Private gallery content

[simpleton69]

Just subscribe to a private gallery and feel a little cheated as only 5% of the photo are what i would consider worthy of being in a pay per view gallery

Am i setting my expectation to high?

[whaleears]

Can't speak for others but I've been caught out before & given the whole thing a big ol' swerve. Low quality posts, taken on a potato, most people know what I mean. Fool me once...

I've also had SW who asked me to subscribe to their private gallery in an effort to prove my seriousness or sincerity in trying to arrange a meet. Sorry, no. I'm a cunt, but I'm not a completely stupid cunt (Yes, that's debatable, I know, but being a cunt bit isn't though.)


We're also seeing similar things with OnlyFans & Premium snapchat etc.

Subscribed to one girl, suddenly decided that she wanted to post piss-vids. Then quickly the content went downhill, again, lessened in quality. Also, I'm not sending anyone a pic of my cock & paying them £5 for them to tell me it's definitely a cock. This whole pay me £30 for pics of my feet thing? Nah, not for me.

Obviously, other side of the coin, Girls & Boys will do what they need to during the lockdown to make some cash. The established pornstar girls are generally doing it right & coining it in it seems.

[Bonker]

No, you're living up to your name 

[matoombaDan]

Nowadays they're mostly not worth the bother if you're looking for erotic content as quite a few of them tend to be duplicates of the public gallery content with the odd full pussy shot.

The only time they can be helpful is if they include face pictures as that may be enough to sway you from booking them. Remember that if you buy at least 30 credits (30 quid in real life if using a card) you'll get some freeviews which can be useful for the larger, expensive private galleries to satisfy your curiosity.

[HarryZZ]

It's a bit of a lottery, some are very good and some are a complete waste of money, NN (non nude) tags are the issue for me, there's girls with full frontal shots in the free gallery and every picture in the PG tagged NN, I'm not sure if that's a self tagging thing or a tag added by somebody from AW independently, I presume the former, but I do occasionally pay for PG just not if all pics are NN. Strangely I was browsing yesterday and one girl caught my eye, fairly decent pictures in free and maybe 20 pictures in PG for 0.60 credits 16 of with were non nude but I paid anyway only to find that maybe 18 of them were nude and only 2 were covered in any way, similarly I've paid for pictures and found that despite not being tagged NN, the raunchiest pic is a blurred flash of thigh.

It's a lottery, I wouldn't pay for every girl I checked out but if I were narrowing the field and there was a well reviewed girl who made the final cut but her free pictures weren't revealing of her face or body I will pay for better pictures but not over 1.00 credit, I've felt robbed at times but the majority are genuine.

[scutty brown]

the phrase "PG Scam" exists for a reason....

[CatBBW]

It's a bit of a lottery, some are very good and some are a complete waste of money, NN (non nude) tags are the issue for me, there's girls with full frontal shots in the free gallery and every picture in the PG tagged NN, I'm not sure if that's a self tagging thing or a tag added by somebody from AW independently, I presume the former, but I do occasionally pay for PG just not if all pics are NN. Strangely I was browsing yesterday and one girl caught my eye, fairly decent pictures in free and maybe 20 pictures in PG for 0.60 credits 16 of with were non nude but I paid anyway only to find that maybe 18 of them were nude and only 2 were covered in any way, similarly I've paid for pictures and found that despite not being tagged NN, the raunchiest pic is a blurred flash of thigh.

It's AW. It all depends on which member of staff reviews your uploads. I've had fully nude pics marked as NN/non-nude, yet ACTUAL non-nude pics have gone through without being labelled NN.

[Strawberry]

It's a bit of a lottery, some are very good and some are a complete waste of money, NN (non nude) tags are the issue for me, there's girls with full frontal shots in the free gallery and every picture in the PG tagged NN, I'm not sure if that's a self tagging thing or a tag added by somebody from AW independently, I presume the former, but I do occasionally pay for PG just not if all pics are NN. Strangely I was browsing yesterday and one girl caught my eye, fairly decent pictures in free and maybe 20 pictures in PG for 0.60 credits 16 of with were non nude but I paid anyway only to find that maybe 18 of them were nude and only 2 were covered in any way, similarly I've paid for pictures and found that despite not being tagged NN, the raunchiest pic is a blurred flash of thigh.

It's a lottery, I wouldn't pay for every girl I checked out but if I were narrowing the field and there was a well reviewed girl who made the final cut but her free pictures weren't revealing of her face or body I will pay for better pictures but not over 1.00 credit, I've felt robbed at times but the majority are genuine.

NN is a tag placed by AW, we can select the face-photo tag but this is subject to AW approval.

[latecomer]

I have looked at PGs a handful of times where I was seriously interested in going to see the girl, provided the cost was reasonable: say, less than 2.00.  For a couple of them it was a very good investment as it saved me wasting £60+ on a punt with a WG who didn't look as great as I'd imagined looking at the free gallery pics.

[zxc]

I normally buy the PG for two reasons:

1) After a memorable punt to get more pics of the girl.
2) When in doubt of booking, to decide whether to continue with it or not. A few quids can save me a lot of pounds.