Merlot (of Admiral Escorts), Paddington

[tomato sauce and waffles]

External Link/Members Only External Link/Members Only

Booking was arranged with the agency's receptionist – everything was straightforward and I was sent the full address immediately. Her place is located between Paddington and Lancaster Gate. If I recall, she's in a flat building with carpeted floors, inside her place is fine, almost looked kind of like a hotel room.

Booked 1 hour for £150 (no extras paid).

Positive: Sex was good; missionary, cowgirl and doggy-style were done with enthusiasm. No complaints about switching positions, no restricting penetration and no rush to get me to cum. She’s okay with FK (with tongue contact) but not too deep. She does have her eyes closed most of the time, which is not a problem for me, but might be for others.
Positive: She’s a nice, easy going lady. I had no problems getting along with her.
Positive: She has slim body build. Large size C breasts, but not firm like the profile pictures. She’s around 5’6” tall. Has a tattoo on her lower left abdomen.

Neutral: OWO was okay, albeit a bit toothy, but was pleasurable enough. Doesn't make eye contact. She deep-throats, but not very good, probably performs it better on smaller sizes. {She’s okay with CIM, but doesn’t do facials}
Neutral: Facially, she doesn’t look like the profile pictures. In the flesh she looks between 26-30, has wrinkle lines on her face that slightly ages her, black hair like the pictures but not as thick on the top and point facial features. Overall, she looks okay, but not as stunning as the profile pictures...if that's really her.

Negative: None.

The salient point of the review is whether the WG is the woman in the profile pictures. She’s as slim as her and has a similar facial structure, but I'm not completely convinced it's her (didn’t help the lights were dim). If it’s actually her, then the designer must have went HAM with the photoshopping! Apart from the legitimacy issue, the punt was good. However, as a caveat, I’m putting this as Neutral because I’m not if she’s the same woman in the profile pictures.

Šťastný plavit.

[Jason]

Thanks for the review. I was really puzzled about this one. I made some comments about her in this post where I questioned the legitimacy of the pictures because of the various GRIS hits with pics of the same girl in different poses(e.g. External Link/Members Only). The several “type A” agencies that I phoned “were going to investigate” and indeed Admirals went on to question the girl to see her side of the story. The girl admitted that apart from photo-shopped the pics were taken a few years ago and that she was wearing very heavy make-up. But she was swearing it was her and that that others took liberty of her photos from other profiles she had as independent in her country. Admirals were also going to meet her for the commission to verify authenticity. Anyway they basically inferred that the pictures may be completely inaccurate and told me that it is fine from them for me to walk if I don't fancy the girl. But they told me that ‘so far no one called us back to complain about this girl which is a good sign’! Knowing this I opted to not meet Merlot.

Just a question. If you were to give a numerical face score out of 10 to each of the following girls what would that be?
(a) External Link/Members Only
(b) External Link/Members Only,
(c) sweetandkinkynicole
(d) Merlot

[smiths]

Thanks for the review. I was really puzzled about this one. I made some comments about her in this post where I questioned the legitimacy of the pictures because of the various GRIS hits with pics of the same girl in different poses(e.g. External Link/Members Only). The several “type A” agencies that I phoned “were going to investigate” and indeed Admirals went on to question the girl to see her side of the story. The girl admitted that apart from photo-shopped the pics were taken a few years ago and that she was wearing very heavy make-up. But she was swearing it was her and that that others took liberty of her photos from other profiles she had as independent in her country. Admirals were also going to meet her for the commission to verify authenticity. Anyway they basically inferred that the pictures may be completely inaccurate and told me that it is fine from them for me to walk if I don't fancy the girl. But they told me that ‘so far no one called us back to complain about this girl which is a good sign’! Knowing this I opted to not meet Merlot.

Just a question. If you were to give a numerical face score out of 10 to each of the following girls what would that be?
(a) External Link/Members Only
(b) External Link/Members Only,
(c) sweetandkinkynicole
(d) Merlot

IMO pimps should always meet WGs that they are looking to offer work to in person before putting their pictures online. At the same time they should check the WGs photo ID to ensure she is an adult. Of course i know this doesnt always happen.

[Sir Knumbskull]

Just a question. If you were to give a numerical face score out of 10 to each of the following girls what would that be?
(a) External Link/Members Only
(b) External Link/Members Only,
(c) sweetandkinkynicole
(d) Merlot

I've got to admire your commitment to 'Punting Science' Jason, I'd be interested in the answer to this as well! Interesting to know the response from one of the agencies she's listed on as well, cheers. 

Merlot looks nice but old-lady wrinkles aren't a turn on! Thanks for the report Mr Sauce and Waffles.

[tomato sauce and waffles]

Thanks for the review. I was really puzzled about this one. I made some comments about her in this post where I questioned the legitimacy of the pictures because of the various GRIS hits with pics of the same girl in different poses(e.g. External Link/Members Only). The several “type A” agencies that I phoned “were going to investigate” and indeed Admirals went on to question the girl to see her side of the story. The girl admitted that apart from photo-shopped the pics were taken a few years ago and that she was wearing very heavy make-up. But she was swearing it was her and that that others took liberty of her photos from other profiles she had as independent in her country. Admirals were also going to meet her for the commission to verify authenticity. Anyway they basically inferred that the pictures may be completely inaccurate and told me that it is fine from them for me to walk if I don't fancy the girl. But they told me that ‘so far no one called us back to complain about this girl which is a good sign’! Knowing this I opted to not meet Merlot.

No problem. Looking at the escortprofile.xxx link you posted, which contains pictures that show her face clearly, I really doubt that was the WG I saw. It's either not her in the profile pictures OR some considerable amount of photoshopping was done to transform her to a younger smooth-faced woman.

The woman I saw doesn't look too bad though. She has a similar build to the woman in the profile pictures, but just not as young/freshed-faced and stunning. I think she'll be a hit amongst men in their 40s-50s, who prefer women in their late 20s to early 30s.

Just a question. If you were to give a numerical face score out of 10 to each of the following girls what would that be?
(a) External Link/Members Only
(b) External Link/Members Only,
(c) sweetandkinkynicole
(d) Merlot

1. Maria: 8/10
2a. Tiffany: 7/10
2b. Nicole: 7/10
3. Merlot: 6/10

Maria is facially the best looking out of the four. Tiffany and Nicole are on par with each other, with Tiffany being higher in the subsidiary ranking (a-b), due to being a bit cuter than Nicole. While Merlot, not as good looking as her peers, does have just above average looks.