| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1626
|
Aaliyah Love
(0)
|
Reply of
kbal24's Review
Always wonder when somebody gives a 100 in score.
It could because they're related to the webmaster or something like that - it could be mere fanatism about a site or just some new PU who completely got crazy about the model in a solo site.
I think it's the last here or like it.
Just took a look at the preview - and this girl is something else, for sure - she's simply just GREAT. And so are her short video-previews
BTW, kbal24: how long is the awerage video in minuttes?
And finally thanks this input to some PU who's still looking and looking for new stuff...
|
03-03-09 06:58am
|
Review
1627
|
Club Silvia Saint
(0)
90.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
Mostly exclusive material of Silvia (some may later be published at Fame Digital). (I've seen that before).
Great new/newer solo-videos of this doll.
Regular updates.
Fine bonus-sites.
Some ok stuff with other models - both videos and photosets.
Interesting archive- and backstagematerial.
Quality of videos and photosets.
Fine navigation.
Amount of content in general - this site has grown a LOT. |
| Cons: |
Still miss more of hc-stuff with Silvia here - since it's her primary official/home-site - as it's stated - so I have to believe that.
Only wmv for videos - in high or medium quality.
Price a bit high.
A little too much not-Silvia stuff here compared to the amount in general.
Some material are non-exclusive taken from DDF and a few others |
| Bottom Line: |
If your're a fan of Silvia Saint, this is probably the best place to find what your're looking for.
But bottom-line the stuff - videos and photosets of Silvia here is foremost solo-material.
But as a fan of some of the best damn solo-videos of this magnificent girl this site is it.
There is at this moment a little less than 100 videos of Silvia herself here (95 to be precise).
Most are solos - and quite a few are lez and a very few - 5-8 are bg hc.
The bg hc are a bit old, but still ok.
Some of the solo-videos AND photosets are from DDF.
Most solovideos are exclusive, thanks! And some of them are just great.
The later onces shows how this doll matures in the finest way - you can see she far from a teen these days, but, man - she still beautiful - take a look at the preview.
The videos are all in wmv - medium og high definition - and the socalled HD is just great to watch.
Size between 100 and 250 Mb.
Older videos smaller and in less quality.
All in download and no DRM or daily limits.
Photosets equaels video-amount. Typical: 2700x1796
Free bonus sites are Evelyn's Glamour and two others - but these two are generally the same content as Evelyn's. Among them a special site of the great easteuro model, Vendula Badnarova - she has some damn fine videos and photosets too.
Bottom line: Silvias site it self is to recommend and with those bonus sites the price is not THAT bad, after all...
But to other users: See the preview for this site - it's quite good in giving the idea of the site and it's content.
And finally: I have to rate this a 90 in score - primarily because I'll keep those great solo-videos forever and ever - I think.... |
|
03-03-09 06:29am
Replies (4)
|
Reply
1628
|
Super Glam
(0)
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Comment
Thanks for this fine update from good ol' exotics4me....
Admit, I'm surprised to read it, but, man - it sounds really good. If that site finally has taken a hold of themselves it's just good news, because ONCE they had some great stuff.
Running in there to take a look at the site again....
|
03-03-09 05:49am
|
Comment
1629
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
|
03-03-09 05:37am
Replies (5)
|
Reply
1630
|
N/A
|
Reply of
ramscrota's Poll
james4096 certainly has a point.
But also I see one problem: Why does a guy in a pornflick has to jerk himself off to climax after some fine sex?
We see it way too many times in most scenes: a fast pull-out of the girlmodel and then this - sometimes - everlasting self-jerking in the face, mostly (we've been through all that face-cum, so I'll not get into that here).
But it seems a bit strange in relation to reallife sex - how many men/guys does that in their own sex - Oh, of course there's a value in watching the climax on film (even if some creampie is done well), but why is that climax - in the open - not performed by skillfull girl-hands? - even on the stomach or on the tits...
Bottom line: I'm pretty tired of too much in-the-face-self-jerking in too many clips...
Climax can be done a lot more elegant and with variations. Why do I also think of the french here - like a lot of the sex scenes at Explicite Art...?
|
03-03-09 05:21am
|
Reply
1631
|
N/A
|
Reply of
ramscrota's Poll
Well, boys.... I stated "Uncle who?".
First who the hell is that uncle?
Second: Who are "dirty old men"?
Middle-aged PUs who like teens?
Not likely.
And then I saw the reply from the Drooler.
Man, I did not see that review of Oldje before I went back to the poll again.
Still, It's a pretty fine exampel of a simplification of the term "dirty old men" - I would not go as far as using the term "discremination".
And Droolers review of the somewhat dammed fine older site Oldje is more than welcome for this user.
Been a member before - and what strikes me the most here is, that this site produces some of the finest euro-teens - and some NOT seen anywhere else. And I enjoy it - old boys fucking them or not.
And BTW: Droolers review hits it square on the head - thanks for that review, bro....
|
03-01-09 10:57am
|
Reply
1632
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
Thanks to Toadsith - man, this is certainly leads/links to a lot of new stuff - already I look forward to some good ol' browsing here....and see whats comming up - very welcome to those hints...
|
02-28-09 11:54am
|
Reply
1633
|
Amateur Allure
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
Lol, jd....and agree!
|
02-28-09 01:53am
|
Comment
1634
|
British Beaver
(0)
|
|
02-26-09 08:55am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
1635
|
Teens-r.us
(0)
|
Reply of
rayone's Review
Thanks for that review, rayone - I see it mostly as a welcome warning - had my eyes on the site.
But the facts that:
"Image quality is poor and the videos are not of the girls in the image section."
...says a lot.
One thing I really dislike is when models in the preview is not present at videos in the member-area...and, man: non exclusive videos...
|
02-26-09 02:17am
|
Reply
1636
|
Video Angels.tv
(0)
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
Monahan - yes, bro - first of all I guess it's a one month site ONLY - the updates seems really slow, so..
The quality of videos are VERY different throughout the site - I've not been through all yet - first I go for my favorites. But compared to some "top-sites" you got to be prepared for some videos in average/low quality, alas.
Still I rate it the 80 because of a handfull of more fine videos with those "old timers" - but again: compared to "better sites" the quality is very much unstable - I'd say half is fine/ok...
But finally from one Fiona Cooper-fan to another: You get the girls/models from that time - and man, some of those videos of the models mentioned in my review is a revival - not crisp in viewing quality, but you can live with it...for most of them.
And oh, btw - the photo-deal is very slim (14 sets) and not worth much...
|
02-22-09 12:11pm
|
Review
1637
|
Video Angels.tv
(0)
80.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
Some great videos with 1990th BRITISH super-models in this rare british site.
Very special stuff I've never found anywhere else.
Newer videos ok in quality and size.
Mostly a solo-video-models site in a different way
Some videos with fine "dirty talk" - and it's "the english way".
Mature models and some great british teens.
Ok download speed.
Somewhat easy navigation (but also some confusion, see below)
150 + videos in different chapters - (got to find the hang of it, the navigation-style).
Easy rebill cancel via CCBill (even if this is a british site which normally tends to the "crazy" Verotel. |
| Cons: |
Price too high: $ 29.95.
For that price a much larger content would be expected.
A bit strange parting of video-files - a scene may seems to be in parted clips - but the the downloads mostly covers different scenes - confusing.
Poor layout/poor design.
A very slim content of photosets (well, the name says it all - it's videos)
No zip
Updates? - that answer is blowing in the wind! Too bad.
The few updates does NOT follow what the site states... |
| Bottom Line: |
This is one of those very special sites, you normally do not see here at TBP og PU.
The reason is quite obvious - it's hard to find - and the content, the setup, the navigation, the style, the design is nowhere near what we PUs consider a "normal" site.
BUT it sure has some fine stuff:
IF your're into those special british porn/nude-models from typical around the 1990th.
Models like Louise Hodges, Linda Leigh, Misty McCain and Sammy Marshall. (And if you into lez: a rarity like scenes with Louise H. and Vida Garman together)
And then off course: Tiffany Walker.
Here's a collection of some very fine videos of these model - videos I've never seen before.
Linda Leigh has a special video for some user she names David - and she tells this David how she want him to fuck her while doing strip/mastubation - great!
Misty McCain with the fantastic body has 4 videos parted in different scenes.
The video-files are in 2,3,4 og more clips for most models - but that does not mean it's not full scene videos. The dividing of files mostly goes after different scenes - and thats ok, but a bit confusing when browsing/navigating.
All video-files in WMV - between 50 and 200 MB - typical. (Some up to 450 Mb)
Newer videos in ok quality (but not CRISP!) - older videos in average/low quality.
The amount of videos are stated to be 133 - but thats not accurate - based on the fact that each models has most more than one video. So all in all the amout is higher.
Most videos are solo-stuff - something like 25% or a little less is hc (b/g or g/g)
I judge this as an 80 - see TBP ratings.
Its a dammed fine site for this special british 1990-style models -. but only if you "hunger" for those special types of girls/models as mentioned - and can live with less than crisp video-quality!
To this user it's worth the $29.95 just because of the videos with Linda Leigh, Misty McCain and Louise Hodges - the worse thing is, that the videos with the adorable Tiffany Walker (six in all) are mostly lower than average in quality - one is fine, though.
But "Bottum Line" it's nice for a change to find a site with this kind of rare content..
BTW: I'd suggest this is a ONE month-join...
For more british sites - try to browse this:
http://www.bgafd.co.uk/links/links.php/catno/13/pg/1 |
|
02-22-09 10:23am
Replies (5)
|
Comment
1638
|
Video Angels.tv
(0)
|
|
02-22-09 07:25am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
1639
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Drooler, I guess it's the shower-scene with Luciana at 1by your're talking about.
And what I recollect is that the scene with Luciana from january 22 (the lingeri-set) is about the same.
Concerning "replays", "reediting" or whatever at 1by, I got the same notion at the moment - never thought that this site would get tiresome..
Ending my membership this term - and sure, I got the same thing here: It'll take a while before returning...
And, alas - the same goes for Teendreams.
Found some rather special stuff on some british site I'd asked Khan to put on TBP - for a later review. It's mostly with some wellknown ( in Europe anyway) uk-models from the 1990th...WELL, at least it's something new even if it's ten og 15 years old... be back..
Denner
|
02-22-09 05:53am
|
Reply
1640
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
|
Reply of
TheRizzo's Reply
I agree to some extend (there's fine licensed stuff at Teendreams once in a while) - just getting tired of finding similar stuff on different sites - and that's kind of paying for the same thing more than once..
|
02-21-09 04:00pm
|
Reply
1641
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
Not any of the four answers really covers my opinion here.
The closest is:
"Only if it has good reviews"
But, man - a site that charge $35 or more really has to have something extra.
There are on a very few sites like that for a charge that high - and even if some of those has a content, I've really been looking for, I'll still hesitate - and probably wait til the site grows and/or till I feel I can afford it - compared and along with other memberships...
|
02-21-09 11:13am
|
Reply
1642
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
|
Reply of
ByteMaster's Comment
Generally I certainly agree with with our new fellow PU, ByteMaster.
The definition of the concept: EXCLUSIVE is getting to a point where things seems to be influenced by a still worse economy in the way of experiencing new AND socalled "exclusive" material on a lot of sites.
We're all seeing more and more licensed stuff on TOO many sites. Licensed material may be all right to a certain degree, but in the final aspect it means, that we users join sites where we can risk spending our money twice (or more) for the same stuff...
We've been around this subject before, but since ByteMaster brings it up, I think its a good idea to mention to the site-owners, that this policy is or can be a matter of some sort of inflation - if sites keep up this policy, it'll problably result in loosing a lot of PUs and others as costumers...
|
02-21-09 11:02am
|
Reply
1643
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
Tree Rodent's Reply
Second Squirrel - could not think of it differently - this is THE place to shout out loud if a site mistreat their obligations to any user - the more serious and relevant warnings we get, the better.......
And Anth: you got every right to be pissed!
|
02-12-09 08:28am
|
Comment
1644
|
Twistys
(0)
|
|
02-11-09 02:44pm
Replies (1)
|
Reply
1645
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
Man, this is a hard one, Drooler...
I never pay much attention to ratings at a specific site - especially ratings of models.
Mainly because I almost disagree or in too many sites there are no model-rating at all. If I'm not mistaken, a lot goes for scene-ratings.
It's difficult to rate a certain model, in general - we all got different taste
- even if there are some "top-models" we all can agree upon.
Another item is: why do some sites skip those ratings?
Maybe because we all got our favorites - and after that there are some new models - take Nubiles, for instance.
That site keeps comming up with entirely new models (not all, of course) - but how do you rate, how do you compare: By their looks, by their acting, by the editing of a photoshoot or video - well, I'm still uncertain about this very interesting poll - and it deserves even more discussions at some new threads...
|
02-11-09 10:55am
|
Reply
1646
|
Danni.com
(0)
|
Reply of
TheRizzo's Reply
Thanks, bro - Danni is still somewhat of an institution - I've allways thought, though - that their preview lacks a lot......and again maybe that's why old/former members keep re-joining - just to see what has happend...
|
02-09-09 11:16am
|
Review
1647
|
Danni.com
(0)
86.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
A dinasour - positive meant - in this business.
Very fine collections of "older" and newer wellknown US-models - in both video and photosets.
Exclusive material all over
Different kinds of videos and photosets of same model.
Fine navigation.
Easy-to-use model directory
Fine (and fast) low-rez. stream for videos/video-preview.
Much better full-video quality (download) lately.
Starting to get HD-video (more of that, please).
Ok feed back/cancel.
Lots of older archive-stuff for "real conneseurs". |
| Cons: |
No hc b/g stuff.
Lately the famous lap-dance videos are in front of other girls only.
A lack of new and not wellknown US-pornmodels.
Downloadspeed could be a bit better.
Lately too much lez.-stuff.
Video-scenes are too similar
Some scenes like "Naked joke" are just too far out - not funny, not sexy just nothing... |
| Bottom Line: |
Do not get it. Thought I'd made a review of Danni.com before - must have been ages ago, if so.
Because I've been a member of Danni.com - or was it Dannis some years ago -don't remember - a "zillion" times, it feels.
At least I've always had this thing with Danni:
Full bodied and swell looking US-girls, no correction: US-ladies - or WOMEN!!!
And those ladies' been a turn-on for ages - dolls like Crissy Moran, Victoria Zdrok, Carolyn Monroe, Nikki Nova ect.
And the great thing is, that some of the videos of these "old" models has been reedited - into better quality.
During the last years or so Danni has went through an update of design and navigation - all to the better.
The amount of stuff here is still enormous.
The deal is for the vast majority of models:
Your get different kinds of videos and photosets with lapdace, masturbation, strip and more. And then some minor stuff like the Naked Joke of the week whcich I never found usefull.
Your get streaming in 300 kb, 700 kb, 1000 kb for most and download ditto.
The streaming is fine for preview.
The photosets are most small in number of photos. Size typical: 2000x1330.
Zip for photos
Videos: typical 50-80 Mb - the socalled feature-videos: 230-300 Mb.
I think the amount of videos exceed 2.500 at this point.
But bottom line: Danni still offers videos and photo of "real" women - a lot of whom you could call mature today...
Still some new stuff with young models too - and Danni is - again - still worth to visit - even is the price has gone up lately... |
|
02-08-09 01:41pm
Replies (4)
|
Reply
1648
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Rick's Poll
Those feeds are mostly just meant as a "promiss" of something "extra" - when you join a site. A false and luring appetizer...
And for all those sites, I've joined over the years: Those feeds (if any) have been entirely worthless.
|
02-08-09 09:36am
|
Reply
1649
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Reply
Well the question was to all here at PU, sorry if it was not so clear (I think so, anyway), but I try again in my highschool (scandinavian)english:
VideoBox has 2 different prices for sign-up: Standard resolution: 9.95 og DVD-resolution: 17.95.
BUT: Signing-up for the DVD-resolution does generally NOT give you better videos than the standard-resolution - in this users opinion and - what it seems - quite a few others.
Hope it's more clear now...
|
02-08-09 07:56am
|
Reply
1650
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Comment
Once again we got a PU to comment on the strage things with the quality of videos from VideoBox - thanks for bringing it up again, Trashman.
For a long time and during many join-ups I've had this problem with VideoBox: Oh, I'd like to spend an extra few dollars to get the socalled HD-stuff, but every time I get dissapointed.
The reason is as stated by Trashman: the resolution in socalled HD (or WMVDVD) is NOT better than ordinary socalled WMVHigh - both at times I went for the older stuff and the new videos...
So: Is there no difference at all and is it just a scam to take more money from PUs and others....?
|
02-08-09 07:41am
|
