| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1726
|
Aaliyah Love
(0)
|
Reply of
kbal24's Reply
Well - wellcome to a new PU with what seems to be a damn fine site and a good review to tell some of us "oldtimers" about it.
I personally look forward to join it - she's certainly a knockout!
|
03-03-09 07:37am
|
Reply
1727
|
Aaliyah Love
(0)
|
Reply of
kbal24's Review
Always wonder when somebody gives a 100 in score.
It could because they're related to the webmaster or something like that - it could be mere fanatism about a site or just some new PU who completely got crazy about the model in a solo site.
I think it's the last here or like it.
Just took a look at the preview - and this girl is something else, for sure - she's simply just GREAT. And so are her short video-previews
BTW, kbal24: how long is the awerage video in minuttes?
And finally thanks this input to some PU who's still looking and looking for new stuff...
|
03-03-09 06:58am
|
Reply
1728
|
Super Glam
(0)
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Comment
Thanks for this fine update from good ol' exotics4me....
Admit, I'm surprised to read it, but, man - it sounds really good. If that site finally has taken a hold of themselves it's just good news, because ONCE they had some great stuff.
Running in there to take a look at the site again....
|
03-03-09 05:49am
|
Comment
1729
|
Nubiles.net
(0)
|
|
03-03-09 05:37am
Replies (5)
|
Reply
1730
|
N/A
|
Reply of
ramscrota's Poll
james4096 certainly has a point.
But also I see one problem: Why does a guy in a pornflick has to jerk himself off to climax after some fine sex?
We see it way too many times in most scenes: a fast pull-out of the girlmodel and then this - sometimes - everlasting self-jerking in the face, mostly (we've been through all that face-cum, so I'll not get into that here).
But it seems a bit strange in relation to reallife sex - how many men/guys does that in their own sex - Oh, of course there's a value in watching the climax on film (even if some creampie is done well), but why is that climax - in the open - not performed by skillfull girl-hands? - even on the stomach or on the tits...
Bottom line: I'm pretty tired of too much in-the-face-self-jerking in too many clips...
Climax can be done a lot more elegant and with variations. Why do I also think of the french here - like a lot of the sex scenes at Explicite Art...?
|
03-03-09 05:21am
|
Reply
1731
|
N/A
|
Reply of
ramscrota's Poll
Well, boys.... I stated "Uncle who?".
First who the hell is that uncle?
Second: Who are "dirty old men"?
Middle-aged PUs who like teens?
Not likely.
And then I saw the reply from the Drooler.
Man, I did not see that review of Oldje before I went back to the poll again.
Still, It's a pretty fine exampel of a simplification of the term "dirty old men" - I would not go as far as using the term "discremination".
And Droolers review of the somewhat dammed fine older site Oldje is more than welcome for this user.
Been a member before - and what strikes me the most here is, that this site produces some of the finest euro-teens - and some NOT seen anywhere else. And I enjoy it - old boys fucking them or not.
And BTW: Droolers review hits it square on the head - thanks for that review, bro....
|
03-01-09 10:57am
|
Reply
1732
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
Thanks to Toadsith - man, this is certainly leads/links to a lot of new stuff - already I look forward to some good ol' browsing here....and see whats comming up - very welcome to those hints...
|
02-28-09 11:54am
|
Reply
1733
|
Amateur Allure
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
Lol, jd....and agree!
|
02-28-09 01:53am
|
Comment
1734
|
British Beaver
(0)
|
|
02-26-09 08:55am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
1735
|
Teens-r.us
(0)
|
Reply of
rayone's Review
Thanks for that review, rayone - I see it mostly as a welcome warning - had my eyes on the site.
But the facts that:
"Image quality is poor and the videos are not of the girls in the image section."
...says a lot.
One thing I really dislike is when models in the preview is not present at videos in the member-area...and, man: non exclusive videos...
|
02-26-09 02:17am
|
Reply
1736
|
Video Angels.tv
(0)
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
Monahan - yes, bro - first of all I guess it's a one month site ONLY - the updates seems really slow, so..
The quality of videos are VERY different throughout the site - I've not been through all yet - first I go for my favorites. But compared to some "top-sites" you got to be prepared for some videos in average/low quality, alas.
Still I rate it the 80 because of a handfull of more fine videos with those "old timers" - but again: compared to "better sites" the quality is very much unstable - I'd say half is fine/ok...
But finally from one Fiona Cooper-fan to another: You get the girls/models from that time - and man, some of those videos of the models mentioned in my review is a revival - not crisp in viewing quality, but you can live with it...for most of them.
And oh, btw - the photo-deal is very slim (14 sets) and not worth much...
|
02-22-09 12:11pm
|
Comment
1737
|
Video Angels.tv
(0)
|
|
02-22-09 07:25am
Replies (0)
|
Reply
1738
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Drooler, I guess it's the shower-scene with Luciana at 1by your're talking about.
And what I recollect is that the scene with Luciana from january 22 (the lingeri-set) is about the same.
Concerning "replays", "reediting" or whatever at 1by, I got the same notion at the moment - never thought that this site would get tiresome..
Ending my membership this term - and sure, I got the same thing here: It'll take a while before returning...
And, alas - the same goes for Teendreams.
Found some rather special stuff on some british site I'd asked Khan to put on TBP - for a later review. It's mostly with some wellknown ( in Europe anyway) uk-models from the 1990th...WELL, at least it's something new even if it's ten og 15 years old... be back..
Denner
|
02-22-09 05:53am
|
Reply
1739
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
|
Reply of
TheRizzo's Reply
I agree to some extend (there's fine licensed stuff at Teendreams once in a while) - just getting tired of finding similar stuff on different sites - and that's kind of paying for the same thing more than once..
|
02-21-09 04:00pm
|
Reply
1740
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
Not any of the four answers really covers my opinion here.
The closest is:
"Only if it has good reviews"
But, man - a site that charge $35 or more really has to have something extra.
There are on a very few sites like that for a charge that high - and even if some of those has a content, I've really been looking for, I'll still hesitate - and probably wait til the site grows and/or till I feel I can afford it - compared and along with other memberships...
|
02-21-09 11:13am
|
Reply
1741
|
Teen Dreams
(0)
|
Reply of
ByteMaster's Comment
Generally I certainly agree with with our new fellow PU, ByteMaster.
The definition of the concept: EXCLUSIVE is getting to a point where things seems to be influenced by a still worse economy in the way of experiencing new AND socalled "exclusive" material on a lot of sites.
We're all seeing more and more licensed stuff on TOO many sites. Licensed material may be all right to a certain degree, but in the final aspect it means, that we users join sites where we can risk spending our money twice (or more) for the same stuff...
We've been around this subject before, but since ByteMaster brings it up, I think its a good idea to mention to the site-owners, that this policy is or can be a matter of some sort of inflation - if sites keep up this policy, it'll problably result in loosing a lot of PUs and others as costumers...
|
02-21-09 11:02am
|
Reply
1742
|
Scoreland
(0)
|
Reply of
Tree Rodent's Reply
Second Squirrel - could not think of it differently - this is THE place to shout out loud if a site mistreat their obligations to any user - the more serious and relevant warnings we get, the better.......
And Anth: you got every right to be pissed!
|
02-12-09 08:28am
|
Comment
1743
|
Twistys
(0)
|
|
02-11-09 02:44pm
Replies (1)
|
Reply
1744
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
Man, this is a hard one, Drooler...
I never pay much attention to ratings at a specific site - especially ratings of models.
Mainly because I almost disagree or in too many sites there are no model-rating at all. If I'm not mistaken, a lot goes for scene-ratings.
It's difficult to rate a certain model, in general - we all got different taste
- even if there are some "top-models" we all can agree upon.
Another item is: why do some sites skip those ratings?
Maybe because we all got our favorites - and after that there are some new models - take Nubiles, for instance.
That site keeps comming up with entirely new models (not all, of course) - but how do you rate, how do you compare: By their looks, by their acting, by the editing of a photoshoot or video - well, I'm still uncertain about this very interesting poll - and it deserves even more discussions at some new threads...
|
02-11-09 10:55am
|
Reply
1745
|
Danni.com
(0)
|
Reply of
TheRizzo's Reply
Thanks, bro - Danni is still somewhat of an institution - I've allways thought, though - that their preview lacks a lot......and again maybe that's why old/former members keep re-joining - just to see what has happend...
|
02-09-09 11:16am
|
Reply
1746
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Rick's Poll
Those feeds are mostly just meant as a "promiss" of something "extra" - when you join a site. A false and luring appetizer...
And for all those sites, I've joined over the years: Those feeds (if any) have been entirely worthless.
|
02-08-09 09:36am
|
Reply
1747
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Reply
Well the question was to all here at PU, sorry if it was not so clear (I think so, anyway), but I try again in my highschool (scandinavian)english:
VideoBox has 2 different prices for sign-up: Standard resolution: 9.95 og DVD-resolution: 17.95.
BUT: Signing-up for the DVD-resolution does generally NOT give you better videos than the standard-resolution - in this users opinion and - what it seems - quite a few others.
Hope it's more clear now...
|
02-08-09 07:56am
|
Reply
1748
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
TrashMan's Comment
Once again we got a PU to comment on the strage things with the quality of videos from VideoBox - thanks for bringing it up again, Trashman.
For a long time and during many join-ups I've had this problem with VideoBox: Oh, I'd like to spend an extra few dollars to get the socalled HD-stuff, but every time I get dissapointed.
The reason is as stated by Trashman: the resolution in socalled HD (or WMVDVD) is NOT better than ordinary socalled WMVHigh - both at times I went for the older stuff and the new videos...
So: Is there no difference at all and is it just a scam to take more money from PUs and others....?
|
02-08-09 07:41am
|
Reply
1749
|
Mano Job
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
Yes, bro - it's "nice" without all that pseudo-interview-stuff. And sure, forgot that importend issue about the missing zip - was too busy browsing all those fine videos....
|
02-08-09 05:14am
|
Reply
1750
|
AT Kingdom
(0)
|
Reply of
Mr Fountain's Reply
Guess you're - very - right about the videos. My score is related to me beeing hook on videos - and here ATK lacks some - the amount and girl-quality of photosets alone is probably worth a better score...you can browse forever and forever...
The same goes for Karups, BTW - This user finds that site a bit better, all around..
|
02-06-09 07:43am
|
