| Bottom Line: |
This site follows the same formula used by several other sites where it appears to be a small operation. The scenes are shot by a mix of POV and tripod mounted cameras and the models are relative unknowns or are at least in the beginning of their career. This style is used successfully by sites like Exploited College Girls and Amateur Allure and with less success by sites like Broke Amateurs. Unfortunately I have to add Broke Models to the lower end of the scale for the same reason that Broke Models is there: while the porn itself is decent the site is flawed. As an armchair critic I’ll never understand why site owners make some of the choices that they do.
First the good news: the site does offer some good porn if you like this niche. I like that the models are relative unknowns and range from nervous to confident. Their looks and body types exist on a range but all are relatively petite. If you like some color in your models you won’t find it here as they are almost all Caucasian with a few Latina women thrown in. For those of you who like pregnant models you’ll find a couple here. (Dani Jensen and Jodi Taylor seem to be this only A-list models here.)
The scenes are structured in the same way used by many of these sites (and I should add that the male’s voice is familiar so he may be behind other sites too). The scene usually starts with the model fully dressed on a bed while she is interviewed. Eventually her clothes come off and the fun begins. The camera work isn't bad, but POV and tripods have limitations so don’t expect award-winning camera work here.
A trait I don’t like in my porn is common here, namely rude treatment of the models. This could be staged though. I contrast the written scene descriptions at Amateur Allure, which may say something like “Here today is a stunningly beautiful model from Florida…” to the written descriptions here which tend to be more like “Today’s skanky whore is from Florida…” The same goes for their on-screen treatment. Admittedly, AA and BM aren't really competitors but I used this for a comparison. I also have to admit that for comparison choosing AA may be unfair as they do use some stunningly beautiful models whereas sites like this seem to recruit from a lower strata in the model hierarchy.
Another trait I don’t like (mostly because it adds nothing to the scene for me) is the use of the ‘surprise’ creampie. This is used a lot at Back Room Casting Couch too. These may be staged, but the premise is that the models aren't expecting to have the guy come in them and some of them aren't happy about it. I think the intended effect is further debasing the models and that isn't something I’m into (unless it’s part of a BDSM scene where it fits into the context).
I can’t say for sure how many actual scenes are available on the site through its safe to say there are about 65 scenes. The reason I can’t say for sure is because of a bit of a fast one the site pulls. With older uploads (and they’re not dated so it isn't easy to give specific details) the scenes were broken into segments. But in some cases the more recent uploads are simply those segments joined together as the complete scene. Apart from passing off an older scene as a new one, I downloaded duplicates without realizing it. Several times I was pleased to see more by a model I liked only to be disappointed that it wasn’t different. The other problem with this practice is that the site has a download cap of approximately 15GB per six hour period. I’m no fan of download limits but I can live with reasonable ones like this. But when there are duplicate scenes that aren't labelled as such that eats into your allotment.
Another problem with the download limit is that while it is supposed to reset automatically after six hours on one occasion it didn’t. Given that there is a message telling the user how to contact support for this very problem I assume it occurs fairly frequently.
I can’t give an exact update schedule but it looks like a new scene is added weekly. The most recent update is a new scene and not one stitched together from older segments.
There are three listed download resolutions though for some reason two of them are the same. I downloaded the highest available (WMV) which came in at 1280x720 and 5000kb/s. They look good on a 24” monitor.
The site offers photos too, and while I’d normally consider that a good thing in this case I was disappointed to see that many of the models only have photos and no videos. The photos are 1800x1200 and are available in zips.
I had no trouble using a download manager.
The bottom line is that this is some good (but not great) porn that’s let down by the site. If you like scenes like this with relatively unknown models in well-shot amateur scenes then this may be worth a look. The price makes it a fair value but I suspect that this will be a one-time-only membership for me. |
