SAM - 1/12th Spitfire build

[Simon Cornes]

Is it just me but is the article that Jay Laverty is doing for the next 3 years about the Spitfire part work featuring a model which only superficially looks like a Spitfire? I'm going off the full page add for the 'kit' in the mag. It just looks terrible to me. Maybe there are other photos of a different build where it is clear that it is a good replica but I haven't seen any so far. The ingenuity of the construction is one thing but surely its got to be an accurate replica otherwise what is the point?!! This month was all about gluing ribs - probably more RCME & E territory?

Simon

[Nigel Bunker]

Advertorial?

[gunpowder17]

I did wonder what the point is. Its not exactly scale is it?

[Jonny]

I've also been wondering why we have to spend three years or whatever being confronted every month by a whole page devoted to minimal progress on something that costs the man-in-the-street a small fortune. I know SAM has the word 'Scale' in its title but I'm not sure I care much whether the finished product looks very like a Spitfire or vaguly similar to one!

I'd rather the page was dropped. But Mr. Laverty does have his own style, which he clearly enjoys

Edited June 28, 2014 by Jonny

[Jon Bryon]

I'd rather the page was dropped.

Since SAM has a history of unfinished projects, I wouldn't be surprised if it was dropped before completion. You can see enthusiasm is waning in this month's issue...

Jon

[Team Aer Lingus]

I think it's an advertisement build but I do think every three months would be better than the current monthly update imho

Perhaps the Spitfire company are sponsoring the build and paying Jay to built it ?

Also he stated this month the Revell 747-800 is a re-boxing of the Zvesda kit but I read somewhere else its a different mould and you know the keyboard warriors will jump all over him if that's the case

He's damned either way

[Simon Cornes]

There are lots of things that I don't like about SAM these days - I even cancelled my subscription a year ago and then bought every blooming copy from W H Smiths! I suppose Jay has to keep a lot of things in mind and if Regallitho have told him he has to write these articles because they are being paid to do so then that's that but I hate to see that photo of the finished model with the happy father and son when the model looks so little like a Spitfire at a time when every new kit release looks so good, this just goes against the trend. At least its only two pages though!

Just reading the June 2006 SAM. My how things have changed!

[tonyot]

Just reading the June 2006 SAM. My how things have changed!

For the better?

[stevej60]

Got to agree with you Simon,even before the magazine article started I had seen this part work advertised,and it looks like a B****y awful,if you are going

to tempt people with a long term project like this at least get the thing right,on the subject of SAM,sadly I have stopped buying it after many years but it

does,nt grab me like it used to,it tends to Have a very scant new release section,four or five build articles using tons of aftermarket stuff and a half dozen

photo,s of the finished article rather than the step by step progress dare I say seems a little "elitist",very slick but not for me.

Edited July 13, 2014 by stevej60

[SleeperService]

I don't suppose that any publisher cares what we think about their product, despite protests to the contrary. It's very easy to be critical even when the standard response is 'you don't know the whole story'. In that case I'd suggest a bit of openess would go a long way.

IMHO SAM (and others) are virtually at the level of the free trade magazines given away at builders merchants, electrical distributors etc. with 95% 'advertorial' of one sort or another for the benefit of the producers and 5% aimed at the magazine reader/buyer. The hobby suffers as a result when somebody buys a kit after reading a magazine 'review' to find the thing is beyond the current skill level of the purchaser. I know of a recent example with the KH F-35B, brought by a fairly competent guy, who gave up because he believed he'd 'messed it up'. A few minutes here showed him that it was a 'feature of the kit Sir'.

If the London Evening Standard, Metro and others can work why do people pay serious money for 'In the box reviews' (advertisements), News from the manufacturers (pre-publicity), adverts for the same often with no content other than a web address (more adverts) and one or two page build articles that are completely uncritical of the kit (advertorials).

There are those like Tony above (excellent Revell Ventura review this month BTW) who strive to be informative but they are far too few.

Turned into a bit of a so sorry. To finish a couple of ideas....

Run a hobby magazine as a free trade magazine distributed through hobby shops paid for by advertisements

OR

Run it off a website with the magazine featuring the results of debates etc, good research stuff and so on which is then archived when put into print. Forum members will get a great forum, the magazine will promote it, electronic copies of old issues could be downloaded using a time limited code, the current issue will be printed on demand, the news and reviews could then focus on the smaller niche manufacturers and grow the hobby as a whole.

I'll get my tin hat...