Trust me on this one: there are LOTS of videos. 550+ sounds about right. And they're all original, not feeds or anything like that.
Every model who has appeared in the past few years has between one to ten fairly long, hi quality videos. That includes all the new models you see cycling through the home page. But some of the models in the complete database are from several years ago, and not all of them have videos.
Hmm... maybe they should have reserved grades 0-50 for the individual sites, and 51-100 for the multi-sites? Yes; and when you are elevated from volunteer contributor to official TBP editor, you can implement that... ;)
Good reviews of the BangBros sites. I agree w/ you on the relative merits of the individual sites. But there's something odd about the way we grade these sites. Say Assparade gets an 85, and OxPass gets an 86. Does the latter mean that Assparade gets an 85, and all the other sites put together only add 1 more point? Or is it that Assparade by itself gets an 85 when compared to other individual sites out there, while OxPass gets an 86 in relation to other multi-pass sites? But if that's the case, it still doesn't make sense, because you can't subscribe to Assparade all by itself, and so it's not really an individual site like, say, scoreland.com.
Anyway, I'm not criticizing your work, just pointing out how odd it is that multi-sites on TBP can be evaluated both collectively and individually.
Glad to be of help. You get a pretty good sense of the girls and the video quality from the tour, so that will tell you whether you'll enjoy the main part of the site. And then they don't even mention their dvd archive and other extras, which are also pretty good.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Large collection of quality BBW material, in 4 sections: (1) a 'reality' bangbros-style section of the site, with great sex-scenes; 24+ movies, 30 min. each.
(2) A BBW dvd section that actually has some top-notch material (not stale junk), and lots of it; 90+ movies, ~20 min. each.
(3) A Plompers 'magazine' section w/ great photo shoots, a mix of American and European models.
(4) A section of bbw 'extras' (mostly movies, mostly blowjobs)
Regular updates
Cons:
Some of the feature models on the reality section are not so pretty in the face (though most are sexy enough)
More of a BBW than a big breast or big ass site.
$30 a month is a bit too expensive now.
Bottom Line:
I always wanted BangBros to do a BBW site; that may not ever happen, but BBW Superstars fills that void quite nicely.
$30 seems like a bit much, but for it you're getting at least 3 sites worth of material; and as these guys are clearly committed to sticking around and growing, this will become more and more worthwhile as time passes.
The video quality on the reality site is super-duper; better than Bang Bros. And the crew of guys is less obnoxious; just a bunch of sweet, dumb bbw-lovers. (Trivia: the scenes all seem to be shot in the Las Vegas area.)
I was surprised by the BBW DVD section, since they don't really advertise it on the tour (nor does TBP mention it). The quality is a little lower than the reality material, but there's still some great stuff to be found (a redhead I've been obsessing over this week, in particular).
I'm confused by the Plompers part of the site, because it seems like a selection of European models' photosets, combined with a handful of American and British models' videos. Well, I don't get it, but I like it.
And if you save up your pennies, you will too. This is definitely in my top 3 of BBW sites.
There's some pretty good Bianca Beauchamp videos on Pinupglam.com and pinupfiles.com. But two caveats: it's bikini and nude rather than fetish material; and pinupfiles is a bit of a rip-off. (I did a review of the sites today, which has further details.)
Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
Pros:
50+ busty and BBW models, coming in every different shape and look, some exclusive to the site, mostly American.
A very large back catalog of pics and videos, and frequent updates
Beautiful pictures, of magazine-like quality
Playful atmosphere, with a strong 'voyeur' aesthetic to its shoots, and some quasi-fetishistic themes, like boobs tied in rope.
Inexpensive, especially considering the quantity of material
Cons:
A little too formulaic: all scenes are shot at 'Juggmaster's' house, and the poses and settings frequently repeat.
Videos have good color and contrast, and are well-filmed, but are low res.
Models in movies seem to move very very slowly, and rarely talk.
All softcore; tits and full nudity but few ass or pussy shots
Most videos are 2-4 min. clips (they're excerpts from the longer dvd movies that he sells)
Site navigation is a bit counterintuitive
Bottom Line:
For big breast and BBW fans, this was a great site when it first appeared, and it still keeps 'jugging' along, updating at the same regular pace. There are a lot of familiar faces here, both old and new, like Samantha 38GG, Maria Moore and Sapphire. If you like a site like DivineBreasts.com, this is at least as good in terms of quality, with a few more 'fat girls'. I sign up for a month once every year, and am never disappointed.
I do wish Mr. Juggmaster would overhaul the site, though. First, upgrade to a higher-res camera. Second, get the models to move and talk more; put on a tune and have them dance; go to the beach; crawl on the furniture. And finally, redo the navigation in such a way that all of a model's videos and photos are visible on one page at a single glance (which is not the case now).
I wouldn't bet on any of these things happening, though; Juggmaster seems like a real creature of habit. Which has its downside... but, got to give him credit: he's Mr. Reliable, always getting new models, and rarely misses an update.
If you don't get anywhere with customer service, you might try to cancel with your credit card company. What you do is call their help line and identify the charge and say you did not authorize it. They will start an investigation and send you a short document to sign. Return the document along with you complete email correspondence, and a letter explaining what happened. You have the right on your side, so you may get your money back.
Either the graphics on a Mac are superior to those on a PC, or I'm just used to them. Either way, I would hate to watch porn on anything but a Mac, because the colors and image quality just doesn't look right to me.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Features a number of glamour shots of stunning and gorgeous busty models: Denise Milani, Lorna Morgan, Taylor Kennedy, Erica Campbell, Anya/Busty Merilyn, Maria Swan/Jana, Monica Mendez, Bianca Beauchamp, Maggie Green, Amber Campisi..
Pretty extensive photo collection of Retro busty models from the 40's to the 70's.
Pretty good production values on video.
Professional website design
Cons:
Aside from the retro material, everything on PinupFiles is scraps and leftovers from its (superior) sister site, Pinupglam. The tour makes you think that Files is the equal of Pinupglam, but it's not!
Updates only about once a week, and contemporary models' material is even more infrequent.
Video quality is low to moderate; most scenes are video taking during photo shoots; some scenes are too brightly lit or washed out by the sun.
Far too expensive at $25 per month ($20 recurring)
Bottom Line:
Pinup Files and Pinup Glam have to be considered as a single enterprise. Glam is the superior site (unless you are interested in the Retro photo collection on Files); it has 90+ videos, avg. 5 min. long, covering all their top models, and a large collection of nice 'pinup' photoshoots. And as I mentioned in the Pros, they have some of the most beautiful busty models out there, all glamorous enough to be in Playboy, all with beautiful curves.
But there are 3 big frustrating things about these sites. First, they will do a model shoot with pictures and videos. Then they will divide the pictures up into 3 sets and edit the video into 3 different shorts. And then they will dribble out the sets and the video shorts, publishing them over a long period of time - in some cases, as much as a year-and-a-half!
The second annoying thing is that Files is just a repository of scraps not available on Glam, designed to tempt the completist into spending another $25. It only has about 25 movies, which cycle through, so that they are not even all available at the same time.
Finally, they don't update very frequently, and thin everything out with their retro material.
Bottom line: if you like the models they have, and want some sexy softcore videos of them posing and stripping, a 1-month subscription to Glam wouldn't be a bad deal.
The only thing Files will really give you is a lesson in how to water down excellent material and mislead your customers!
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
Large and diverse assortment of busty natural models, mostly European
Extensive back catalog of video and pictures
The premier site for tit-sucking video; also features a good number of lactation scenes and pregnant models.
Updates are regular and relatively frequent.
The enthusiasm of the site's creator, Cel, for his models makes the site feel kinda fun.
Cons:
The videos have good resolution, but low frames per second, which is frustrating when so many of his movies focus on movement (jumping, tit shaking, etc.)
All the scenes focus obsessively on tits, to the exclusion of pussy, ass, or any other body area; and there are no masturbation or hardcore scenes.
Average video length is about 6 min. (not 12, as TBP says)
Bottom Line:
This is a site that, like Juggmaster.com and a few others, is devoted almost entirely to one man's personal obsession with tits. Apparently there aren't that many big-bust models in France, where this site is produced; so Cel, the creator, brings in models from all over, mostly from eastern Europe and Britain. Most of the models can also be found on other sites. Lorna Morgan and Kerry Marie put in a few, all-to-brief appearances; Denise Davies shows up a fair amount; and recently Anya aka Busty Merilyn did some nice scenes here. The tour is quite thorough and extensive and will give you a good idea of what the site contains.
If you really get off on tit-sucking and lactation scenes, then this would be the perfect site for you. I would have given this site a higher score if it matched my own preferences more closely. Personally I prefer a site with less of this kind of fetish material. I also like the girls to be more outgoing and aggressive; here the models are usually in fairly passive roles, being watched or suckled. Finally, I prefer hardcore or at least some pussy exploration; but you won't find that here either.
I know you can play .wmv in other players; in fact, I use QuickTime with a .wmv codec for all my .wmv movies.
My problem with Danni was this: there were three grades of movies - I think they were 300K, 700K, and 1000K. 300K was available in Windows and I think .mov format, but the other two were only available in Windows, and for some reason I couldn't play it, even with my QuickTime and codec. For two or three years they said they would fix the problem, but they never did. So I was stuck with either crappy 300K, or a streaming option (and I hate streaming).
Now I haven't been a member in over a year, so maybe this is no longer a problem. But I wanted to see what others' experience was.
I haven't been a member for more than six months, so I won't give a review, but I can definitely recommend this site; it is one of the best of the solo models sites affiliated with the Score network, second only to Busty Merilyn, imho. They don't update very often, but when they do it's usually something good - a nice long hi-res movie. It's not a personal-touch solo site, but if you just want to feast your eyes on Kerry Marie's gorgeous body, you'll find a wealth and variety of material. (Unfortunately, nothing more hard-core than dildo masturbation.)
Is there anyone here who has taken a recent subscription to Danni.com who has a Mac? I was wondering if it's now possible to download all the movies to Mac, including the hi-res material, or whether one is still treated like a second-class citizen, limited to downloading the poor-grade stuff. Thanks
The test should be: can you actually tell that the pictures have been touched up? If you can, then it's annoying. You can tell, when a girl at hi-res is absolutely devoid of everything, including stray freckles or the tear ducts in the corners of her eyes (which Playboy used to shop out). You can also tell when there are movies that go with a set, and the girl has marks in the movies that aren't visible in the pics.
I understand that they want to make the models look more 'perfect', but to me it feels almost like censorship, or as if they were saying 'you can't HANDLE the truth!' No, it's just a freckle or a old zit; I'll be ok.
Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
Pros:
Excellent selection of beautiful busty natural models, mostly Polish, with all sorts of different looks, hair color, etc.
Extensive back catalog of movies
The clips are hi-res, w/ good camerawork
Huge collection of pics, all excellent quality
Mostly softcore posing, but some hardcore sex as well
Honest, informative tour, that let's you know exactly what they have.
Cons:
Shortcomings of the movies:
- Loud annoying intro music
- Some in the 10 min. range, but many are only 3 min. long or so
- The indoor studio scenes are often harshly lit
- Models are not given much direction; for some this is not a problem, but others seem a bit clueless
The site used to update almost daily, but now only in spurts - say, nothing for two weeks, then seven sets at once
At $30 per mo. for the first month, it is too costly ($20 is more reasonable)
Bottom Line:
This was the second Polish busty natural site to appear online, after busty.pl; but there's no overlap in the roster of models except Iva Kleinova.
There are some gorgeous, cover-girl-quality models here, including the boobs.pl-exclusive blondes Sonia and Paris, and brunettes, like Laura Lion, 'Dirty Lilly' and Klenot, who have appeared elsewhere. There are also a few British models like Kerry Marie and Denise Davies, with quite a bit of material on these women. This site has the best collection of Iva Kleinova softcore videos.
Most of the clips are shot either inside a house or out on what looks like a farm. The filmers seem to have a thing for dressing-room movies and outdoorsy, riding-bikes or playing-with-the-haystack shots; it reminds me a bit of the Playboy aesthetic. But there are sex scenes as well, for a few of the models like Klenot. (In fact, I think they have Klenot's first sex scene; she is with this chiseled but clueless hunk, and they keep having trouble getting their parts to line up. It's kinda funny, like watching teenagers do it for the first time.)
The bottom line for the clips is that about half of them are pretty crappy, but when they do get their act together, the results are unique and hot as hell.
I can't say that this is a 'must subscribe' because the price is so high. But if you like enough of the models that you see on the tour (which is excellent), you shouldn't be disappointed.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
Eva: a sexy-looking British Latina, gorgeous all over and often glamorously posed.
Has a decent number of sets (about 30) with pics and videos for each.
Some of her pictures are very hot.
Newer videos are high-res.
Network access.
Cons:
I wasn't able to watch the newer videos; they would open for a sec, then crash my player. Some of the other sites on the network had the same problem. (I have a Mac; your results may vary)
Eva is strangely reserved in her movies; she has a British 'close your eyes and think of England' look much of the time. The preview trailer for the site is misleading: all the best scenes from the movies are in it! (Like some Hollywood movies.)
Site no longer updates.
$30/mo. is too expensive.
Bottom Line:
There's really no reason to put down $30 for the Eva site, unless money is no object and you're happy with pic alones; you'd be foolish to continue it for more than a month, since it no longer updates. Some of the other sites included in the network access appear to be still active, but none of them caught my eye: a bevy of non-descript British busty amateurs, without very substantial collections of material.
I see; you're lumping all the various criteria - qualitative, quantitative, or whatever - all together. That makes sense.
Looking over some of the trust ratings and accompanying discussion, I see that most people get upset when they receive a 'No' trust without any comment. I think it would improve the system if there was a way of insuring that no one could give a 'No' without also adding a comment or discussion or some kind of reason for it (a pop-up box that needed to have a minimum of twenty characters, say). The 'Yes' ratings help other users judge who is trustworthy, but the 'No' ratings ought to also give the reviewer some feedback - some sense of how they could improve. For if you look at the 'No's', only a few people are getting them because they are jerks or trolls; most people get them because there is something really lacking from one or more reviews. And they should be told what that is.
Hey, Khan - Yeah, 'trust' is a rather flexible term, especially when you're talking in the abstract, and dealing with something on the internet. I wasn't sure where the definition of 'trust' you're referring to was, so I looked at the FAQ, and this looks like the key passage. I'm going to be criticize this, but just to point out that the ambiguity I mentioned is present even here:
"In essence, the Trust Rating is simply a way to allow the community to judge for themselves who's remarks are trustworthy based on that user's activity."
This basically says that 'trust' = 'trustworthy'. Well, sure; but that doesn't clarify things very much.
"In other words, can the reviewer's remarks be trusted to be accurate to what others will find if they visit a site."
Now "accurate" here means "factually correct" - but what are the facts we're talking about: the other users' personal, qualitative experience with the site (how good, worthwhile, or erotic is it), or the actual, hard, quantitative data about the site (price, number of models, etc.)? And if "trust" means "accuracy," why not just call it "accuracy," or maybe "reliability"?
Anyway, just some food for thought. Is there a definitive discussion of the trust rating somewhere that I haven't found?
I think the 'trust' rating is ambiguous - does it mean you don't think the reviewer is lying or making up facts? Does it mean that you have found his or her opinions square pretty well with your own? Or does it mean that in some hard to define way you like the reviews, even though you may disagree with them or find them less than totally reliable factually?
Was a member approx. 4 months prior to this review.
Pros:
Monique: an unforgettable raven-haired BBW with absolutely enormous tits: 46P!!!
A decent video collection, for a niche amateur site, about 2hrs. worth of movies total, with an even larger photo library.
A good variety of scenes: the usual bed and shower settings, as well as a great swimming pool shot and a striptease dance. Monique can make her body move!
The scenes and shoots have a home-movie feel but they're quite well done, w/ decent camera work.
Member requests taken
Cons:
Video quality is so-so - like that of Divine Breasts - and a few movies lack sound.
Updates are sporadic and are often just photos without movies.
The Massive Mellons network that represents the bonus access is a large but crappy hodge-podge.
Bottom Line:
You can probably tell from this and other reviews that I have a thing for BBWs. If you find Monique as mind-blowing as I do, you won't be disappointed with a month's subscription to this site. It's amateurish, but Monique is clearly enjoying herself and makes everything sexy; her swimming pool video completely melts my brain. And I'm willing to bet a good sum of money that no young caucasian woman on the entire internet has larger boobs than her. If I'm wrong, let me know!
Note II: I should add that her movies come broken down into 1 min. mpeg clips. This doesn't bother me, since I just stick all the clips in a folder and then join them together using a freeware program called 'mpgtxwrap' (for Mac).
Some honest, quality sites might be worried that they would lose money if they offered $3-4 full access trials. But if sites aren't willing to do a $3 full-access, trial, they should at least go for a $8 one, like Scoreland.com. It seems to me that the Score guys are out to squeeze every penny that they can out of their customers; which tells me that $8 for a trial is not a money-losing proposition, otherwise they wouldn't be so stupid as to continue it.
Was a member approx. 4 months prior to this review.
Pros:
The site's been around forever; it has an ENORMOUS collection of big-boob photos and videos, including:
1) newer, exclusive pics/vids of models, mostly British, mostly naturals, hardcore and softcore
2) complete full-length movies from the past two decades of busty porn; mostly American, mostly hardcore, lots of silicone
3) clips of busty models from the 'Golden Years' (60's -80's)
Regular, plentiful updates
Simple, effective site design
Lots of rare material I've never seen elsewher
Cons:
Video quality is medium-range at best, even for the new material; as you go back in time, the resolution gets poorer and you add in the funny lighting and sound that characterizes old-style porn
I think a number of the full-length movies - Boobarella, say - are available elsewhere in better quality.
Bottom Line:
I'm amazed that Boobcamp isn't much better known - is it because they're British? Because they don't advertise on the meta-sites? It's hard to say why.
Anyway, it definitely deserves a place on anyone's list of the top-20 big tits sites. There is so much material that you're guaranteed to find things you like, and things you've never seen before; for me the major find were some movies of Letha Weapons and Kerry Marie, and the best collection of Betty Boobs on the internet.
If you're a big fan of British busty naturals, it would be worth your while to become a regular subscriber; they offer more material than Busty Britain, for example, although the video quality is not as good.
Also, if you're dial-up, this place would be good for you, since the files average about 3 MB per minute of film. I prefer higher-res, but I got my money's worth from this subcription.
The very bottom line: if you're a boob-lover, check it out! This site's a real mine of possibilties.
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
