Crap Private galleries on AdultWork

[Ali Katt]

A chance to name and shame overpriced or galleries that offer nothing that isn't free. No nudity, overpriced, all (or most) pictures available in free gallery, fakes or blurry\photos that show nothing. To list you must have bought the gallery, no speculation and no "it's 5 credits so obviously a rip-off" and no posting of galleries. Stop punters being ripped off.

Please note: this is not a reflection of the prossies themselves as escorts and they could provide great service. In PGs I look for full nudity, full profile shots and face pics, to determine whether I see the girl.

xxxBBW ZOExxx cost 0.5 31 pics - no full nudity, only two topless shots and ones covered with her hands, some of the pictures are in free gallery (4 pictures). Face pictures are free so no value added. I was disappointed as I wanted to see her tits.
External Link/Members Only

Aurora_ 1.5 24hours 181 pics - large number of pics, full nudity, but the face is covered in all pics, a lot of the pictures are of sissies\femdom so basically show bloke's cocks why would I want to pay for that? (at least 50 pics), a large number of the pictures are fully clothed and most are a few years old, all pics are watermarked with her name, offers nothing which isn't free apart from a few pussy shots. higher price than average as well. I wanted to see a face pic, she has a good reputation, but will never get a booking from me. Fucking rip off.
External Link/Members Only

[Jimmyredcab]

Yes, it is annoying ---------------- however I don't pay for nudity, I hope to see a clear face picture.   

[CatBBW]

xxxBBW ZOExxx cost 0.5 31 pics - no full nudity, only two topless shots and ones covered with her hands, some of the pictures are in free gallery (4 pictures). Face pictures are free so no value added. I was disappointed as I wanted to see her tits.
External Link/Members Only

All her private gallery pics (bar one) say (NN) - this means they are Non-Nude and not showing any nipple or bum crack etc.

But you should report the repeated pics, this isn't allowed.

[CatBBW]

Aurora_ 1.5 24hours 181 pics - large number of pics, full nudity, but the face is covered in all pics, a lot of the pictures are of sissies\femdom so basically show bloke's cocks why would I want to pay for that? (at least 50 pics), a large number of the pictures are fully clothed and most are a few years old, all pics are watermarked with her name, offers nothing which isn't free apart from a few pussy shots. higher price than average as well. I wanted to see a face pic, she has a good reputation, but will never get a booking from me. Fucking rip off.
External Link/Members Only

All her pics are very well titled and described. None of them say she's showing her face. Lots of mentions of males and cocks and TVs.

I could understand you being pissed off if the first lady's pics all said "naked tits" but when you got to see them they were just of cleavage, and I could understand you being annoyed if the second lady's pics said "see my face" and it was actually a cock, but - especially the second lady's pics - they all seem to be correctly titled, and you can see the titles (and descriptions) before you pay. IMO I don't think these particular ladies are ripping people off.

[Taggart]

I seldom pay for PGs. On the occasions I have done, it's been worth a couple of squid to save £120 as the WG has had a face for radio.

[petitealice]

I think aw does screw up with the non nude tag. Several of my pg photos were labelled as non nude, including a full nude one, when they clearly were nude. It doesn't help punters at all, particularly when some non nude photos are not tagged as non nude.

[CatBBW]

I think aw does screw up with the non nude tag. Several of my pg photos were labelled as non nude, including a full nude one, when they clearly were nude. It doesn't help punters at all, particularly when some non nude photos are not tagged as non nude.

I agree. They do screw it up, I regularly have arguments with them marking my clearly naked pics as NN. But the OP bought a gallery (the first lady linked to) where they were all but 1 marked Non-Nude and then was pissed off that all the pics were...Non-Nude! 

[sublimetoridiculous]

I think it would really help if all PGs were marked as showing a face picture or not. The ones with face pictures are going to get a lot more click throughs ...

[nigel4498]

I never purchase PG photos, if no face pic on main profile I email and request one, very few refuse.
Some are just silly, saw one who wanted £15 once. No way will I pay 50p let alone 15 quid.

[Ali Katt]

All her pics are very well titled and described. None of them say she's showing her face. Lots of mentions of males and cocks and TVs.

For 1.5 it was overpriced given half the pictures were gay content IMHO. My mistake, but I didn't view the albums before I bought so had no idea what was in it and I'm sure I wasn't the only one. Maybe there is a flaw in AW only letting you view the name of 30 PG pics before payment. I designed this as an opportunity to list crap galleries they have purchased and despite the good labelling I thought 1.5 for what was maybe 10 pussy shots was overpriced. I paid with the expectation of seeing her face, as I have some doubts over her attractiveness, she never listed NOT showing a face pic (double negative).

[Ali Katt]

English_Gal 1 credit 24 hours 65 pics
External Link/Members Only

Very few decent pictures, all seem like they are webcam captures so are blurry or dark. There's some pussy shots and cock sucking, but very few tit shots and from what I can remember no full profile nudes. Mainly lingerie and basque shots. Not worth a credit.

 

[Ali Katt]

All her private gallery pics (bar one) say (NN) - this means they are Non-Nude and not showing any nipple or bum crack etc.

But you should report the repeated pics, this isn't allowed.

The tits shots are only topless, I know this is still non-nude, but labelling most pics xxx is clearly misleading.

[CatBBW]

The tits shots are only topless, I know this is still non-nude, but labelling most pics xxx is clearly misleading.

I totally agree with you there - but this is down to the "LOL xxx" txtspk culture. I can almost guarantee that the "xxx" wasn't saying "this is triple red hot", it was most likely 'kisses' done through habit (even her name has xxx's in it). Still agree that this is ambiguous at best.

[Jimmyredcab]

I seldom pay for PGs. On the occasions I have done, it's been worth a couple of squid to save £120 as the WG has had a face for radio.

I agree, refusing to buy a private gallery can be false economy, even if you decide to "walk" you will have wasted your time plus traveling expenses.   

[adindas]

Yes, it is annoying ---------------- however I don't pay for nudity, I hope to see a clear face picture.   

Same here. I peek the PG to see the clear picture of the prossie I will meet ...
Face picture and nudity is certainly better a more accurate figure.

But I am also fully aware that face picture and nudity are not guaranteed in the PG.

[Ali Katt]

Bustylondongirl89 0.5 24 hours 4 pics External Link/Members Only
As bad as expected, the non nude picture is almost the identical shot to the one in her free gallery. One clothed picture of her arse, one of a pink top and one in stocking and black bra.
This is her free shot that is similar: External Link/Members Only

[CatBBW]

Bustylondongirl89 0.5 24 hours 4 pics External Link/Members Only
As bad as expected, the non nude picture is almost the identical shot to the one in her free gallery. One clothed picture of her arse, one of a pink top and one in stocking and black bra.
This is her free shot that is similar: External Link/Members Only

3 Non-Nude (NN) pics out of 4, stop wasting your cash, Ali Katt.

(PS: AW set the price at 0.5 creds for 24 hours if you have less than 5 pics in your Private Gallery)

[Ali Katt]

3 Non-Nude (NN) pics out of 4, stop wasting your cash, Ali Katt.

(PS: AW set the price at 0.5 creds for 24 hours if you have less than 5 pics in your Private Gallery)

I might look at yours next Catherine  I was hoping some other members had some to report. I've got some freeviews anyway so no big deal.

[CatBBW]

I might look at yours next Catherine  I was hoping some other members had some to report. I've got some freeviews anyway so no big deal.

Heh, I look forward to it 

Don't feel that I'm having a go at you specifically, I was also hoping that others would join in and I could point out why they had probs with their PG choices - or not! Keep it active, you never know when people might want to join in

[Daffodil]

Heh, I look forward to it 

Don't feel that I'm having a go at you specifically, I was also hoping that others would join in and I could point out why they had probs with their PG choices - or not! Keep it active, you never know when people might want to join in

You're derailing the thread and defending the prossie.

Ali is stating his opinion (very usefully) and giving us a description of the private gallery. Whether you think he's being harsh is irrelevant and we can do without you commenting on each post stating why the prossie is correct. Why don't you butt out? 

[dilettante]

I agree, refusing to buy a private gallery can be false economy, even if you decide to "walk" you will have wasted your time plus traveling expenses.   

Yes, often the gap between their normal gallery and their PG is as wide as the one between their boobs, even an overpriced PG is well worth it.

I would advise against Higgibabe as her PG is basically the same as her normal gallery, no nudity or face shots - External Link/Members Only