings is a great thing that should make all MetArt fans quite happy.

Visit Met Art - View Replies - Add Reply

RE: flst2000us's Review

Fri, 20 May 2011 10:07:14 PDT

Met Art (7)

05-20-11 10:07am

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (116)

To flst2000us (0):

God bless, I have a 630 KB/s download speed, which would be about .63 MB/s.

And you have a 50-Mbps? That must cost a fortune per month.

And a 10 Terabyte NAS?

That sends me back to the old days, when there were hi-fidelity enthusiasts. Who spent a fortune on their audio equipment.

The power of love. And money. Not even in my dreams.

View Thread (3)

RE: flst2000us's Review

Fri, 20 May 2011 09:41:11 PDT

Met Art (7)

05-20-11 09:41am

REVIEW REPLY by flst2000us (0)

To lk2fireone (116):

Hi there,
Yes my internet connection is about 50-Mbps down and the same up. I store all of my collections on a 10 Terabyte NAS.

No I used the old method of checking out each collection as I wanted only girls I�m interested in. But at times had over 50 Downloads going at the same time and Met-art just did not seem to care. My friend was on the site at the same time and never noticed any slow down so they must have a ton Internet connections.

Hope that helps

View Thread (3)

RE: flst2000us's Review

Fri, 20 May 2011 09:32:26 PDT

Met Art (7)

05-20-11 09:32am

REVIEW REPLY by lk2fireone (116)

To flst2000us (0):

If you were able to download the entire contents of Met-art in one month, you must have an extremely fast Internet connection, as well as a huge amount of hard drive storage.

What program did you use to download all that content? I'm guessing you needed a program to automatically download the entire contents of a site, because to manually download the individual files (photosets and videos) would take a huge amount of time and patience.

View Thread (3)

RE: MisterMark's Review

Mon, 16 May 2011 18:13:23 PDT

Met Art (7)

05-16-11 06:13pm

REVIEW REPLY by MisterMark (6)

To rearadmiral (141):

Actually, most of the reviews are from memory. I usually do the same, back the stuff up and then have access later. I will try a new site this week, just not sure which one right now.

View Thread (8)

RE: MisterMark's Review

Mon, 16 May 2011 16:27:11 PDT

Met Art (7)

05-16-11 04:27pm

REVIEW REPLY by rearadmiral (141)

To MisterMark (6):

Wow! 6 or 8 more reviews just waiting. I don't have the time for that many memberships at once. A couple of weekends ago my wife headed away with some friends and I took three memberships out. I'm pretty particular about cataloguing the material and backing it up, so it'll be a couple of weeks before I'm on the hunt for another site again.

Between PU reviews and the "What's Hot" reviews at TBP it is usually fairly easy to find something that I'm interested in.

View Thread (8)

RE: MisterMark's Review

Mon, 16 May 2011 14:18:35 PDT

Met Art (7)

05-16-11 02:18pm

REVIEW REPLY by MisterMark (6)

To lk2fireone (116):

Thanks for the props. I am just trying to be as straight forward as possible.

View Thread (8)

RE: MisterMark's Review

Mon, 16 May 2011 14:17:40 PDT

Met Art (7)

05-16-11 02:17pm

REVIEW REPLY by MisterMark (6)

To rearadmiral (141):

It's hard to find honest reviews these days and this place seems to have earned credibility. I have at least 6-8 more reviews coming and look forward to hearing about sites I may want to join. Hopefully, I can earn more trust.

View Thread (8)