| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1301
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Review
I can go along with a 99 because Met Art is very transparent about what they do and don't do; namely all natural young ladies displaying their lovely body parts to superb photo pros.
However the sameness becomes boring. Some days the updates look very familiar because the girls look very familiar and assume virtually the same poses.
|
12-19-15 11:23am
|
Reply
1302
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
skippy's Review
Well written review, Skippy. Being an on and off again member over the years I agree with everything you say. However, there are a few things to add to the "con" list, IMO.
First and foremost, the site is a PHOTO site with a few unimaginative videos, usually on the cheap videos of photo shoots. The good part is you get to see more of the model than you would in an edited set of photos.
Second, their naming conventions suck. Some of their models are in the main stream with totally different names. Worse, the standard procedure seems to be to pick a random female name with a trailing number to differentiate the models with the same name. Fortunately, once a name is assigned, they stick with it rather than have multiple names for the same model.
One more minor annoyance (very minor) is that, when they do daily updates, they don't mention new sets they have added late to previous updates. That means you'll need to review the chronological update displays to find new stuff you probably didn't know existed.
Other than these minor negatives, there is no better porn site in the business both in the quality of their product and in having the most ethical and fair business practices in the business. (I was amazed when I decided to sign up for an annual membership after being a monthly member for a few weeks, they prorated the unused portion of the monthly fee as a credit on the price of the annual membership.)
|
03-23-15 09:51am
|
Reply
1303
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
When I upgraded from monthly to annual a few years ago, the monthly still had 2 weeks or so to go. They immediately changed me to annual and prorated my partial month to the annual rate.
I was pleasantly surprised.
|
10-28-14 07:52pm
|
Reply
1304
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
You've got mail ;->
I'm thinking that it's possible the emails are sent to those who subscribe to one or more HBP sites but not to us freeloaders.
I am definotely interested in VivThomas and The Life Erotic.\\
Thanks for your help.
Jack
|
08-15-14 09:47pm
|
Reply
1305
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
OK, but I was already, in theory, subscribed...so I went to the Met Art site and tried to resubscribe.
I got this error message when I completed the template:
Your email is already on our list.
Your email address is already subscribed and confirmed to our mailing list. For further assistance, please email support at: support@met-art.com
-Met Staff
So I sent an email to the indicated address.
Here's the reply I just received:
Aug 15 05:57 PM
Hi there,
I apologize as we have already discontinued sending those type of mailer. If you are still interested in free photos, you can check out the daily photo archives of Metart, Domai's Beauty of the Day, and Goddess Nudes' Almost Daily Goddess here: {URLs of the sign up pages for those sites}.
Sofia Lola (MetArt Network)
Sounds like they aren't really sure what they are doing.
|
08-15-14 07:02pm
|
Reply
1306
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Review
I stumbled into this review because I just read the comment posted by Parsnip about The Life Erotic and thought I'd browse the other sites operated by HLP.
Ditto all four previous replies. I was a $99 per year member for about three years but dropped out in 2011 because I've gravitated to video and found Twistys to suit my interests a lot more.
I'm into solo material of gorgeous ladies and the daily updates always seemed to have at least one, usually more, drop dead gorgeous babes. Unfortunately there were few videos and those they did make were, as previously noted, boring as Hell.
I'm reluctant but probably will sign up fot The Life Erotic because their preview site has a 2 minute video sampler that shows gorgeous babes like those on MetArt but they seem to be a lot better in the content (heavy petting, finger and object insertions, peeing, etc.) and, hopefully, some of the babes from MetArt have graduated to the erotic stuff.
One thing I really liked about this site's business practices is that, if you sign up for, say 1 month and decide to go for a full year, they will deduct the unused portion of the current month's fee from the annual price.
|
08-14-14 06:25pm
|
Reply
1307
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Reply
You said, "I also appreciated the videos by Goncharov, especially Ksucha C in a video called Lathin. She is not much to look at, but is great at teasing. She goes to a home in the forest wearing a short skirt. She teases us continually with pussy peeks up her dress, while not wearing panties. Very hot."
I am a member and cheked this one out. You are absolutely right. A true redhead with a plain face and a killer body, she is an expert at tease and Goncharov does a great job of capturing her deliciousness.
Check out her other stuff as well. Her innocent appearing face makes the whole batch just that more effective.
|
05-07-12 10:26am
|
Reply
1308
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Review
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.
|
01-15-12 11:28am
|
Reply
1309
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
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.
|
09-08-11 09:31am
|
Reply
1310
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Sevrin's Comment
I like the change but as you say they are still working out the kinks.
That said, I wish they would distinguish their videos between simple videos of photoshoots and actually thought out creative pieces.
I just discovered a great video of Nikki Case on Met Art that had her strolling through a museum(?) with a tight sweater and even tighter jesns, in HD. She looked hotter than Hell. Then suddenly she's totally naked in the same setting.
No photo flashes to mess up the video and it definitely transformed my Little Richard into Big Dick!
|
04-25-11 10:36am
|
Reply
1311
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
That's why I dropped out a few years ago. But I've decided to try again taking advantage of their on again, off again $20 price, which is now available through TBP right now.
I'm a video guy and know that I won't get too much good stuff but I am interested in seeing if their photos have returned to their normally high quality.
I'll be reporting back once I've checked the site out in more detail.
|
03-05-11 01:13pm
|
Reply
1312
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Graymane's review said the videos were poorly done, but did not describe the nature of the videos...are they still just model shoots or is there even a little imagination involved/
Their babes are really outstanding and the quantity of photo material appears to be extremely huge. If the thematic aspect of their videos has moved on from just photo shoots to more serious focus on the model's attributes, even if thematically lousy, I may convince myself to drop a Benjamin and go for it.
By the way the listing on TBP/PU still says $109.99 for 1 yesr. The lowest (auto. renew) price is $99.99.
|
01-02-11 04:59pm
|
Reply
1313
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Procrastination loses again. My nouveau annum gift to myself was going to be a one month membership in MetArt.
Well, anyway, the 365 day rate dropped from $109.99 to $99.99, so I may go for the long term deal. I usually stick around for 2-3 months anyway so....
Just one question. My last membership in MetArt was 3 or 4 years ago and I had two issues with them:
1. Inaccessibility. Frequently the site was down...or overloaded...so I couldn't access when I wanted to. Is that still an issue?
2. While I know it's primarily a photo site, I was not impressed by their videos which were nothing more than videos of their photoshoots. Boring as hell. Have they gotten any better lately?
|
01-02-11 10:12am
|
Reply
1314
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
Boy, you sound like me. I grew tired of the sameness. But worse was when the babe was a real turn on but the photographer was not into any eroticism.
The change to a bit more erotic stuff makes me interested in trying again.
|
12-05-10 11:56pm
|
Reply
1315
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Capn's Reply
Interesting point.
I was a member about 12 months ago and have been thinking of rejoining just because the TBP price is very attractive. I hesitated only because I gravitate more to video than pix.
As for what galleries to check out, it's interesting that your issue seems to arise more from the HUGE volume of content than on anything else. My only issue is that there's so much content and their naming convention is so clumsy it's really hard to sort through the downloaded stuff.
This discussion has me thinking that it's about time that I plunk down $20.00 and give it another go.
|
12-04-10 10:01pm
|
Reply
1316
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Agree with Denner. I'm a video guy and quit Met-Art after about 3 months. The photo sets are good with a lot of full spreads and excellent angles. But I agree; no heat at all, no insertions and very little eroticism.
|
09-03-10 11:46pm
|
Reply
1317
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
squirrel's Review
I was a member for a few months 2 or 3 years ago and felt the same way. Way too many standard set ups. But on several occasions a real knockout babe showed up with a super pro photographer shooting some outstanding stuff.
I quit because the videos (I'm more of a video guy) were tepid and mostly videos of the photo shoots (yawn...wake me when it's over please)and I found myself both bored and frustrated; bored with the sameness and frustrated with the difficulty finding good stuff to download.
So I'm in agreement 100% with your review. The score of 85 you gave it is very fair given the quality and quantity compared with other photo sites and reflects my view more than the higher scores posted by others.
|
01-04-10 12:02am
|
Reply
1318
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
littlejoe's Reply
The clean shaven aspect doesn't bother me that much but the absence of any heavier eroticism, such as finger insertions and/or labia play reduces the appeal of this site.
That said, perhaps it's me but it seems like the models are getting more busty, are doing a lot more leg spreading than before and are, on average, prettier than in past years.
And I wish they would do something to make their videos watchable. They are usually videos of photo shoot sessions which are not nearly as interesting as the stills.
|
07-08-09 11:10pm
|
Reply
1319
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
fortherecord777's Comment
Quick question.
Is there a comprehensive search function that one can use to find models with specific attributes, such as large breasts, small breasts, blond, large labias, outdoors, etc., etc.?
|
06-22-09 11:14am
|
Reply
1320
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
I hear you, Nubiles is on my short list to replace a site that I eventually tire of.
Interesting side note that shows you are definitely on target...Nubiles has a check box on their signup page for...yup...MetArt. (Unless you uncheck it you get a $2.99 trial followed by a full membership at $29.99.
|
05-10-09 06:56pm
|
Reply
1321
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
zzzins's Review
Although I'm a video guy, I signed up for Met Art for a few months and was blown away by the volume and quality of the photo content. As zzzins suggests in his review, the videos are not why one signs up...and his comments are why I decided to drop the site altogether.
In photos, I prefer erotic over artsy fartsy, and Met Art does provide some good erotic stuff. But the majority of their material is more of the artsy style. There are no men in any of their material at all, no overt pussy or tit play, no insertions, but tons of gorgeous babes of all shapes, sizes and sexiness.
One other point. If you see a babe you'd like to see more of, you'll be frustrated because the site uses just first names and in more than one case the names they use are totally different than those used in other sites.
|
05-10-09 05:24pm
|
Reply
1322
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Review
Good review (because it reflects, accurately, a lot of my thoughts).
The site is huge so it is impossible for anyone who has a life to check out each end every model. The boredom factor hit me as well because many (most?) sets were so similar that I got the feeling I'd seen the set before.
But the part I really appreciate about the site is elephant's observation that the site treats its models with total respect. That's a rare characteristic that shows up in very few sites.
As for me, I'm a video guy so I can't be a continuing member on a site whose videos are, mostly, recordings of photo shoots.
My other problem is that the models are identified only by first name and a number so if I really like someone and want to see if she appears on other sites, I cannot do that.
Last point. If you are into the harder side of soft core (insertions, pussy play, etc.) this site is not for you.
|
02-23-09 12:56pm
|
Reply
1323
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Comment
I doubt that they'll go hardcore. MetArt is at the top of the softcore game and have a huge subscriber base staying soft.
Now that's not to say they may start a hardcore site but I doubt they'll do any kind of tie-in with MetArt. They will want to protect their brand.
[Now that I've said that, watch 'em do exactly that. ;-) ]
|
12-06-08 10:54am
|
Reply
1324
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
hondaman's Reply
If I recall correctly Playboy started with full frontal nudity in the late 1960's followed quickly by Penthouse and Hustler. Perhaps the labia displays began in the early 1970, not the late 60's, but my point is that Met Art's stuff is really of that era except that the Met Art models are quite a bit younger than those appearing in the mags of the 70's.
|
11-13-08 09:44pm
|
Reply
1325
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Love the models, the quantity of content and the superior quality of the photos and the photography.
My one and onlt beef with Met-Art is that they view videos as a toss in, not a feature. Watchiong a model's photo session on video, the ptimary theme of most of their videos,is boring.
The few videos that are actual productions are quite well done but there are so few of them that a video fan like me tends to want to move on.
|
11-03-08 08:41am
|
