Replies Received
|
Replies to your reviews or comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
CatSteppings's Review
from Sasha Bones:
I have been a member of AW since about 2006 off and on, through all the shoots and controversies and I can say the quality is unmatched. I joined strictly because I dig lesbians, and lesbians are great. Also dig 'em. That being said, there really isn't a site that does them better. You can find some that shoot strictly pros, with the fake tits, fake moans, fake orgams, pretty much everything is fake except the money being siphoned from your bank account.
I have to admit, i don't know if AW is high or not simply because I don't really shop around that much. but what I can say is, with the original content these guys do, they are putting out a product instead of combing other sites and paying fees to use others work. The models are the photographers in a lot of cases, but they are being paid for increasingly quality work so are pros.
What I don't like about AW is since the move to Amsterdam, many of the new crop of women don't spend a lot of time on oral but that is simply my preference so I notice when it is absent. I have paid on and off over the years, been through pretty much every rate change and am not paying ala carte. However I am paying 2.49, I don't remember being offered the .99 per shoot grandfathered rate.
Would definitely recommend this site, especially if you are a big amateur lesbian fan.
|
12-09-14 04:12pm
|
Reply
2
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#11
from AWpress:
(CatSteppings's Reply)
Hi Catsteppings,
Just ducking in to confirm that your 'grandfathered' $0.99 cent rate won't change; it's something that dates back to our earliest beta-tests of pay-per-scene.
|
08-15-14 06:43am
|
Reply
3
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
CatSteppings's Review
from greg909:
I suspect this review is a plant by Abby Winters. Either that or perhaps you've never visited many porn sites! The photography is absolutely awful; it lacks fine detail in most sets, and shot without decent lighting. It is true that the models are great, but that's not much use if the pictures are worthless. Often, the only clear in focus unobstructed picture of both face and pussy is the last one in the set where the model is standing.
From what I can gather, most of the photography is by ex-models from the site. They seriously, and I mean SERIOUSLY need some professional photographers on the site. If they did that, and increase new sets by about 400 percent, then they'd be a good site.
Great concept , poorly executed.
|
08-14-14 04:01am
|
Reply
4
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
CatSteppings's Review
from Cybertoad:
Nice review, welcome to Porn Users.
I like the work at Abbywinters, but the shear huge price tag
keeps me away. The site seems to be lacking in so many areas including many reports of throttling. Half the review at TBP is cons yet everyone gives them extreme high marks. I wont join a site that take my money then tells me how I can download it. Especially at this kinda pricing practices. If they are going to have these practices the site should be 10.00 cheaper minimum. Of course these are just my own opinions and I am pretty picky on what sites I join.
|
08-12-14 06:27am
|
Reply
5
|
abbywinters
(0)
|
Reply of
CatSteppings's Review
from abbywinters:
Heya, Just wanted to say thanks for the kind words. We're working on releasing True-HD (we shoot at 1080, but only release at 720) soon.
|
08-12-14 05:52am
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
