| All Activity |
A summary of all the feedback from this user. |
| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Review
26
|
Wifey's World
(0)
81.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 6 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- Wifey is beautiful.
- Wifey obviously loves what she does, and does it very well.
- The site has true class in a genre which is usually devoid of it.
- One of the few sites in this genre which recognizes that good sex involves the brain as well as the reproductive organs.
- Good money-shots. No flagging dribblers here. |
| Cons: |
- Only two peformers, and the scenarios are not terribly varied. This opens the way for tedium over the long haul, unfortunately.
- Not much to rave about in regard to the pics section.
- Navigation could be much improved. |
| Bottom Line: |
My profile says I hate most of what is called porn nowadays, and this is true for the most part; but I do like adult video if it is done well.
What caused me to join the Wifey site was recalling a clip I had seen in a Newsgroup a couple years back. Wifey had this intense focus as she did her thing. It was a handjob scene and her eyes were riveted on her "subject" (Mr. Happy). She was not only skilled, but mentally - not just physically - involved in what she was doing.
Whether this intense interest and focus is put-on or not really doesn't matter. Wifey has a good grasp of the male ego and knows exactly what to do, what to say, how to react. With each "money-shot" she seems surprised and impressed, even fascinated. All I can say is, Hubby must be one extremely happy guy.
Despite all this, since there are only two people and since they adhere to a fairly narrow formula - seduction, tease, long build-up, release - taken as a whole the vids can become a bit tiresome and redundant, though this shouldn't take away from their value as individual erotic episodes. |
|
08-07-07 10:58pm
Replies (0)
|
Review
27
|
G Queen
(0)
80.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- High volume of videos.
- Vids good quality.
- Frequent updates.
- All models are shaved (this could be a con for some).
- Pics are very nice, what few there are, though not big: 900x1350 on the high end. Many are much smaller.
- Masturbation vids are some of the best I've seen, if you're into that. |
| Cons: |
- If you access the English version of the site only, there are approximately 370 pictures. If available pics are rotated, as happens on some Asian sites, I will update review.
- Music tracks on many videos are a definite negative.
- Site frequently caters to what I will call the "girl unwilling/uncomfortable" fetish, which I find disturbing and offensive at times. |
| Bottom Line: |
The Japanese version of g-Queen, which you can access by manipulating the URL in the address bar and re-entering username and password, contains roughly 60 full picture sets (almost all NOT zipped), while the English version contains less than 400 pictures altogether.
The videos available seem to be the same in both versions. There are about 100 models with three to five vids each, and these are each separate episodes, often with different costumes and settings, rather than one long vid broken into bits.
These are not hi-def vids, but are nice enough. They come in at an average of 2000k, 640x480. The videos are lengthy, sometimes up to fifteen minutes. Music spoils most of the videos wherein a particular model is being introduced; but masturbation vids do not seem to have the music track - though I've only downloaded about a dozen of these.
There is one video featuring a beautiful model getting herself off on the edge of a glass table. This is hands-down the most erotic masturbation vid I've ever seen. Other masturbation vids seem genuine and quite graphic. Bear in mind I am no afficianado when it comes to masturbation videos.
I'v seen a few vids where the model is being poked, caressed, and digitally stimulated by an off-screen male. The models often feign discomfort and unwillingness, sometimes in a histrionic fashion, sometimes more subtly and convincingly. In either case it does nothing but bother me.
One video features a girl giving head to and then riding on a clear plastic dildo protruding from a male's open fly. This was erotic and strange, in a mostly good way. I have yet to see a straight girl-boy sex scene, though if I do I will update this review. There are 45 lesbian videos on offer.
The main thing to remember is that g-Queen is all about shaved girls, and these girls are made to appear almost uncomfortably young and naive. Also remember this is mainly a video site.
I would* recommend this site to video lovers who like Asians and are into tease/masturbation scenarios which take a long time to unfold and are DEVOID of anything street-oriented. Innocence and cute-ness are the order of the day.
Decidedly NOT recommended for picture lovers.
*The above recommendation applies only if you are willing to shell out about twice the price of the average adult site subscription. The truth is, g-Queen is way over-priced for what is on offer. |
|
11-07-08 11:25am
Replies (2)
|
Review
28
|
Dirty Lilly
(0)
80.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Lilly!
- Zips for pic sets (one file, not per-page)
- Single-file video downloads, HQ offered (943kbps), options for Flash, WMV hq/lq.
- Plenty of hardcore: should be plus for hc fans
- Good amount of content for the price, and good quality
- Lilly has a great sense of humor |
| Cons: |
- Diary section updated recently, but it seems comments are removed, since there are no comments for any of the entries save one: "hot body! i want it!" My kind regards were deleted (sniff...sniff...Lilly hurt Willy...)
- no email address in sight
- I'm pretty sure the vid and pic sections haven't been updated since I joined a few weeks ago |
| Bottom Line: |
Lilly stands out from the crowd of single-model site personalities because of two things: First, she has a great sense of humor which comes across in her videos as much as it does in her text entries through-out the site (if it's not really Lilly writing that stuff in her sweet, mixed-up English then shame on them and shame on me for being such a dufus). Second, she has a great rapport with the camera and beautiful, expressive eyes which I guarantee will imprint themselves in your memory if you give them the chance. That's quite a compliment when you consider it comes from someone who ganders at inaccessible female eyes an awful lot in his spare time and instantly forgets most of them.
Lilly is not drop-dead gorgeous unless she's in make-up, and she has a problem with her teeth which is the cause of one section of her site called "Donate me retainer". You can donate money to her so that she can get her "teeth-aid" and hence have a prettier smile. Yikes, either this is the tackiest thing ever or her site isn't doing well at all.
Lilly has spectacular breasts as well as captivating eyes and claims they're natural. I see no scars in sight. Vids are shot by her boyfriend and the two make a good team: he's well-endowed and the money shots are good; there's a lot of hardcore: sex, oral, insertions, toys, graphic close-ups, as well as softcore.
My polite comment in her diary got deleted. This seems to be their policy, however. That sucks. Points off for that.
Follow-Up:
The quality is better than 943kbps in a lot of the videos. Some go up to 1500+. |
|
11-06-07 12:46am
Replies (0)
|
Review
29
|
Virginal Visions
(0)
80.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
Good-looking to beautiful models
Total fidelity to niche
Decent looking videos
Inexpensive
No penises |
| Cons: |
Small amount of content
Many pic-sets are vid-caps
Frames! Have to scroll to see complete pic.
Too many tats |
| Bottom Line: |
If you don't like girls in their underwear, and by that I mean white bras and panties, steer clear of this site. If you want to see girls treated like trash, forget it.
There is some lesbian material, but nothing even remotely hardcore. In fact, there's hardly any nudity. This is not porn, folks. It's a small selection of pretty girls walking around in their drawers. Sometimes they roll around in their drawers, and sometimes they take showers in their drawers, which seems sort of silly but has some nice side-effects. They even have pillow fights, for those of us who like to think that pretty girls always strip down to their skivvies and have pillow fights when they get together. It's easy to see why they laugh like crazy as they jump up and down.
All kidding aside, it's a site for panty connoisseurs, and white panties at that. You get a nice but limited variety of sets which have a pleasant "unposed", candid feel about them. The vids look nice but they are nothing extraordinary. There is not a great deal of content, but to tell the truth, I was pleasantly surprised at how long it took me to get through it.
I might re-join, but probably not for at least a year. |
|
07-26-07 12:20am
Replies (0)
|
Review
30
|
Sonia Dane
(0)
79.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Very faithful to the lingerie niche.
- Very classy, adult site.
- Lots of content with Lingerie Pass membership.
- Sonia is a classy, elegant, attractive, mature lady who obviously enjoys what she does.
- Many pics will make old-school undy lovers happy. |
| Cons: |
- Video section is a mess in many ways, see bottom line.
- Pics are small: 480x640 to 1024x737.
- Downloads speeds were consistently slow, averaging 160k per sec.
- Pic sets are arranged all on one page, and it takes a while to load. |
| Bottom Line: |
I have mixed feelings about this site. One one hand, it's extremely classy and mature all around, with nothing tacky or sleezy about it, and for an old-school panty/lingerie fan like me, it is sometimes the best in that genre; on the other hand, I can't help wondering why the physical quality of the content is not up to 2008 standards, why, in fact, it is barely up to 2003 standards; and why, after being online so long, are there all of 16 video clips available, and why, oh why, is the quality of these clips so dismal?
Sonia has a hair over 200 sets up, and with older sets you are looking at pics as small as 480x640, Newer sets offer bigger pics, but still not great, at 1024x737. These people are obviously not hard-up for money, so why continue to sell low-to-moderate quality content when upgrades are almost certainly possible?
Vids: I counted 16 video clips, ranging from 2 to 8 minutes in length, on Sonia's site proper. The newer clips are stream-only and cannot be downloaded. Older clips can be downloaded, but there is no reason why you should bother. One vid I checked was WMV 320x240, 889k; another was a Quick Time vid which was absolutely unwatchable because the quality was so bad. Additionally, I had many problems waiting for the vid page to load. I have a fast connection and all other sites hum along fine, but Sonia's site is slow in general, and excruciantingly slow in regard to the vid page.
A definite plus here is Sonia's guest model section, which now includes 46 models, each with her own little sub-site. Some of these models have upwards of 70 sets, but a good deal have only a handful. By and large there is some excellent, tasteful stuff on offer, but, as with Sonia's site, the pics are small, small, small. Some of the guest models have vids, but these are relatively few.
This site, meaning Sonia's in particular, has the potential to be one of the very best in the panty/lingerie niche, and in fact it's quite ubiquitous in the lingerie/panty newsgroups and is generally highly regarded; but the site itself doesn't live up to its implicit reputation. To go from merely average to exceptional, all this place needs is some serious improvement in the *physical* quality of its content. The strictly aesthetic quality of the content, mind you, is absolutely tops.
Final thought on the vids: either offer something worthwhile or drop them entirely, please. There's nothing wrong with being a picture site. |
|
08-29-08 08:17pm
Replies (0)
|
Review
31
|
Teen Charms
(0)
79.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Gorgeous, often downright stunning, models.
- Lots of content: nearly 100,000 pics and over 300 vids (but see BL re vids).
- High quality pics on newer sets.
- Zips
- A few vid DL options.
- Easy to navigate.
- Very tasteful site. |
| Cons: |
- Site has been dead since 3/07, but the homepage hasn't come to terms with this. What happened? Why do this?
- Video is negligible, unfortunately, since these models deserve better. No sound on any of them, though they say all vids have sound. Could be on my end.
- All zip files simply named "images". Creates work, particularly for those of us with no short term memory. Did I mention I have no short-term memory?
- Way softcore. This is in the con section for those who might be expecting sterner stuff. |
| Bottom Line: |
I ransacked Teenstars and am about half-way through Teencharms. I got a two-fer deal and am not disappointed, except for the crappy videos. Lucky for me I'm a pic collector, or I'd be very diappointed indeed. Some of these vids show a bit-rate of 450 or so Kbps. Now how useless is that in 2008?
I don't understand why they put up two sites instead of just one, except as a means of drumming up revenue. There is no difference at all, thematically or technically, between the two. Not that they share content. They don't.
Basically (and don't you hate people who start a sentence with that word?) this site has value in that there are over a hundred drop-dead gorgeous girls presented in tasteful, often artistic, picture sets of good to excellent quality. Some girls might not be Vogue material as far as their faces go, but I have yet to see one who wasn't a masterpiece from the neck down. Bear in mind, these are mostly 18 year olds, and they've got plenty of time to fill out. I like a full-bodied woman as much as the next guy, but I also love slender young ladies. I can't help it, I just do.
Thing is: these people need to re-do their homepages and take down the false advertising. And they should have offered good videos or simply stuck to being a picture site. Teencharms is a high-quality picture archive and not much more. The girls and the photographers get a 99.9999999, but the webmasters and the negligible vids draw the score way down.
Recommended for the pics. |
|
05-16-08 10:25pm
Replies (2)
|
Review
32
|
Teen Stars Magazine
(0)
79.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Beautiful models
- Good to excellent picture quality
- Models are proffessional, or at least appear so to me, and are very good at what they do.
- Lots of material up.
- Zips for all pic sets.
- Very tasteful over-all.
- Ethel and Martine: practically worth the money just for these two beauties. |
| Cons: |
- Site has not updated since mid 2007.
- Video quality is pretty bad, and there is no sound in any of the vids I downloaded.
- Vids come in one minute to minute and a half snippets, making them next to worthless.
- Several models stay fully clothed. Not even a kini or panty-shot from them.
- For the casual browser or for the guy who doesn't want entire sets, each pic opens in a new window, causing more work. All hail the back button. |
| Bottom Line: |
I got Teen Stars and Teen Charms in a two-fer deal for 29.99, but I've been busy with Teen Stars thus far to the exclusion of the other site, which I'll look at in the future. I want to say first off that these are some of the most beautiful girls going. If you have a thing for young-looking, skinny, leggy, drop-dead-gorgeous girls, this place is ace. It's neck & neck with Nubiles in that respect. But-
The site is dead, and the video on offer is negligible, so what we have here is basically a large picture archive. If you're not a pic collector, and if you're not into softcore - at times extremely soft - then don't bother. I'm having a pretty good time because I'm a pic collector and the scarcity of tats, toys, penises, hair, and flab keeps all my neurons firing happily away.
Pics range from smallish, from 2003, to very large: 3500 on the big end. You don't get the kind of clarity you do with other places, and the emphasis on the portrait-format makes me wonder what the point of having a huge picture really is. Note to webmasters in this niche: landscape, landscape, landscape. While the site is mostly softcore with an artsy bent and a touch of glamour, plus cute in spades, there is some total nudity (pink), and toys, but not much.
I wouldn't call the site a rip-off, but they should either downplay the presence of vids or offer better ones. Since the site is dead, maybe they should just remove the vids, lower the price, and continue as a good picture archive. |
|
04-14-08 04:40pm
Replies (1)
|
Review
33
|
LBFM
(0)
78.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- A lot of material up. 100,000+ photos of 400+ models and over a thousand video clips (See cons about clips), some in HD. Newer pics go up to 1277x1920, but the majority of them are smaller, at around 960x1280 and lower.
- Attractive models.
- Navigation easy enough.
- Fairly regular updates. |
| Cons: |
- Much of the material seems to be non-exclusive. Saw most of their schoolgirl sets on Schoolgirls Asia (same company), and a lot of the sets featuring what appear to be Thai models have appeared elsewhere.
- No zipfiles.
- Vids come in small one-to-two minute clips, making them useless.
- Site has an amateurish look, not re the models, but the design. Ugly purplish background all through.
- Toy-obssessed.
- PU user mentions something about a DL limit. I wouldn't know because to DL one gig of video here in one day would border on masochism. |
| Bottom Line: |
Two major drawbacks to this site are the lack of zipfiles and the fact that the vids are broken into tiny bits. The ones I saw averaged at 5 megs. I'm sure the HD vids are much larger, but I didn't bother with them, since I can't play 1280 anyway.
First, the lack of zips is a deal-breaker here, since the photo sets are often very long and padded out with multiple shots offering hardly any variation. Don't let the high pic count fool you. Most sets could be trimmed by fifty percent without losing anything.
Second, there is no good reason to break up the videos into tiny bits, except to frustrate the customer and greatly diminish enjoyment of the site.
Also a problem here is the depressing feeling of looking at young ladies who are simply trying to earn money. I end up feeling sorry for them more often than not. There is virtually no personality or charm exuding from this material, at least from my perspective. My impression from what little HC I looked at is that the performers are merely doing a job. Passion seems to be zero.
I would recommend the site if 1) photo-sets were edited and more varied, and zipped; and 2) videos were offered whole instead of being broken up.
Unless you are really into South-east Asian models, I would say skip it. |
|
11-08-09 03:15pm
Replies (0)
|
Review
34
|
Club Seventeen
(0)
78.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Tons of content.
- Very cute models.
- Stays within the teeny niche.
- *Some* of the video content is top notch.
- Newer pics are decent at 800x1200, and there are quite a few, to say the least. |
| Cons: |
- What the hell does Seventeen mean?
- Way ! too expensive for us yanks. 40+ buckaroos.
- Choices are great, but this site overwhelms you with choices, causing navigational havoc. See BL.
- Pic size could (should) go up a notch. Older pics are just too small for the jaded collector of 2008.
- No zips
- "High" quality option for vid downloads not so high, at least for the vids I checked. In fact, at 604 kbps, it looks dismal at full screen.
- Pages take too long to load because of all the fancy but useless pic-frame borders and variously-colored backgrounds. |
| Bottom Line: |
I was turned down at first by this site but they took me on my second try. So here goes:
I'm disappointed. Main problem: the site needs Organization. Categories are a good thing, but this place is category mayhem. There are 35+ picture-gallery categories, and a few of these are split into "gallery" and "archive". Some categories have separate numbered archives. In the vid section (which is called Seventeen Cinema [I think] and requires another log-in) there are 42 categories, or "labels". The vids are taken from full-length DVDs which you can order and are not entities unto themselves. Most vids offer high and low downloads. Some offer "full", which means highest quality: 2100 kbps, 720X540. These vids look great.
For pic collectors like Willy, who has short term memory loss in spades, all these categories are too much: blondes, brunettes, redheads, wet teens, shaved teens, kinky teens, schoolgirls, highschool girls, dirty teens, anal teens, left-handed teens, vertically-challenged teens, teens who read Proust.... you get the idea. There are some great sets and tons of cute models, but while I'm browsing and clicking I keep wondering what I might be missing someplace else. There is a model directory, but each name I clicked on merely took me to a set of four or five pics: not thumbs leading to sets or vids, just pictures! What's the point of a directory if it doesn't direct you to the model's content?
I'm running low on characters. BL: save your dough, yanks. |
|
02-07-08 11:29pm
Replies (7)
|
Review
35
|
Brandi Belle
(0)
76.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- Site is original and unusual.
- Brandi is very cute.
- Multiple DL options. |
| Cons: |
- It might not be fair to state it here, but the trial is a rip-off.
- For every (or nearly every) vid there are links for vidcaps and "pictures". The "pictures" link simply tells you that there are no pictures available. Why do this?
- Brandi is sometimes too deadpan, too nonchalant, which makes her appear bored.
- The male participants often leave very much to be desired. They are sometimes dead bored, ugly, sleezy, or crazy.
- Vid quality (640x480/1048k) should be improved, since this is a video-only site. Vid caps are a negligible feature. |
| Bottom Line: |
I went into this site with high hopes, since I like the multiple-girl on one guy approach. The first vid I downloaded featured a tall skinny guy with big glasses getting "molested" by four or five girls in a shower room. It took at least half the video for the guy to even get it up, and he seemed totally uninvolved through-out, resulting in a complete waste of time. In another video we watch Brandi jerk some overweight guy off for about ten minutes and at the end the guy finally announces he can't come. Another complete waste of time.
I ended up downloading about twenty videos before getting bored with this site and abandoning it long before my sub expired. For this kind of thing to work well, you really need somebody like Peter North or Hubby from Wifeysworld, because, let's face it, what good is ten or twelve minutes of willy-yanking without a doozy of a climax? It's like waiting for an hour and a half in a fine restaurant and having the waitress bring you a Big Mac and an order of fries.
On the plus side, the best vid on offer features Brandi and another girl, who take turns exploring one another's naughty bits. And in case you haven't seen it, Brandi has one of the most plump and delectable naughty bits I've seen to date.
I wouldn't recommend this site except to handjob, femdom, and CFNM enthusiasts, and even then I wouldn't be surprised if they were disappointed. |
|
07-07-08 09:43pm
Replies (0)
|
Review
36
|
Panties Pulled Down
(0)
75.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Zipfiles for photo-sets
- Very faithful to the panty niche
- Mostly attractive, maturish-looking models in solo strip and faux-lesbian sets, office-girl and college-girl uniform.
- Decent amount of content, fast loading, good speeds.
- Sets are well edited and usually go from full-clothed to total nudity.
- Not too heavy on toys.
- Search utility offered, but is strange and I didn't use it.
- Model list.
- Seem to update pretty steadily.
- 2 options for vid download: WMV or Ipod. |
| Cons: |
- Daily limit for downloading zips. The first time I've encountered this. I didn't count but I did not download many before I was cut off. I am not aware of a limit for videos. I took quite a bit and was not cut off. Will update if this changes.
- Smallish pics for 2010: 803x1200.
- Videos are advertised as HD, when this is NOT the case. Vids ranged from 768x576 to 960x540, 1000 to 3000kb.
- Vids are limited in scope. Girl teases and talks to camera, winds up masturbating, tugging and playing with panties, same old same old. |
| Bottom Line: |
I have two scores for this site: my objective score is the one I posted. Subjectively, I would give this site a 95 for photo content alone, even though the vids are negligible.
I have a wicked, unstoppable panty fetish, and I tend to like old school knickers: full-sized, full-back, cotton, nylon. This site is HEAVY on cotton, and HEAVY on white cotton. So Messmer, bear that in mind! Over the past couple years they have moved towards more modern, "sexy" panties, like thongs, g-strings, lacy things, satiny things. This is not so good for me but may be great for others. The farther back you go through the archives, the more into white cotton and granny-ish style undies you get.
For the bra-lover, who should exist in all of us to some extent, there are some lovely bras here, and some lovely things that go inside the bras, though there is also a near-toxic level of silicone. The Brits seem to be really, really into fake breasts.
I gave this site a low score because I don't want to mislead my PU friends, and I try to keep my personal kinks and preferences in check, realizing that most men cannot stand the kind of skivvies I like; realizing that most men hold them up as objects of contempt and ridicule.
That being said, kudos must be given to the photogs and the editors of these sets. They are very well presented and offer choice views of the precious undergarments in question. Shame on them for not moving into higher res photos, however. I don't need gigantic pics, but at least fill my screen here in 2010.
Those concerned about nudity: this is NOT a non-nude site. Nudity and graphic views of the generative organs are in most sets, though this is NOT Simonscans or In the Crack either.
Subjectively speaking: Panties Pulled Down is my favorite site for panty photo content. Objectively speaking, DO NOT spend your money here if the sight of white cotton panties turns you off. You will be sorely disappointed, and maybe even angry.
And do not come here for video content. It's hum-drum in that regard. |
|
09-16-10 04:16pm
Replies (2)
|
Review
37
|
18 Pussy Club
(0)
75.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Good-sized archive of attractive Euro models. I counted 262 models, some with several sets.
- All pic sets zipped.
- Pics of average to good quality, ranging from 821x1232 to 1067x1600.
- Fair amount of average-quality video, both hc and solo, with solo prevailing. All vids I dowloaded are 720x480.
- Member forum.
- Model list and various option for viewing it. |
| Cons: |
- Dead site. Last update 9/08.
- No search function.
- Ads for other sites on every page, with every click, slowing things down.
- Bonus feeds are the usual junk which only serve to remind you that you are not at a top-end site.
- It seems the majority of models do not have any vids. |
| Bottom Line: |
Yet another Euro-babe site which features some really cute girls in hum-drum, run-of-the-mill pic sets and vids. I was lured to the site via TGPs because I enjoy the cutesy, skinny-girl look, though I must say this gets boring pretty quickly here. The teeny-bopper factor is in full swing, with stuffed animals in a high percentage of sets and teeny-ish settings. A few of the solo vids featured the model playing with a stuffed animal on her bed throughout.
That being said, there is plenty of hc here, but nothing interesting and nothing to get excited about.
I wish the owners of dead sites would say as much on the welcome page. It is dishonest to claim that updates are coming soon when this is clearly not the case. I also wish that bonus feeds would disappear. They only reinforce the sense that you are not in Pornville's upper strata. Even more bizarre is the promise of *more* feed junk accruing with longer membership, which is insane being that a week here or less will be all that one requires to take everything on the site proper.
For young-looking, skinny models, in more or less teeny-style, you will be much better off at Nubiles, or YoungPorn. This is just anemic, characterless product for the most part. Not to impugn the models themselves, who have nothing to do with the site producers' laziness and lack of effort.
Unless you really have a penchant for cute, skinny euro-teenies in little cotton undies, don't bother. |
|
12-14-09 04:43pm
Replies (0)
|
Review
38
|
Teens in Wet Panties
(0)
75.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Fair amount of content up, including some 400 videos.
- Very attractive models for the most part.
- Wide variety of undies: from thongs to grannies.
- Navigation OK.
- Vids are mostly of good quality, with choice of mpeg or wmv.
- Pics are of fair to excellent quality.
- True to the panty-fetish niche.
- Plenty of extras like live shows, streaming video, contests, stories, polls, etc. |
| Cons: |
- Zip files do not work. Every one I tried to download returned a "file invalid or corrupted" message.
- "Forum" link leads to an error page.
- Pics in sets are put up out of order. Example: pic #3 might be on the last page.
- Lots of non-exclusive pic sets seen all over Netville, including Nubiles, Paul Markham, etc.
- Too many categories, and too much cross-over among categories.
- No search utility, no model index.
- No response from webmaster, after several days.
- Last pic update: 11/5. Vids update more frequently. |
| Bottom Line: |
This site is more for people with a panty-fetish than the person who enjoys seeing women in their drawers, which means the panties are an object of interest in and of themselves, which means we see them sniffed, sucked, licked, worn on the head, and inserted into various openings (guess which ones). The main theme seems to be the idea of a woman being turned on by her own panties, and her own excreta, which seems a bit silly to me. I never met a girl who was excited by her own panties, but then I've led a sheltered life.
That being said, there are many good pic sets here, although by and large I found them to be too long, cliched, and boring. Pic sizes are mostly OK, ranging from 863x1300 to 1450x963. Many old pics are very small. Inconsistency is a problem here.
I was very impressed by a few of the vids, but mostly bored silly, as the majority of them are uninspired and typical masturbation fodder with panties as the central theme. The lesbian vids are more interesting. Bitrates ranged from 1500 to 2140 on the high-end. Older vids are of considerably lower quality. As with the pics, inconsistency was a problem for me.
Both pics and vids are sorted into several categories, but there are too many of them, and sometimes only a negligible degree of distinction between one and the other.
None of the zipfiles work. I emailed the webmaster and am awaiting a reply, as well as left a message at the site. This greatly reduced my enjoyment of the site. For some reason, many pic sets are put up out of order, causing a sense of randomness and discontinuity, we well as tedium.
This site is near the top of official TBP reviews for panty sites, but there are many sites which are superior and yet are way down on the list, such as LV Panty and Panty Freek. I'll put this down to the fact that my tastes are probably much different than most. My two favorite panty sites are not even listed here.
This site could be improved by better organization of content (more categories doesn't necessarily mean better organization) and conistency of quality. A non-responsive webmaster is also a major problem. The zipfiles have not worked since I joined several weeks ago.
I would recommend this site to people with a fetish for panties, but not necessarily to people who like to see women in their skivvies. There is a major distinction between the two, or at least there is for me. |
|
12-01-08 11:23am
Replies (4)
|
Review
39
|
Abigail 18
(0)
75.0
|
| Status: |
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
|
| Pros: |
- Abigail is bee-yoootiful.
- 5 bonus sites, yielding a good amount of content for price over-all.
- Abigail's tush.
- Good pic size (1700x1200 in newer sets)
- Abigail's breasts.
- Abigail's knee-caps, ankles, and spinal column. |
| Cons: |
- No zips.
- Videos are negligible.
- Sets are dreadfully monotonous.
- Most of the best pics are available at various TGPs for free.
- The site is anemic and seems to be strictly a commercial endeavor. |
| Bottom Line: |
My falling for this site was the result of developing a hopeless crush on Abigail and hoping - against all reason and totally contrary to experience - that I would be delighted and swept away once I got inside. This did not happen. I was mainly interested in seeing her videos, which, unfortunately, are nearly useless. Note: if you read a review of Abi's site at Porn Inspector you'll see that they claim the vids come in at 2620k and are 720x480! This is totally untrue. I didn't save any vids but I believe they are about 1100k tops and are not as big as PI claims. Not only that, the vids I checked are set to cheesy "music" and if there is any other audio it is drowned out by this semi-organized series of sounds which is sometimes, and purely for the sake of convenience, refered to as "music".
The pics, at least in newer sets, are decent (1700x1200 app.) and with 80 or so sets there are plenty of them. Unfortunately, not much effort was put into making the sets varied or interesting beyond the fact that a beautiful girl is in them. Cutesy is the order of the day, and the sets follow a predictable pattern: fully clothed, lift shirt, remove shirt, take off shorts, kneel, tug panties and show crack, show more crack, show full tush, fully naked.
The pics are soft and only rarely do you get a decent glimpse of Abi's precious peach, but that's alright since we all know what it looks like anyway, and besides, soft is what I was expecting.
There are five bonus sites on offer, all nearly identical to Abigail's: Lovely Anne, Lovely Irene, Erica's Fantasies, Jenny Reid, and Lovely Tera. All these girls are knock-outs, particularly Jenny Reid, but I simply couldn't get too excited over any of the material, for the simple reason that a good portion of it is available for free all over Netville, and the videos are mostly short, mid-quality yawnfests.
This, folks, is pure product with little or no personality. This network of sites is a money-making enterprise and while I have no problem at all with capitalism, I would like a wee bit more originality, more character, for my money, more high-end content, and less cookie-cutter material. Thanks.
P.S: Abigail is truly gorgeous. She deserves better. |
|
08-29-08 07:30pm
Replies (1)
|
Review
40
|
Cute Panty Girls
(0)
75.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Exhaustive and eclectic selection of panty-oriented content
- Some excellent video content
- Decent sized pics: avg 768x1024
- good bonus site on offer
- vids and pics are categorized for search purposes, but not in the actual lay-out of the site. |
| Cons: |
- Non-exclusive material
- lots and lots of boring, dated pic-sets
- pics seem to have been air-brushed to look fresher
- quality is pot-luck, hit and miss. |
| Bottom Line: |
I'm a panty/lingerie enthusiast and I must say things seem pretty dismal at this point all across netland, with a few rare exceptions.
Cute Panty Girls is more or less a grab-bag of odds and ends all tied together and semi-organized. I saw several sets from Panty Plaza and many others are over-familiar. There is some good stuff, but if you're into this kind of material odds are you've seen it before, and you've certainly seen better.
Video content is panty-oriented and fetish oriented. You'll see several high quality hand-job vids, some low-quality spanking vids, casting/strip/interview vids, masturbation, toys, even watersports.
Pic content is mostly lingerie and panties, with focus on glamour/softcore. There are tons of sets, nearly 900 I think, and most of it, for the panty-enthusiast who's been around, is second-rate, not to mention non-exclusive. I have to say, though, there are some diamonds in the rough. I finally got the complete set from a pic I've loved for several years, for instance. Don't know where it comes from, but it's in the top five percentile for the avid undies/lingerie pic collector, of this I'm sure.
Must mention there are two bonus sites. One of them, Jeans and Panties, contains 50 vids (and counting) which can be downloaded in HQ or HD. These vids are tepid in content but the quality is great, and the girls are gorgeous. Good quality pic sets accompany the vids. The other bonus site, Panty Lickers, offers decent quality vids and pics. |
|
12-19-07 06:22pm
Replies (4)
|
Review
41
|
Sneaky Peeks
(0)
74.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Nifty idea.
- Zip files for pics, which is the only way to go with these kind of pics.
- Videos are of good quality.
- Updated regularly. |
| Cons: |
- Small amount of content for the price.
- Vids stick to the core idea but are repetitive and tend to be boring.
- BACK OF SOME GUY'S HEAD IN A LOT OF THE PICS.
- Minimal acting and/or improvisational skills.
- Some REALLY bad boob-jobs. |
| Bottom Line: |
I enjoyed two of this company's other sites, Panty Maniacs and Panty Amateurs, and so I thought I'd give this a try. It's not nearly as good as those other sites, but it has potential.
The picture sets are shot in a frame-by-frame style which unfortunately means most of the pics are redundant. They have the look and feel of high-quality vid-caps. Only voyeur and/or panty afficianados need apply. There is some nudity but not much. And too many implants.
Someone had the "brilliant" idea of placing some guy's noggin in many of the photos, which is supposed to enhance the voyeuristic feel of the sets. This is a gigantically BAD idea. Since when did peeping become a team sport? I don't want to look over another guy's shoulder to get a glimpse of some cutie in her unmentionables, nor do I wish to have said unmentionables obscured by a large male cranium which always makes me think of Shaun of the Dead. Tell Shaun to take a hike and I'll hold the cyber door open, thanks.
As for the vids: the quality is very good and looks decent full-screen on my 22 inch monitor. But, I wish these girls would have something to do in the bathroom rather than stand around gazing into the mirror or off into space. I don't mean watersports or anything like that, I mean, give them a task. Let them do something. Most of the time the girls look bored and are overly conscious of the camera. I wind up embarrassed for THEM when I'm supposed to be ashamed of MYSELF.
Some good fun here regardless. |
|
09-01-07 08:58pm
Replies (0)
|
Review
42
|
My Cute Teens
(0)
73.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- A lot of content up.
- Decent mix of cute European models.
- Seems to update regularly. |
| Cons: |
- No zips.
- Majority of pics in photo sets are named identically: "DSCN0001- etc.", causing extra work re-naming.
- Many vids are not high quality, some very low quality.
- Site has a very "generic" feel to it. |
| Bottom Line: |
I guess somebody ought to do a review for sites like this, though it's easy to see why no-one here has ventured to do one thus far.
I have no complaints about the amount of material on offer here. There are loads of pic sets (60+ pages with app. 10 sets per page), and app. 120 vids. Some of the vids are broken up into sections.
There are some very good photo sets here, if one is willing to look for them. Pic size varies: 1200x1600 on the high end, 1000x750 on the medium, plus many sets with smaller pics. There are also some high quality vids, 2000+k, 640x480, but the bitrates go as low as 359k in the older vids.
The problem here is organization. While the pic and vid sections are separate, hard and softcore content is mixed together in both, and there are no search options. Pictures are divided in two sections, "exclusive" and "other". Sets come ten per page with a thumbnail link and a brief description. The vid section offers a long list of text links, each link being a brief description which takes you to a thumbnail giving some idea of the content, and there is only one option available for DL. The content of the videos left no impression on me. Same old-same old.
By and large this site will induce boredom almost instantly. It has a strong generic stamp and possesses no real personality or any defining characterisic apart from its "teeny-ness" which is strongly reminiscent of Club Seventeen and other euro sites. It comes with the usual plethora of bonus feeds which add nothing to its value.
Spend your money elsewhere. |
|
10-13-08 09:52pm
Replies (0)
|
Review
43
|
Little April
(0)
72.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- April is very cute and is nice to look at in every way.
- Pic quality is decent: 803 by 1200
- "teeny" niche held to faithfully. |
| Cons: |
- The site is dead, and has been for a while.
- Only 40 pic sets, avg 36 pics
- 50 or so vid episodes broken into sections, some as short as one minute. Quality is fair to lousy and does no justice to this girl.
- Masturbation scenes are as uninspired as they are uninspiring, for those of you who might be into that. |
| Bottom Line: |
I wanted to see what these teen-revenue sites were all about since I've been seeing these girls on TGPs for years. Hopefully I will do a review of each of them.
There is no point at all in joining April's site by itself, since if you like her you've probably collected most of the pics already. The vids will be of interest only to those who have an inordinate crush on April.
Impressions: April comes across as an innocent, decidedly non-trashy young lady who most likely did this to earn some money - which evidently she did and is still doing - and then moved on. She seemed semi-sleezy to me from the TGP pics only because I expected there to be harder content on her site which the free pics were only a teasing sample of (hey, if you can't end a sentence with a preposition on a porn-review site, where can you?).
Conclusions: As cute as she is, her pics have been floating around for so long, and the site has been inactive for so long, it seems a bit dishonest to sell it as a stand-alone site worth dropping twenty dollars on, which they are still doing despite the fact that her site is included in the teenrevenue network, which is all of ten bucks more.
The extras at April's site are negligible: Teenagepink, PrivateL TV, and Panties Down are little more than small archives of old and oft-circulated pics which have a mildewy smell about them, although there are a few gems among the rubble. |
|
11-19-07 10:26pm
Replies (0)
|
Review
44
|
Asian Panty Peeks
(0)
70.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Good looking models.
- High-quality pics.
- Vids look OK.
- Interesting style, lots of mirrors, costume-play.
- Regular updates. |
| Cons: |
- Navigation is terrible to practically non-existent.
- Use of the term "Lolita" in at least one set title, which I believe is considered unacceptable nowadays and should be.
- Sets are poorly organized and contain tons of the same shots over and over, some turned sideways, some turned upside down, just to beef up the quantity of pics and to tire your patience for no good reason. |
| Bottom Line: |
I need more characters to do justice to how poorly put together this site is. Navigation? What's that? You have what seems to be two main pages with thumbs leading to the galleries. Both pages are over-long. None of the galleries are numbered. There are no model lists or browse features whatsoever. Vids are offered on the right-hand sidebar of one of the main gallery pages.
All pic sets are contained on one page each, with big thumbnails. Some sets have over 200 pics. Every set I looked at so far is made up of a few choice views of the model repeated over and over and over, with tiny variations. These sets could be trimmed by seventy percent and you wouldn't lose anything. They need someone who knows how to coordinate photo sets.
To add to the tedium someone has decided to have each pic open in a new window. Maybe I'm just an idiot but I can't see how to change this. Each pic has to be closed out in order to view another one, unless you want to keep a thousand windows open. To make things even worse, each set is numbered identically: "b_001" to b_ whatever". Always a "b", never a different letter.
This site is way softcore and caters more to the voyeur than the panty/lingerie lover. "Peeks" is what you get most of the time. There is a truckload of tease and very little pay-off, though there are a few sets which contain full nudity. The quality of some of the pics is offset by the sheer tedium caused by this site's lack of organization and concern for the customer.
Follow-Up:
upped the score to 70. |
|
09-05-07 08:09pm
Replies (3)
|
Review
45
|
School Girls Asia
(0)
70.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- Good sized pics
- Good amount of content
- Models are mostly good-looking
- Good adherence to niche |
| Cons: |
- Pics are not hi-res, and the sets are all very similar within their respective categories.
- Site is too plain. One page with all 68 models. Thumbs take you to her pics/vids.
- No updates during my month. None seem to be in the offing either.
- Vids are negligible. I'm not into hardcore, but I doubt those who are will get into these vids very much. Quality is pretty low. |
| Bottom Line: |
I love exotic models, particularly Latinas and Asians, and I've been wanting to see what this company has going for it. "Asia" in the site title could be misleading to some, since most of the models seem to be filipinas. No problem for me, since I like filipinas, but it could be for some.
I get a bit of a bad feeling when I see these sets. Some of these girls are emaciated, for one thing. Rather than feeling desire for them, I want nothing more than to give them a Big Mac. Still others look like they've been put through the ringer: rode hard and put away wet, so to speak.
More often than not, and particularly in the lesbian sets, the models seem like they're merely putting on a show. You'll notice their tongues sticking out in almost every shot, sometimes in contact with nothing - just sticking out, as if men begin to salivate when they see girls with their tongues sticking out. It's cheesy.
This is pure product and little else. Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of very attractive girls here and some good pictures, but when you have pretty girls undressing and a camera nearby almost anyone could produce something useful. The people behind this site need to expand their horizons a bit and be more creative.
I noticed, from various TGPs, that Schoolgirls Asia and LBFM are using some of the same material on both sites. So I certainly won't bother checking out the latter.
Overall, the site is serviceable but only just, and the price is way too high. |
|
08-27-07 11:27pm
Replies (0)
|
Review
46
|
Full Bush
(0)
65.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- A lot of content on offer.
- Several good pic sets.
- Zips, but see cons. |
| Cons: |
- No browse features, zero, nada (see BL).
- Small pics: 684x1024 is about the largest.
- Site is still updated, but with sets dating from 2004. This is bullshit.
- Zips for each page within sets instead of all in one. As these sets are dinky in size this is also bullshit.
- Vids look lousy in mpeg or in wmv format, and are sliced into three minute bits. Can't tell you the bitrate since my Realplayer program died and Windows media player doesn't indicate it.
- Some sets are also from Aunt Judy's. |
| Bottom Line: |
Here's the kicker, folks: On the tour you get search options: you can look at the list of models, and/or search by letter. On the member's page, however, you get nothing of the sort. All the member's area offers is a single page with a giant list of text links for both pics and vids. Good luck if, like me, you were planning on searching for the work of a few photographers whose work you admire, or for a few particular models you've always liked.
What possible reason could there be to include search options in a guest tour and leave them out in the site proper? This is just plain stupid. Stupid or lazy. Or both. Okay, both.
To add insult to injury, the site is updating with material that is at least four years old, as far as I can see, and the material is NOT high quality. Some sets have been imported from Aunt Judy's and, I would guess, from other company sites as well. Not much effort has been put into this site and it is far too expensive.
Some of the material is good enough that I would recommend a membership IF:
The welcome page sold the site as an unsearchable and dead-plain archive of older and sub-par material, and if the price were cut in half. Short of these two things, Full Bush is pretty much a waste of time and money. |
|
05-30-08 09:44pm
Replies (0)
|
Review
47
|
Village Ladies
(0)
63.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
- A fair amount of nice pictures.
- Site is mature and contains nothing sleezy or trashy.
- The basic premise of the site is good. |
| Cons: |
- A large percentage of the pics have been moved into a separate archive, which requires a separate membership.
- No videos.
- No zip-files.
- Small pictures (avg. 600x800 up to 749x1123), of fair to middling quality.
- Very small thumbnails.
- Pages load slowly.
- Sliding sidebar which moves as the scroll-button is moved. Very annoying.
- Some models in dire need of a dentist. |
| Bottom Line: |
Woody Allen opens one of his films with an old joke: Two women are at a restaurant and one says, "the food here is lousy.", and the other replies, "Yeah, and such small portions."
That joke applies pretty well to Village Ladies. For instance: I could complain that a considerably large percentage of the pictures have been moved to a separate archive which I can't access; but at the same time it would be silly to complain since ninety percent of those pics would do nothing for me anyway. But complain I will, hence the reference to Woody's joke.
As soon as I entered the member's section, disappointment and tedium ensued. First, no zips. Second, the thumbs loaded slowly and were so small I could hardly make out the image. Third, I clicked on one link in the model's index and was taken to a page which invites you to join a separate site where the older pics are now stored. On return to the model's index, that link was now yellow (visited) as were all the links to sets I would not be able to access. The sudden over-abundance of links to sets I could not access was somehow insulting, as if a joke had been pulled on me.
While beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder, I found *very few* attractive models here. There's nothing wrong with being homely, but if you agree to being photographed, and to having those photos featured on a site where people are paying to obtain access to those photos, and if the intention of those photos is sexual titillation, then you should be prepared to hear some unflattering comments. Unflattering comment follows:
If you have broken teeth, missing teeth, gray teeth, or brown teeth, keep the smiling to a minimum, visit a dentist, or re-consider posing for adult pictures. This comment refers to some of the models, not all of them, of course.
***
This site has been online for a number of years and now costs more than a lot of premium sites. If you have a yen for less-than-glamorous mature amateurs, Aunt Judy's is a much safer bet than this.
Read Duke's review (TBP reviewer). He does a lot less pussy-footing than me, and his five year old review needs precious little updating. |
|
11-11-08 03:01am
Replies (7)
|
Reply
48
|
N/A
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
I say good on ya, rearadmiral. I wish I had the confidence to give it a try. It's a new age, and I believe you when you give testimony to the overall goodness of the experience. I'd NEVER be with a "bargain-basement" type person, I don't care how horny I was, or how loaded I was (pun intended).
I had an "almost" with a beautiful lady in Nevada with whom I had a brief but pleasant email exchange. I searched around and around, and finally picked her because of her stunning beauty and her apparent intelligence and charm. I almost worked up the nerve to seal the deal until she told me the charge for an overnight, with the whole shebang. I told her I wanted an evening with a woman, not just a body for relieving tension. It was far too steep for me, but I almost did it anyway.
|
05-06-17 09:02pm
|
Reply
49
|
Lesbian Girl On Girl
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Review
Excellent review, lk2!
|
05-24-16 11:57pm
|
Reply
50
|
Only All Sites
(0)
|
Reply of
MikeC's Reply
MikeC, Thank you VERY much! I think I have to try this site, as it seems like it's tailor-made for me. I won't mind if some of the vids have music, but I'm glad to know that all of them don't. I will pick and choose from their giant archive, and I'll get my money's worth.
Your help is MOST appreciated! Thank you!
|
10-26-15 10:09pm
|
|
