Maple?

Is Maple really that much more attractive than Red? Is seeing her worth sacrificing a little service wise?

Reds cute, Maple has a killer body and face....hard choice but I’d flip a coin.

I pick Red and Cat over Maple any day and for any age

I pick Red and Cat over Maple any day and for any age Originally Posted by bobst

Seriously…? I think cats great but nowhere near as hot as Maple, guess we all like difficult things.

Accurate pictures would put this to bed, eliminate hesitation, and generate more traffic for the studios. Just saying.

Accurate pictures would put this to bed, eliminate hesitation, and generate more traffic for the studios. Just saying. Originally Posted by howdy_booty

I agree but in fairness there are at least 3 kinds of "accurate"

1. Is it even her? I think that one is basic and I think every potential client agrees on that one.

2. If it's her - is it realistic or a glam shot/photo shop enhancement that doesn't represent her well? This is a bit of a gray area but I don't fault them for special makeup, lighting, and clothes. Girls often change hair color too.
I do mind when an A cup turns into a C-cup though or she is fifteen pounds heavier.

3. Is it recent enough? Not saying it needs to be a selfie from today but recent enough to not present a 40ish person a 20-something.

In Maple's case I would say the pictures are fairly accurate. Her hair color is different and she doesn't look the same in the room as standing on the stairs.

What do other people who have seen Maple say? Would you say the pictures are accurate except the hair color which is now quite blond?

Her pics are accurate, maybe a couple years old, but yes airbrush.
When I first saw her I was not dissatisfied at all, I was bulging through my sweat pants at the front door.

Even though her English is limiting we know exactly what we both like.

Sounds like red is on vacation until the 26th per LA booker...

Sounds like red is on vacation until the 26th per LA booker... Originally Posted by Joebillybob

That didn't take long.

I really really really like the idea of a picture accuracy rating. Not everyone on here can tell the difference between a 32D and a 34C (if that even matters), but whether or not the pictures are accurate lets the monger decide if the collection of attributes strikes his fancy. It also avoids disparaging the appearance of the girl, which is important for the white knights who don't want to anonymously speak ill of a girl who won't remember him an hour after their visit anyway.

So how about this:
0 - Not even close, straight-up misrepresentation.
1 - Not her, but close enough to give you a vague idea.
2 - Glamour shots from a decade ago or more, but her.
3 - Photoshopped, but somewhat recent and representative.
4 - Recent pics with an app filter, very accurate.
5 - Today's selfie.

Realistically, we should never see a 5, but that would establish the operating scale. Thoughts?

That didn't take long.

I really really really like the idea of a picture accuracy rating. Not everyone on here can tell the difference between a 32D and a 34C (if that even matters), but whether or not the pictures are accurate lets the monger decide if the collection of attributes strikes his fancy. It also avoids disparaging the appearance of the girl, which is important for the white knights who don't want to anonymously speak ill of a girl who won't remember him an hour after their visit anyway.

So how about this:
0 - Not even close, straight-up misrepresentation.
1 - Not her, but close enough to give you a vague idea.
2 - Glamour shots from a decade ago or more, but her.
3 - Photoshopped, but somewhat recent and representative.
4 - Recent pics with an app filter, very accurate.
5 - Today's selfie.

Realistically, we should never see a 5, but that would establish the operating scale. Thoughts? Originally Posted by howdy_booty

I like the concept.

Where would you put the combination of 0 and 3 - where it's her for sure but those aren't her breasts? Is that like a 2.5?

Damn, Did I damage her backdoor that bad? I just saw her yesterday, we had a Greek Salad for late lunch.

WALDT. With that said, the pics of Maple are definitely her, though she's probably older now but still youthful and very attractive IMHO. I've been hobbying for years and my standard has always been to add a few years (sometimes 10+ years, haha) to a providers listed age and pictures for at least 75% of them, if not more. Seems that's it's just SOP for providers to post younger pics and younger ages. Some providers are very accurate with pics/ages, but I find that to not be the norm. It's just one of those things you need to accept as part of the hobby. Though it always makes me laugh when reviewers swear that some of the AMP girls are in there 20's, even early 30's. Most I would say are at least 40+ but with their soft skin and youthful performance, I can understand the confusion. That's another reason I miss the studios, they rarely ever overinflated a girl's age. Not many places where you would be guaranteed a hot young girl that had intense IOP.

Maple has a tight pussy

Maple has a tight pussy Originally Posted by Heartside

Awesome dude! You're really knocking it out of the park with these comments of yours, keep it up!

I like the concept.

Where would you put the combination of 0 and 3 - where it's her for sure but those aren't her breasts? Is that like a 2.5? Originally Posted by OutAndAbout7382

Definitely a 2. If we get into .5 anything then we now have an 11-point scale instead of a 6-point. I would probably remove the 5 rating because it won't happen.

So in this case, she's had a boob job since the glamour shot? It's a 2. You get an average idea of what to expect with some serious details missing.

Some examples

When one of the studios hosted Latina Ruby, I can't remember which, that's a 1. Not her, instagram models, but that's the kind of ass she has, that's what brings it from 0 to 1.

Coco's pics that went around get a 3 because even though it's a glamour shoot, she still looks pretty close to that.

Abby, even though I haven't seen her in a long time, I might give those pics a 4 because that looks very close to how I remember her.