Scoring and GFE guidelines: A written response to an interrogative by Train on the TERB board earlier this year. This gives a more detailed overview of my scoring system which can be applied to any age, body type and ethnicity of provider, given the appropriate screens are in place. Mine is set up for my preferences in body type as described below:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
originally posted by TRAIN
First of all you’ve got to do something to get past the subjectivity of facial beauty. It has to be judged in context. For instance, what does a facial score of 7 for a 35 to 40 year old woman mean next to that same score for a 22 year old? The same would be true in the body category. A well-known mature escort in Toronto has what is in my opinion a 9.5 body and a 7 face and that is with respect to women in her age category. When she was 22, I’ll bet that body was 9.5 and that face was a solid 8 compared against any woman in her age category. This woman gets a legacy position on my schedule and I don’t even blink. In fact, I’d compare her body favorably against any 22 years old I’ve ever seen. How would I compare equivalent scores of a Caucasian lady to that of a black lady or an Asian lady? The reviewers might not be attuned to beauty standards associated with black or Asian women. Beautiful black and Asian women are unfortunately judged by western beauty standards. As a consequence, the influence of the reviewer by western beauty as opposed to those standards applied to ethnic beauties, adds further to the incongruity of ratings.
My strategy in assessing the facial component of a score is twofold. First I have a good field agent and partner in conspiracy. My experience says that reviews are worthless for the most part because not only are reviewers seldom rigorous in their evaluation methodology, but there are just simply too many different tastes and preferences amongst the reviewing audience. Some guys give warm bodies that show up a 7 or 8 and don’t think twice about it. Most on this forum place high premiums on sexual performance and hence tend to be less critical in assessing intelligence or physical beauty of an escort. I have a very good friend, a Canuck, although I try not to hold that against him, who has very similar tastes in women. I know this guy very well. He’s not an internet buddy, although we did discover common interest in a forum like this. He lurked, I pissed people off. He’s now a personal acquaintance who enjoys this hobby the same as I do. We meet frequently in the field or talk via phone. We both have the approximately the same profile and presentation, spending habits, etc. He like I, have seen women in many different parts of the world. We can compare our experiences, many times with the same women and find YMMV on occasion on the service side, but rarely disagree with looks. He’s seen some I haven’t seen and vice versa. Having been in Montreal and prospected there, I’ve met some ladies in casual situations that have developed into ongoing liaisons. So between these two methods, I’ve got either first person account or the next best thing to a clone providing the information with regards to looks. But as I said before, when flying blind, you’re hard pressed to find anything lower than a 7 given there’s a smokin’ body attached.
My GFE evaluation system is complicated but let me try to give you some salient points: Since GFE is a subset of the overall ranking, with Face and body being the other major components, it’s quite possible to be a 9 overall and yet not be a “GFE”
I rate GFE on service and attitude combination: Pre appointment evaluation
In the case where I have no previous experience or reliable input, i.e. neither my associate nor I have seen the woman; she gets a 7 for attitude, and a 7 for service. In the case where I get input from my associate, his grades or my interpretation of his grades are entered. I do not instantly rule out seeing a woman if it’s reported she only provides cbj. 50% of the time the reports are inaccurate. A number of times I have continued seeing a lady simply because I enjoyed what she did offer and pretty soon the bj was latex free. New talent is not rated against proven acquaintances. They compete in their own separate category. A certain number of slots are arbitrarily allotted for unknown talent. This trip there are two ladies which although well researched, have not been seen by either my partner or me nor have they been reviewed online. There were a total of 6 women I evaluated. They have been reviewed with heavy emphasis on body and sex appeal from photos, etc. If I corresponded via email, this might impact my perception of personality. I don’t use the pen pal approach, i.e. I’m not going to trade 70 emails with a lady trying to feel her out, but there are things about email correspondence that through experience I find can help understand the personality of the lady. I could give you some real life examples, but I’d rather not use names here. If I’m right on at least one of my blind selections, I consider it to be worthwhile. Both of these women have “trainwreck bodies”, however. They both get 2 hour testdrives..LOL.
Right now for a quick overall numerical ranking for candidates I use: face, body, attitude, service based on a 1 to 10 scale. Face and body are logarithmic scales. There is a perceivable difference to me (subjective judgment) between a 9 and a 10 in the face and body categories. Likewise there are boatloads of difference between an 8 and a 9. Real 10s are only seen in fantasies. Moderately attractive women will receive a 7. For subtle graduations, I allow a single digit decimal point..i.e. 7.1, 7.2 etc., all subjective, of course. Now the plain girl next door gets a 6. Most women fall in the 6-8 range, and those who score 8 and above will get your attention on the street.
There are extended screens that include things like price, availability, (day versus evening) and even the fact that I indeed have seen them before,.i.e. a repeatability factor. There is a personal touch factor..I am impressed by a lady who remembers particulars about me, brings the wine, will bring my favorite cigar, remember to wear certain things without being asked, for instance I’m a high heel shoe and g-string freak. These things register in the overall encounter. They even get points on the fly, i.e. for this trip I want a little hot-bodied blondes say, and I can throw that into the mix. I can run a screen on my database (actually excel spreadsheet at present) looking for no.1 candidate for a daytime or afternoon versus an evening, if for instance I’m unsure of whom to give the first shot. I might have 1 slot for 3 different ladies. This method helps me determine whom I should go after in the first round of the draft. I also use a multi-point screen when I’m trying to decide who the best candidate is out of several for that last remaining slot. This process is performed to yield overall rankings as well. I had 23 women and 12 slots for them, not including the two “blind” recruits. The sheet gets updated after each visit. There are even intangibles such as mood. Not all women are good in the morning. Some specialize in wakeup service, say like a Vanessa Palmer. There are some I consider multi-hour evening appointment material and not wakeup call candidates. This may have more to do with the fact I consider them more demure and sophisticated in presentation or personality…i.e. evening attire types. The personalities I like to see in the morning are upbeat, effervescent, and bubbly. The Sophie (ex MGF) and Karine (ex Fantasme now retired) types are good examples of the early morning come in jump under the covers and get busy..LOL. I noted this for Sophie when I last saw her, which was an evening appointment, and I’m pleased she’s now out of retirement as an indy..J These are subjective judgments based on my experience and hence show that this is not an exact science. In fact grading is so much subjective for the average hobbyist, I’d argue just as you do that numerical ratings in reviews are suspect at best and probably useless as a single point of reference.
Samaritano’s GFE Scale
Service =9 if all aspects of Quebecoise GFE are included AND intangibles/extras are required to achieve 10. Point deductions (0.5 points) for each: lack of light kissing and/or DFK and major point (1 point) for lack of DATY and/or .
So:
6=standard full service; cbj and fs
7=DATY or +1 point
7.5=light kissing (+0.5 pts)
or
8=DFK (+1 pt)
9= (up to 2 points for tc)
plus a max award of 0.5 points total for intangibles.
10=max number of points possible: the max. TOTAL award for intangibles is 0.5 points. These might be services such as PSE type finishes, swallow, BLS and additional menu items such as anal on the standard menu, facials, Russian etc. Scores resulting in a total of more than 10 points are recorded as 10+.
Note: items in the menu up to and including are the compulsory part of the service menu.
cont to part 2
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
originally posted by TRAIN
Train, let me start by putting this way. If I throw a dart on a chart full of Montreal women with 9 and 10 bodies, the worst I’m going to do is get a 7 face. I can live with that any day.
First of all you’ve got to do something to get past the subjectivity of facial beauty. It has to be judged in context. For instance, what does a facial score of 7 for a 35 to 40 year old woman mean next to that same score for a 22 year old? The same would be true in the body category. A well-known mature escort in Toronto has what is in my opinion a 9.5 body and a 7 face and that is with respect to women in her age category. When she was 22, I’ll bet that body was 9.5 and that face was a solid 8 compared against any woman in her age category. This woman gets a legacy position on my schedule and I don’t even blink. In fact, I’d compare her body favorably against any 22 years old I’ve ever seen. How would I compare equivalent scores of a Caucasian lady to that of a black lady or an Asian lady? The reviewers might not be attuned to beauty standards associated with black or Asian women. Beautiful black and Asian women are unfortunately judged by western beauty standards. As a consequence, the influence of the reviewer by western beauty as opposed to those standards applied to ethnic beauties, adds further to the incongruity of ratings.
My strategy in assessing the facial component of a score is twofold. First I have a good field agent and partner in conspiracy. My experience says that reviews are worthless for the most part because not only are reviewers seldom rigorous in their evaluation methodology, but there are just simply too many different tastes and preferences amongst the reviewing audience. Some guys give warm bodies that show up a 7 or 8 and don’t think twice about it. Most on this forum place high premiums on sexual performance and hence tend to be less critical in assessing intelligence or physical beauty of an escort. I have a very good friend, a Canuck, although I try not to hold that against him, who has very similar tastes in women. I know this guy very well. He’s not an internet buddy, although we did discover common interest in a forum like this. He lurked, I pissed people off. He’s now a personal acquaintance who enjoys this hobby the same as I do. We meet frequently in the field or talk via phone. We both have the approximately the same profile and presentation, spending habits, etc. He like I, have seen women in many different parts of the world. We can compare our experiences, many times with the same women and find YMMV on occasion on the service side, but rarely disagree with looks. He’s seen some I haven’t seen and vice versa. Having been in Montreal and prospected there, I’ve met some ladies in casual situations that have developed into ongoing liaisons. So between these two methods, I’ve got either first person account or the next best thing to a clone providing the information with regards to looks. But as I said before, when flying blind, you’re hard pressed to find anything lower than a 7 given there’s a smokin’ body attached.
My GFE evaluation system is complicated but let me try to give you some salient points: Since GFE is a subset of the overall ranking, with Face and body being the other major components, it’s quite possible to be a 9 overall and yet not be a “GFE”
I rate GFE on service and attitude combination: Pre appointment evaluation
In the case where I have no previous experience or reliable input, i.e. neither my associate nor I have seen the woman; she gets a 7 for attitude, and a 7 for service. In the case where I get input from my associate, his grades or my interpretation of his grades are entered. I do not instantly rule out seeing a woman if it’s reported she only provides cbj. 50% of the time the reports are inaccurate. A number of times I have continued seeing a lady simply because I enjoyed what she did offer and pretty soon the bj was latex free. New talent is not rated against proven acquaintances. They compete in their own separate category. A certain number of slots are arbitrarily allotted for unknown talent. This trip there are two ladies which although well researched, have not been seen by either my partner or me nor have they been reviewed online. There were a total of 6 women I evaluated. They have been reviewed with heavy emphasis on body and sex appeal from photos, etc. If I corresponded via email, this might impact my perception of personality. I don’t use the pen pal approach, i.e. I’m not going to trade 70 emails with a lady trying to feel her out, but there are things about email correspondence that through experience I find can help understand the personality of the lady. I could give you some real life examples, but I’d rather not use names here. If I’m right on at least one of my blind selections, I consider it to be worthwhile. Both of these women have “trainwreck bodies”, however. They both get 2 hour testdrives..LOL.
Right now for a quick overall numerical ranking for candidates I use: face, body, attitude, service based on a 1 to 10 scale. Face and body are logarithmic scales. There is a perceivable difference to me (subjective judgment) between a 9 and a 10 in the face and body categories. Likewise there are boatloads of difference between an 8 and a 9. Real 10s are only seen in fantasies. Moderately attractive women will receive a 7. For subtle graduations, I allow a single digit decimal point..i.e. 7.1, 7.2 etc., all subjective, of course. Now the plain girl next door gets a 6. Most women fall in the 6-8 range, and those who score 8 and above will get your attention on the street.
There are extended screens that include things like price, availability, (day versus evening) and even the fact that I indeed have seen them before,.i.e. a repeatability factor. There is a personal touch factor..I am impressed by a lady who remembers particulars about me, brings the wine, will bring my favorite cigar, remember to wear certain things without being asked, for instance I’m a high heel shoe and g-string freak. These things register in the overall encounter. They even get points on the fly, i.e. for this trip I want a little hot-bodied blondes say, and I can throw that into the mix. I can run a screen on my database (actually excel spreadsheet at present) looking for no.1 candidate for a daytime or afternoon versus an evening, if for instance I’m unsure of whom to give the first shot. I might have 1 slot for 3 different ladies. This method helps me determine whom I should go after in the first round of the draft. I also use a multi-point screen when I’m trying to decide who the best candidate is out of several for that last remaining slot. This process is performed to yield overall rankings as well. I had 23 women and 12 slots for them, not including the two “blind” recruits. The sheet gets updated after each visit. There are even intangibles such as mood. Not all women are good in the morning. Some specialize in wakeup service, say like a Vanessa Palmer. There are some I consider multi-hour evening appointment material and not wakeup call candidates. This may have more to do with the fact I consider them more demure and sophisticated in presentation or personality…i.e. evening attire types. The personalities I like to see in the morning are upbeat, effervescent, and bubbly. The Sophie (ex MGF) and Karine (ex Fantasme now retired) types are good examples of the early morning come in jump under the covers and get busy..LOL. I noted this for Sophie when I last saw her, which was an evening appointment, and I’m pleased she’s now out of retirement as an indy..J These are subjective judgments based on my experience and hence show that this is not an exact science. In fact grading is so much subjective for the average hobbyist, I’d argue just as you do that numerical ratings in reviews are suspect at best and probably useless as a single point of reference.
Samaritano’s GFE Scale
Service =9 if all aspects of Quebecoise GFE are included AND intangibles/extras are required to achieve 10. Point deductions (0.5 points) for each: lack of light kissing and/or DFK and major point (1 point) for lack of DATY and/or .
So:
6=standard full service; cbj and fs
7=DATY or +1 point
7.5=light kissing (+0.5 pts)
or
8=DFK (+1 pt)
9= (up to 2 points for tc)
plus a max award of 0.5 points total for intangibles.
10=max number of points possible: the max. TOTAL award for intangibles is 0.5 points. These might be services such as PSE type finishes, swallow, BLS and additional menu items such as anal on the standard menu, facials, Russian etc. Scores resulting in a total of more than 10 points are recorded as 10+.
Note: items in the menu up to and including are the compulsory part of the service menu.
cont to part 2
