Yeah, look, that sucks, but it's not exactly hard for a shop to manage in this day & age. Just buy a phone with caller ID, record the number as a contact for the booking and have a one-chance policy ..... if you don't turn up and don't call to cancel, your number gets blocked from making another booking in advance. Easy.Originally Posted by Oneonone
Weeds out the time-wasters and unreliable punters, or worse, shitty competitors making false bookings. And the cost of the new phone is probably covered by just ONE hour booking that avoids an otherwise no-show.
Who knows?? Reliable punters might even end up having future bookings honoured, and the girls will end up actually busy instead of wasting hours in the shop not earning (though I believe that's not a concern at 533, they're busy enough anyways). Win win, just a tiny effort needed from mamasan / reception.
I agree that is poor form.
I for one have never missed a booking. Maybe once every 6 months I will be running late but I always ring up and let them know beforehand.
Maybe the shop can remember the numbers of these no-shows and not allow them to book for a while.
Lilly is definitely Jennifer at 647, I have seen her at both shops.
I absolutely agree with you. In 15 years of punting I have only had to cancel a booking once when I caught in a massive grid lock traffic jam. I rang the shop straight away 30 minutes before the booking was due. These days I always allow an extra 30 minutes traveling time and I have the shop phone number stored on mobile just in case.
Bro Oneonone sounds like the Ahlungor of Stanmore here for 533... the problem on this thread is not the booking being late, it's switcheroo, customers being fooled! If a booking is running too late, the shop should inform the customer to save the journey, but not to switch girls without even telling the truth!
My only point is that a shop gets it wrong and we all wine like crazy but when the punter gets it wrong that's Ok.
A fair go for and by both sides is all I am suggesting and we punters can help make it better for all.
A punter missing appointment is quite common, a shop blatantly switching girls to fool customers is pretty rare I must say!
I actually called twice. The second time to inform the mamasan that I am running late and asked her whether it is still okay or not to come as I am 30 mins. She said it was still fine and so I went.
I got switched TWICE. First was over the phone, the mamasan said it was CiCi, when I got there CiCi is said to be booked till 1am (closing time). She showed me Ada and said that if you do want to go ahead you only can have the 30 mins. Over the phone I said I wanted 45 mins for CiCi. I gave the money to Ada and she went outside the room and left me to shower by myself. When the girl knocked it was another girl and I even said to her, I think you are in the wrong room, I'm with Ada. She said Ada is now with another client.
I was already in my towel by this point.
Well, I still don't think the photos look alike. Everyone keeps referring to "Lilly" Whereas i mean "Lily" with two L's not three, ie, my gangbang girl. Is she at 647 as Jennifer?
Anyway, I heard Lily had recently gone on holidays, but came in for one day to 533 a week later because she was hanging out for sex! Holidays weren't agreeing with her! She practically devoured the poor guy who did the AR! So, yes, is she Jennifer at 647 - please?
Giving the money to one girl and then getting another girl is just wrong!
It even sounds comic if you ask me !
It's kind of funny how they bump their positive threads again and again while refusing to give any comments on this topic, even when this thread is only 5 threads away from their "favorite" threads.
Mate I can absolutely guarantee you Lily is Jennifer at 647. The photos on the 647 website are not the same quality as 533. However if you want a great hires photo of Lily google 'swl girls' , you may have to try 2 or 3 listings but last I checked they still have photo's up of Jennifer.
Yup I agree.
Most pictures at 533 website are fake, please notice the background of the pictures. only one pic of Lily is real.
The pictures aren't fake, the photos of the girls are either taken by Angie or the girls give photo's of themselves to Angie.
They are then added to a background in Photoshop by the company that looks after the web site, he also shades out their faces etc.
Looks like I was wrong - the pictures are shopped into the backgrounds!
But still, well done 533, compared to the minimum effort put in at every other shop in the universe except the expensive cauc shops.
Sextus did you read my post? I took the trouble and interest to ask how it was done I asked the girls and they told me.Just to clear that issue up, and I hope this isn't boring, but..
Actually all those photos are taken in the locations shown
I then asked Angie who took the photos and she told me in most cases she did and that sometimes a girl would bring them in.
She told me she sends them to the webmaster and he photo shops them puts in the background and blanks the girls face.
So put your head in the sand if you wish but that is how it is done!
Well blow me down oneoneone, you are right! As this is quite interesting I have posted some of the photos here to show how well it is done and how it convinced me. But your words made me look a lot closer at them to figure out what is going on.
Here is a photo of lily - see how well that shadow is put in behind her? - very convincing! But if you look closer you'll notice that she is tilted slightly to the right, she hasn't been put in standing straight. Still, to accurately manually trace around her body with a selection tool to cut her out of the original photo and drag her across is very difficult. You can never do it with perfect accuracy, which means in the photo you drag her across into, you have to manually go around with a clone tool and heal all the innaccurate joins. Which is just as much or more work to do. The cost for this specialist work would be up to the same as the shop charges for the girl per hour. Hey! nothing wrong with that, in fact it is a credit to 533 that they go to this effort to show their girls like this.
And then you see her apparently sitting on the sofa, ie, interacting with the environment she isn't even in! And with a shadow from her put in too. Very well done! I assume she ws sitting on a bed in the brothel - but the lighting on her is rather good - how can Angie be taking these?
Here, however, the shadow from Lily is coming towards us, when the lighting on lily is from the front, so that is an inconsistency, which again shows that you are right oneoneone.
Here with Jodie it is less convincing, the light on her is flat compared to the room - but hey! it is still well done!
Here with Selina, again the shadow from her is coming towards us - even though the angle of it cleverly matches the angle of the light coming in through the door, there is no light source behind her at that angle to account for her shadow, ie, the shadow has been put in. But again, this is very good work!
I mean, look at the tricky shape of the shadow on the bed behind Jodie - he's accounted for the distorted shape of her having her hand on her hip (but overlooked putting in a shadow behind the lowest part of her left leg.) But all this is alot of highly skilled work that I didn't think they'd have the budget for - or at least want to pay it!
I don't know quite where he gets the shadows from - exceeds my basic knowledge! He's even curved the shadow to account for the curve of the mattress and the wooden frame that she isn't in the same room as. This is beyond the call of duty for a $150 per hour brothel webpage - compare it, for example, with the tripe masquerading as photos on the Ginza website, or 5*.
The only way to prove the girls are real is the pictures should be taken in the shop with real background as other shops did.
|
|
|
|
Reply With Quote
