Massage Mascarade
Montreal Escorts

An Overview of the Samaritano Scoring System for Escort Evaluation

E B Samaritano

Resident Sage Asshole
May 6, 2003
Silcon Valley, Ca. USA
Visit site
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
I agree whole-heartedly with you EB. As a matter of curiosity (and from previous discussion I know you include facial beauty in addition to an enticing body in your evaluation ) in compiling your list of who to see how did you add new ( not previously seen by you ) ladies when most Montreal women do not reveal their faces in advertising , or only do so partially ?
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 .
6=standard full service; cbj and fs
7=DATY or +1 point
7.5=light kissing (+0.5 pts)
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

E B Samaritano

Resident Sage Asshole
May 6, 2003
Silcon Valley, Ca. USA
Visit site
Samaritano Scoring Part 2..

Intangibles may not be applied to the overall score unless each compulsory part of the menu is completed in part or full. The compulsory categories are DATY, KISSING, . Should the escort fail to score in any of the compulsory categories, no intangibles scoring may be added to the final score. The “in part” stipulation is a further refinement that basically says you don’t have to give a full point award for a perfunctory . We can’t have ladies skating through compulsories. They must do a credible job of delivery or be penalized in the service score
To further refine this scoring I have added up to 0.5 point in deductibles for annoyances during the rendering of service. A good example is holding on to the condom. This for me is an automatic do not repeat, and is likely only be found in a situation where the service score was bound to be poor. Therefore, rendering basic services in a nuisance free manner does not penalize a competent escort, whereas a marginal rendering of the same services could be score adjusted to reflect the discrepancy. Perfunctory licking of the shaft is not a , and half-hearted services should be scored with fractional points. For instance, a half-hearted may only be awarded 0.5 points instead of the usual 1 point. This is akin to judging a competition where a pose must be struck and held for a certain amount of time. 30 seconds of bobbing on the knob does not qualify for a full point for the service award, i.e. unless the goal is near completion and the client advises to stop. Two licks at the Y, and then a demand by the escort to leave the table are a snack and not a dinner and thus cannot be awarded the full one point. The reviewer is thus allowed leeway in awarding points in each of the categories and may use increments of 0.1 in his scoring in each category.
So on this service scale: an average escort who delivers competent fs and cbj would receive 6.0 points for service. She could receive up to 9.0 points by rendering the services in the menu up to and including . tc could push her over into 10 points maximum. The score may be further adjusted by applying whatever nuisance deductions have accrued. It is impossible to achieve a score of 9 or higher on this scale if is not part of the service. However, light kissing, DATY with and intangibles will get you to a 9, in other words to me the is more important than whether she will shove her tongue down my throat. Attitude is a separate category that not only includes conversational cordiality and adeptness, personality, presence, etc., but also includes enthusiasm during the act. So it becomes possible to have a full GFE in terms of the above scale in services…i.e a 9, yet you won’t get a 9 in the attitude category if the services are delivered with lackluster enthusiasm. I could conceivably award a 9 in service, and say as low as a 7 in attitude. The combination of these would not be sufficient to achieve a GFE certified rating which I set at a minimum of a 9 average between the service and attitude categories. The GFE score is the simple average of the service and attitude categories.
Let me give you my gold standards in facial beauty in Montreal; In my opinion I have never seen women “in the business” in Montreal that are MORE beautiful than Prescilla..ex Sweet Dreams and Jessica ex Exclusive/SD/Independent and retired/un-retired more times than Michael Jordan. These would be my “relative 10’s”. The closest from there I have seen who is currently working is a relative 9.5. In the normalized scoring nobody can score a 10 in beauty. We just dream of 10’s, we never see one. The net effect of this is that the beauty scale is highly compressed at the top end. Almost nobody gets a 9 or higher, and most very attractive women are scored 8.5 and higher. The greater majority of the escort population scores between 7 and 7.9.
For Asians: my gold standard reference would be Naomi ex-Prestige Escorts circa 1998-99: Objectively I give her 8.0 in looks, she is/was cute without being facially stunning. You would notice her on the street. The combination of face and body would cause you to turn around. An 8.5 for the body denotes a nicely toned body in the petite class of escort. My only major deduction is she is a little light in the breast department. Without second thought she gets 10’s in all other categories. Let’s grade Tasha, Lilly both EX-Sweet Dreams and Jackie of Allyssa by these standards.
Naomi (retired) (8, 8.5, 10,10)
Tasha (ex SD/former Emma associate) (7.9, 7.75, 10,10+)
Lily (ex SD retired) (7.2,8, 10,10+)
Jackie (Alyssa’s) (8,8.5,10,10)
Yes..Tasha and Lily did cause me to have to put a round-off on the service score..LOL..

Ask me my ideal body type: Samaritano’s brickhouse body screen
Super-petites: 4’9-5’1 (85-105 lbs) (30-34) b/c-20-24-(30-34)
Sweet spot: 5’2-5’6, 100-110lbs. 34b/c-(22-24)-(32-34). Natural breasts preferred but not required. Screening done with respect to basic dimension for breasts and can be further enhanced to include cup size.
Middle zone: 5’5”-5’7” 110-125
Tall zone: 5’8-5’10” 115-125
Fat/muscle/bone density-some considerations for body type
Take that to taller women: 5’7-5’10, same dimensions, max weight 125 lbs. There is a middle zone in there, I can find some women 5’6 at 120 lbs that have that weight nicely distributed and are indeed quite attractive, so there is no hard and fast rule, yet my experience tells me that women in the above windows will score consistently high in my subjective judgment of their bodies. Of course I do subtract for objectionable esthetics such as obtrusive tattoos, stretch marks, lack of tone in certain areas, etc. Regardless to dimensions, I do like a nice tight waist and this will go a long way in my judgment of the body score.
When flying blind on the selection, if I get a 7 by the luck of the draw, I can still get a 9 in overall rating. This can occur if I get great attitude and service combined with my brick house body screen. Let’s say with regards to one lady with a modestly attractive face, brick house body, a great attitude, and top notch service; She gets (7,9,10,10)=(face,body,attitude,service) for an overall rating of 9 and certified GFE. Likewise I could score a very attractive lady with an outstanding body who gives good service, with cbj as follows: (9,10,9,8) overall rating 9, GFE score 8.5…a very nice lady but not a GFE by the Samaritano scale. But in fact this lady is on the schedule…it’s called a mood selection and I score the 10 for the body because I’ve explored every inch of it..hehe..

posted by TRAIN
As I`m sure everyone will agree there are different tastes involved and facial beauty is often ``marked `` by reviewers . For example - in the infamous Montreal spreadsheet there are numerous ladies marked as 5 (highest rating ) in the looks department . I have seen many of them, as have you , and there is really quite a wide range . To give the same grade to say an `` Emma`` who is quite beautiful facially as you would to say ``K`` working at the agency ``A`` ( I`m deliberately leaving out the name of the lady and the agency but I think you can guess as the letters are the actual first in both names) strikes me as ludicrous .
Would like to know your methodology . Failing that how much for your list - lol- as I have , so far , only uncovered about 7 or 8 and 2 or 3 of those fell short in the Quebec GFE service category . The ones that I have found were mainly by trial and error , although the odds can be shortened .
I agree with you there. A five-point scale has insufficient granularity and is worthless. This is where a 10-point scale with 1 decimal place of precision is most certainly appropriate. This along with body is also the most subjective category of scoring. Clearly beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And it further demonstrates there is no way to apply beauty standards across a population of ladies that vary in both age and ethnicity. There is no substitute for a first hand look, or a partner who has similar tastes.
As a general guideline I score as follows
6-7 : ranges from girl next door to moderately attractive
7-8: moderately attractive to attractive-you would notice this woman in a social setting
8-9:Attractive to very attractive: at the higher end of this range, your better half would slap your face for staring in a restaurant.
9+ Covergirl to world class beauty-your better half would leave you for this woman
Age groups: women should be scored against their own age group. It is patent nonsense to score a 35 year old in competition with a 19 year old girl.

That same caveat should exist for major body types such as muscular and BBW. I just saw some stupid argument over on TERB where some idiot who revered the beauty of 19 and 20 slim somethings is upset at a positive recommendation for a 40+ year old pleasingly plump provider whom he was stupid enought to visit. Consider the source...on both sides of this equation...LOL.

Last edited: