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.
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.
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?
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.
I have one and tried it for a few months. For a while it was nice, but over time the rubbery material became less silky and more clingy, almost sticky, so that it required more lube. When I had to relube it every three minutes to prevent it from becoming painful, I said enough of this.
I think the guy who runs all those site - divinebreasts, alicia loren, alexandra moore, and now the new Sapphire site - should be sued for malpractice. He has exclusive access to like 40% of the world's most beautiful large-busted women, and he films them with the technical equivalent of a Super 8 movie camera, that has a huge black frame and often no sound. It's infuriating! I wish some guy from Score or elsewhere would offer him a million bucks to buy out all his sites, then run and film the models properly.
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. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
- They have a variety of different busty and chubby models
- Updates come at regular intervals
- The models are not exclusive, but the content appears to be
Cons:
- The videos are short clips (2-5 minutes), not high res, and on some the production quality is rather low - poor lighting, or bad editing
- Too many of the models have only pics, no videos
- You don't really get any sense of who the models are; just names
- Small back catalog
- Price too high for such a marginal site
Bottom Line:
Compared to other sites in this niche - sites which feature some of the same models - this one feels like all it has to offer are 'scraps' - a few photos or a few minutes of video that another site decided not to use. So, even if in a year's time they do increase their level of content, it's not clear to me that there will be much worth looking at. It's simply not in the same league as other $20 sites.
They could improve by trying to do one thing really well: specialized in one or two models, get longer or high-quality movies, add some text or extras to the site.
I recall being a member of Big Naturals about five years ago and thinking 'this site has the best video quality of any big breast site out there!'
I signed up again last fall for a month and was thinking 'Wow, the video quality is the same as it was five years ago - but now it's inferior to that of most major sites!'
One problem the cameramen at Big Naturals and sites like Big Tits Round Asses don't seem to notice is that when you film outside on a sunny day, you often get bad pixelation, and it can spoil an outdoor scene. Big Naturals seems to have this problem a lot.
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
- Models are all extremely hot, aggressive, domineering nymphomaniacs with ninja-like sex skills.
- The fantasy scenarios actually add to the eroticism of the scenes, with the actors staying 'in character' all the way through; good nasty fantasy fun.
- The movies are extremely clear and well filmed.
- Movies are very long (about 30 min./ 500 MB, on average)
- They update often - not on a regular schedule, but averaging once per week
- Network access
- Excellent site design
Cons:
- Many of the sets are all clean white walls with too much light, which creates a harsh and clinical effect. If they made the sets more banged-up, shady, and dirty looking, the action would feel more dirty too.
- The network has about a dozen models who appear again and again, like Daphne, Carmella Bing, Ava Devine, etc., so that they're really overexposed. As much as I like those women, it's like a breath of fresh air when they bring in a new model. Adding a few more amateurs might help.
Bottom Line:
This is an excellent value for your money, in terms of quantity and quality. When you throw in the network, it's like drinking water from a firehose; they add 1 - 1.5 MB of new videos almost every day! The only drawback is that it's a little too slick and monotonous.
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.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- Attractive cast of naturally busty Polish girls
- Very good variety of scenes: some are posing, but most are naturalistic 'play' (shower, kitchen, bed, gym...); some solo, some lesbian rubbing.
- Updates are regular and always have video as well as photo
- Membership includes access to Korakryk.com and Malinamay.com
- Decent sized collection of content: 67 vid and photo sets at Polish B, 29 at Kora K, 40 at Malina M
- Camera work not bad
Cons:
- video res is of moderate quality; files are about 15MB per min. (a bit grainy), and movies average about 5 min. in length
- Malina does masturbation, and Kora K does masturbation and S&M, but most of the other girls like Aneta and Bea just pose
- the most recent updates are in a .mov format which for some reason I could not view on my Mac (usually I have no problem viewing any format)
- first month price of $29.95 is too steep, even if it drops to $19.95 after that.
Bottom Line:
They do good lesbian scenes here; and if you were thinking of joining Malina May or Kora Kryk, it would be a better value to join Boobsgarden instead and get three times as much content. A warning though if you are a Mac user: you may not be able to view the movies from the past few months.
I joined because I'm a Bea Flora and Aneta Buena 'completist'. Wasn't worth it just for the two of them! But if you like the other models, then it could be.
There seems to be some sort of relationship between Boobsgarden and Busty.pl, with some crossover in the models and an identical pricing structure. Are their webmasters in cahoots? Or are they sworn enemies, fighting vicious behind-the-scenes battles over the rights to Bea Flora? We may never know.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
- True big breast site; all the models have humungous tits
- Variety of types: different hair color, body type, age, etc.
- Models shown in a variety of scenes, some posing, some naturalistic or outdoorsy, often having fun
- Updates are fairly regular
- Pics and videos pretty sharp
- Filemona is a really cute BBW, with great movies
Cons:
- Most of the models are 'mature', middle-aged women
- With a few exceptions, the models don't act very erotic or sexy; a lot of the clips are like home-movies from a nudist camp
- Softcore, all breasts, few below the belt shots
- Production quality on the videos not great, and they've been chopped up into a large number of clips
- Some models get the high-quality video camera (Filemona, Black Pearl), others were filmed with a lower-quality one.
- Not a huge back catalog
- Expensive
Bottom Line:
The site has potential, but there's not enough material or quality to justify the high price. If you like Sabrina Meloni or Filemona, it might be worth getting now, but otherwise I would recommend waiting a year, when they should have more material to choose from and maybe more videos with the high-quality camera.
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.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
- Has aspirations to be the British equal of Scoreland
- Videos are of high-res quality, long, and the quantity isn't bad
- pretty good production values (no shaky cameras or bad lights or bad music)
- Good variety of models, in terms of bust size, body size, hair color, etc.
- predictable updating
Cons:
- Only updates once a week
- All British girls, it seems, who don't move or talk quite as sexy as American ones do (in my view)
- not a lot of variety in the concept for the videos; so, there are like three videos of Emily Cartwright where she lays on a bed and masturbates with a dildo, that are almost indistinguishable
- not enough Kerry Marie! (only one mov)
- not a huge back catalog yet
- not that many exclusive models
Bottom Line:
A solid site, sharp and high quality but not as sexy as it could be, nor as interesting. Worth a month subscription if you've never subscribed before.
Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
Pros:
Kelly Kay herself, a British dirty-blonde w/ a very distinct look: sleepy eyes, plump, pouty lips, slightly pointy nose; soft, not-quite chubby body with beautiful big breasts, areolae, and nipples, gorgeous pussy (not much of a butt though)
Good-sized collection of videos; most are long, hi-res, well staged and ably filmed
Lots of masturbation scenes, most w/ dildos; some lesbian action.
Good price for 3 mo. subscription, and available for $18/mo. through rabbitsreviews
Cons:
A lot of the videos monotonously follow the same formula: undress, lie on bed, pose, and masturbate. The only thing that distinguishes most of them are the clothes she is wearing, and those are usually gone in a few minutes anyway!
Kelly looks hot, but she's a little slow and awkward the way she moves.
Movies have very cheesy soundtracks
Updates once a week, but last time I subscribed it was mostly pics, no more movies; in 2006 she was pregnant.
Bottom Line:
Of all the solo-model sites sponsored by Scoreland, this is one of the better ones. If you've never subscribed before, or haven't subscribed since the site was very young, it's definitely worth a month's subscription. Barring a miracle or big turnaround, it's probably as good now as it will ever be.
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.)
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.
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
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.
