| Review:
JUNE
2006
RE-VISIT
It's
only
a
few
months
after
our
last
visit
but
this
site
is a
LOT
better.
There's
been
a
major
overhaul
and
most
of
the
things
we
found
really
frustrating
have
been
fixed.
It
could
still
use
a
bit
of
tweaking,
but
it's
now a
solid,
reasonably-priced
site
that
shouldn't
disappoint
aficionados
of
the
authentic
amateur
experience. First
off
there's
a
new
logo,
layout
and
design.
And
it
looks
really
good.
About
the
only
thing
we
didn't
groove
to
were
the
scrolling
messages
in
the
address
bar
of
our
browser.
These
have
always
seemed
to
us
to
be
an
annoying
distraction.
Otherwise:
100%
improvement!
We
love
the
pink
Union
Jack
concept.
That's
sharp
design.
Navigation
is
really
simple.
There's
a
diary
and
forum
area
that
allows
for
quick
and
easy
posting.
"Treats"
features
a
bunch
of
extras
from
Gamma
Entertainment.
The
exclusive
videos
(of
which
there
were
67
up
when
we
visited,
running
5-10
minutes
each)
come
in
two--high
and
low
resolution--formats.
The
high
is
500
kb/s
and
320x340.
The
low
is
around
150
kb/s.
Best
of
all,
the
pics
in
the
photo
galleries
are
now
all
downloadable.
And
they
are
surprisingly
big
for
this
niche
too,
clocking
in
at
around
1200x1600.
Updates
are
being
added
once
a
week,
Laura's
on
cam
daily,
and
in
one
of
those
terrific
original
touches
that
the
smaller
independent
sites
are
always
coming
up
with
there
is a
page
where
you
actually
vote
for
the
next
update.
Thumbs
up
to
all
of
this. Of
course,
this
wouldn't
be
Pornreports
if
we
didn't
have
some
critical
comments
to
make
as
well.
Forthwith: (1)
The
videos
often
play
like
camshows.
Which
isn't
surprising
because
we
assume
that's
what
a
lot
of
them
are.
So
you
get
fixed
camera
positions,
dark
lighting,
and
Laura
constantly
looking
off
in
some
other
direction
rather
than
at
the
viewer.
And,
of
course,
poor
sound.
Which
was
doubly
disappointing
because
it
would
have
been
nice
to
hear
Laura
talk
a
bit.
The
videos
that
are
a
little
more
"produced"
are
a
lot
better.
We
should
emphasize
that
this
doesn't
make
them
any
less
amateur
or
realistic.
It's
just
that
camshow
video
is
good
for
a
striptease,
but
not
much
else. (2)
We
had
some
intermittent
problems
with
links
not
working
and
downloads
breaking
off.
At
other
times,
however,
things
worked
fine.
Perhaps
there
are
just
some
bugs
being
worked
out,
but
we
thought
we
should
mention
it. Overall
this
is
now
a
good
little
amateur
site
with
plenty
of
personality
and
hands-on
interaction.
Our
main
wish
would
be
to
see
Laura
break
out
of
the
camshow
formula
more.
The
flashing/exhibitionist
material
is
definitely
one
big
step
in
that
direction.
Another
would
be
to
have
Laura
talk
to
the
camera,
or
even
dramatize
a
bit.
Given
how
much
this
site
has
improved
just
in
the
last
few
months
we
wouldn't
be
surprised
if
it
continued
to
get
better
in
these
and
other
ways.
FEBRUARY
2006
REVIEW
As
you
might
have
gathered
from
the
address,
this
site
features
a
British
amateur
whose
bra
size
is
32DD.
A
bit
more
detail:
The
girl
in
question
is
married,
25
years
old,
and
works
as a
secretary
in
London.
Her
name
is
Maria.
She
enjoys
being
naughty
in
front
of a
camera.
Hence
. .
.
this
website. Inside,
the
members
area
is
pretty
in
pink
but
also
pretty
crude.
The
About
page
gives
you
some
biographical
stuff.
Nothing
special.
And
for
living
in
the
land
of
Shakespeare
the
writing
is a
bit
rough.
It
starts
off
with
"Up
Close
and
Personell
[sic]"
and
ends
with
her
ambition
to
grow
hair
"down
to
my
waste."
Enough
said. Next
section:
Photos.
And
boy-oh-boy
did
we
get
a
nasty
surprise
here.
The
photo
albums
are
all
viewed
through
a
Flash
player.
Which
means
the
pages
are
slow
to
load,
hard
to
view,
confusing
to
use,
and
don't
allow
you
to
save
any
of
the
pics. In
case
you
missed
that
part
we'll
repeat
it:
You
view
all
of
the
pics
through
a
Flash
player
and
you
don't
get
to
save
any
of
them. Holy
fuck.
Been
a
while
since
we've
seen
anybody
try
and
do
that.
And
god
only
knows
why
they're
so
paranoid
about
protecting
this
content
since
(a)
they
don't
protect
the
video;
and
(b)
the
pictures
aren't
that
good.
Basically
a
lot
of
nude
posing
and
some
exhibitionist/flashing
shots.
They
aren't
very
big
and
the
lighting,
even
outdoors,
is
terrible.
Looked
like
about
30
galleries
total,
which
isn't
a
lot
(they
only
advertise
700
photos).
The
main
photo
index,
however,
repeats
the
links
to
all
the
different
galleries,
so
it
looks
like
there's
twice
as
much
content
as
there
really
is.
This
can't
be
deliberate
since
you're
already
in
the
members
area,
so
we
put
it
down
to
more
sloppiness. Videos:
Seems
like
a
pretty
long
list.
Around
180
clips.
The
thumbnailing
is
terrible.
Just
one
little
postage-stamp
size
pic
per
clip.
These
clips
are
Windows
Media
format
and
all
seem
to
be
between
1-10
megs
and
1-5
minutes
in
length.
The
site
advertises
"high-res"
clips
that
play
back
at
500
kb/s.
That's
the
newer
clips.
We
downloaded
a
bunch
of
older
ones
that
were
150
kb/s.
And
yes,
they
looked
that
bad.
More
bad
lighting
and
poor
camerawork.
No
editing.
Some
shots
aren't
even
in
focus.
Cam
Shows:
About
25
archived
cam
shows.
Friends
(bonus
galleries
of
some
other
amateurs),
and
Extras
(funny
stuff). We'd
like
to
be
more
positive
about
this
site
but
we
can't.
Maria
looks
good
but
there
just
isn't
a
whole
lot
here.
And
what
there
is
here
is
poor
quality
and
not
very
well
presented.
Not
being
able
to
save
the
pics
is
ridiculous.
A
lot
of
the
video
was
well
below
average.
Site
design
was
crude.
There
was
no
indication
of
any
update
schedule. A
final
note:
We're
not
sure
what
to
make
of
the
reviews
they've
got
posted.
They've
got
Sir
Rodney's
logo
but
we
couldn't
find
where
Sir
Rod
had
ever
reviewed
them.
They
did
get
a
93%
from
Pam's
Reviews
but,
as
we
hope
you've
figured
out
by
now,
that
doesn't
mean
shit.
Does
anybody
take
Pam's
Reviews
seriously?
And
they
also
have
it
posted
that
they
received
a
score
of
87%
from
Porn
Adept,
but
when
we
checked
that
review
it
said
73%
(which
makes
a
difference). We
hate
to
seem
like
the
big
bad
guys
again,
but
as
we've
said
before:
If
you've
got
a
rating
scale
that
goes
from
1 to
whatever
you
ought
to
use
the
whole
scale.
Our
scale
goes
from
1 to
9
and
there's
no
way
we
can
give
this
an
average
score
because
it's
just
not
that
good. |
