Comparison Beatrice, Alice, Megan and Julia
[QUOTE=PussyLiccker;1855262]And you rate Beatrice as very good? Megan provides good service and I agree about 8,5 in looks. Yeah, I wouldn't say her looks is highly erotic(some guys refer to as model type due to her body type I think), I'd call her very pretty GND(she has some of that cute look facially). Beatrice, as far as looks, I would say looks more erotic(hence I'd call her a hottie). Two different body types. Beatrice is curvier, so I find her to more erotic, and I think this may have some effect on how you perceive the session.
Alice for example is really extreme, almost flat chested, and boyish skinny in constrast to Beatrice. So, Beatrice would rate higher for me since she's more of my type. Also, of course Megan's body rates higher than Alice. So, Alice was not my type even though we clicked as far interaction(she has a good sense of humor).
As far as illusion, Beatrice would rate really low. Megan higher. Julia(the one currently at Palace) even higher(This is purely on room experience) if that provides any idea. Since some guys had attributed Beatrice's inconsistancy to moods, let me expand on my experience. One encounter, DFK in 1 HR. And then another no mention of extended room for DFK. By the way, the day she brought up 1hr for DFK was on a very busy night, and another night no mention of 1hr for DFK was on a very slow day. Even with DFK, given the overall experience, hardly any illusion, and service is not what I call very good(got my personal reasons) or even good enough to extend to 1 HR. YEMV.[/QUOTE]Everything depends on first personal preference for optic, second on personal preference which sex and third at least same important chemestry between client and girl.
Rating optic for me: Beatrice 9,0, Megan 8,5, Julia 8,5 and Alice 8,0. With Alice I,ve never spoken because on her general behavior I've a strong gut feeling that we doesn't fit therefore no reason for me to try her. Funny is her description somewhere as MM look, sorry this I see different. And concerning optic for Megan the 8,5 is of course a high rating when I say "only" 8,5 that is due to this hype about this "Incredible" beauty. Concerning optic Ramona / Sabina from Sharks / Oase was my favorite the last two years a 9,75!
Second rating service for me: Julia 9,25, Beatrice 8,25, Alice don't know and Megan that's difficult to say because our chemestry was close to zero. So third my chemestry level with this girls: Alice only gut feeling that wouldn't work and no room that mean no rating, Julia 9,0, Beatrice 8,5 and Megan to be honest zero.
Megan / Francesca / Sarah
[QUOTE=Craiova;1855335]
Second rating service for me: Julia 9,25, Beatrice 8,25, Alice don't know and Megan that's difficult to say because our chemestry was close to zero. So third my chemestry level with this girls: Alice only gut feeling that wouldn't work and no room that mean no rating, Julia 9,0, Beatrice 8,5 and Megan to be honest zero.[/QUOTE]I have to agree strongly with Craiova, about Megan: Assuming we're talking about the girl used to be called Francesca, who was Sarah at Mainhattan: Last November at Sharks I had a completely lack-lustre session, and like man in above quote, despite trying very hard, I was able to construct virtually no chemistry with this girl, and therefore would not rate the session worth repeating with this girl. Furthermore, she tried to cheat me on the time (I cut the session short at 25 minutes and she tried to pretend it was 32 mintutes), but she backed down from her initial demand of 100 e, when I asked if she would like to move to front desk with me for further disscussion.
I came away thinking: why all the hype about this girl? But here's the beauty of the the situation: I only lost 50 e to test the waters, right? The session could easily, as it so often does, go the other way: off-the-charts positive. It was worth it for me at least to see living vindication of the old axiom: YMMV!