Editor of SAM acknowledges internet may be useful shock!

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

I wonder where he thinks that the "empty cans still rattle the most", and just who the "unbearable and obnoxious bores" are though?

Good to see SAM is on Facebook too

And good to see that on P53 in the notes on the HB Tornado ECR boxing, " After seeing this model get a ravaging in the usual places, I have decided it gives it even more appeal, and inspired me to build one myself just to see if it looks like a Tornado when done."

Well , and I say this without irony; this will be interesting to see & read. Because after SAMI's rather hagiographic effort I really want to read a warts and all review of this model in the printed press.

Happy May Day from Oxford

Jonners

[Dave Fleming]

The more I read comments like that the more I realise he sees the hobby completely differently from me - nothing wrong with that, but inspite of what he implies it doesn't make my way any less legitimate than his.

If he wants to make pretty but inaccurate representations, that's up to him.

EDIT - perhaps I mean 'ignore or pretend inaccuracies don't exist'.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Dave Fleming

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Actually I posted it cus I just found it a bit amusing, though I have come to a similar conclusion to you. The more the merrier really.

cheers

Jonners

[AnonymousFO98]

This in Marketplace:

£5.99 for an all new tooling of the Hurricane? Listening to the Airfix detractors complaining about minor innaccuracies starts to get tiring when you consider that should a company produce an all-singing all-dancing, years in the making and revising kit, it would cost somewhere around £30.00.

Why are such comments being made in the advertising listings?

Not read the article to which you refer Jonners, but there seems to be an undercurrent of resentment being expressed, which is not going to prove particularly endearing I would have thought.

[Dave Fleming]

Isn't is funny how critisising something turns you into an 'Airfix Detractor' - so you have a label that can be used to demonise you?

Would he publish poorly built and finished models in SAM? Of course not, he's said as mush in the past, and yet he seems happy to have no critisism of inaccurate or poorly designed ones.

And the £30 statement is man-vegetables - someone in the Airfix hierarchy has less interest in 1/72 kits as being for serious builders, so they do not get the care or attention that the 1/48th ones get.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Dave Fleming

[Pielstick]

Can't really comment on SAM as I stopped buying it recently, waste of money IMHO...

However, I was quite impressed by a refreshingly honest comment from the editor of SAMI recently, basically saying that magazine won't publish any downright negative reviews because they want to protect their advertising revenue (not in quite as many words, but that was the basic gist of it!).

Edited May 2, 2010 by Pielstick

[thx6667]

The more I read comments like that the more I realise he sees the hobby completely differently from me - nothing wrong with that, but inspite of what he implies it doesn't make my way any less legitimate than his.

"We can walk our road together

If our goals are all the same

We can run alone and free

If we pursue a different aim"

[AnonymousFO98]

If kits such as the HB Tornado ECR are okey dokey, then there is no need for resin aftermarket replacements

[Andy K]

"We can walk our road together

If our goals are all the same

We can run alone and free

If we pursue a different aim"

Someones a Rush fan then?

[Shar2]

"We can walk our road together

If our goals are all the same

We can run alone and free

If we pursue a different aim"

Someones a Rush fan then?

Bit late, but was thinking the same.

Hemispheres is a great album.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

I have a feeling that we may see SAM go more towards "the nicely finished, a damn the accuracy" school of modelling, because I'm starting to get the idea that thats what the editor likes ( and thats not intended as a dig, just a statement of what I think).

I think he sees the mag as one for modellers that like to build kits form the box mostly - with perhaps occasionally a bit of resin for a seat of wheels or exhausts etc here and there. I guess this is what we would all identify as the perceived mainstream modeller, so I can understand this, and it does make sense. Nicely finished well buitl models, reagrdless of kit accuracy, are nice things to look at.

Personally I think that new SAM and a lot of their older ( ie long term rather than aged) readers are going to go separate ways over this, because I think there's still a very strong section of modellers that like to know if a kit is accurate in shape as well as detail.

What I do find hard to understand is the slightly sniping tone the magazine takes with internet forums that express any other opinion to this. If he wants to have a go - come out and say it, defend his stance, rather than adopt this rather teenagery whinge drip feed.

Or maybe I'm just reading too much into the whole thing. Who knows?

Jonners

Edited May 2, 2010 by Jon Kunac-Tabinor

[TheModeller]

Personally I think that new SAM and a lot of their older ( ie long term rather than aged) readers are going to go separate ways over this, because I think there's still a very strong section of modellers that like to know if a kit is accurate in shape as well as detail.

Already lost them my subs!

What I do find hard to understand is the slightly sniping tone the magazine takes with internet forums that express any other opinion to this. If he wants to have a go - come out and say it, defend his stance, rather than adopt this rather teenagery whinge drip feed.

Or maybe I'm just reading too much into the whole thing. Who knows?

No, I think you have it spot on Jonners, its easy to be petulant and childish if you know your fan-base will read what you say and accept it verbatim, says as much about the editor as it does about the mainstream readership.

And the stock its printed on is still to shiny and lacks absorbency!

[FalkeEins]

Personally I think that new SAM and a lot of their older ( ie long term rather than aged) readers are going to go separate ways over this

I'm sure we had this debate six months ago. I might have shared your opinion back then, but I guess I've grown to appreciate the sheer 'enthusiasm' for actually building models displayed in the new SAM (Spence's title conveys a fair bit of this too). Plus I've grown tired of what passes for 'reference' in some of the other mags - like the pitiful Fw 190 Dora article and profiles in the latest MAM !

What I do find hard to understand is the slightly sniping tone the magazine takes with internet forums that express any other opinion to this.

well I guess the printed media is still a far superior medium although somewhat on the defensive, what with all the 'news and views' appearing instantaneously on the web - the point being that most forum 'rivet-counters' never ever seem to post pics of a finished model or come up with 'fixes' and 'corrections' in a timely enough manner to really be of value to anyone - it's usually just (unsubstantiated) 'words in the wind'...

[AnonymousFO98]

Or maybe I'm just reading too much into the whole thing. Who knows?

You have it spot on imho Jonners and have put it more eloquently than an aborted attempt to say something along the lines of your post.

The editorial expressing his opinion I can understand. The sniping in other parts of the magazine is unprofessional and uncalled for.

The internet forum is the only means most of us have for expressing ourselves regarding the hobby.

The editor has a publication for his mouthpiece. Now he wants us to shut up on the forums if we ain't happy?

It is the final straw for me. The magazine no longer feels inclusive like it used to.

Absorbant paper or not it has definitely gone down the pan.

Edit: FalkeEins

The problem I find is that the editor has taken a simplistic either/or stance.

If people are happy with OOBs regardless then fine.

Ditto rivet counters

some of us are both depending on the subject

Given last month's editorial, Guildelines went with Mr. Laverty with a view to boosting sales with the popularist standpoint only.

This has created a major shift in the magazine.

Edited May 2, 2010 by walrus

[AnonymousAA72]

.....the point being that most forum 'rivet-counters' never ever seem to post pics of a finished model or come up with 'fixes' and 'corrections' in a timely enough manner to really be of value to anyone - it's usually just (unsubstantiated) 'words in the wind'...

........and magazine "rivet counters" get pics of finished models in the press quicker? You need to have a look at Jonners Tornado fix article. Pics of a finished model within a few weeks of it being issued - it was certainly valuable to me!!!

Plus I've grown tired of what passes for 'reference' in some of the other mags - like the pitiful Fw 190 Dora article and profiles in the latest MAM !

Not enough rivets eh?

[Matt Roberts]

I think it is a balancing act for an editor to get an issue out that works both with the rivet counters and with everyone else!

I am mostly an OOB builder with occasional forays into aftermarket resin and an editor also has to sell his mag to people like myself as well. I used to get the Tamiya mags but there for a while they got into seemingly PE and Resin builds that were only partially built around the kit that came in the box. After a while I quit buying them and now am completely out of the habit of spending $$$$ on them (same with SAM).

IF the available pool of authors that have the writing ability, building skills as well as subject knowledge to do a kit justice, is limited, then one has to accept that not everything will be done to the most exacting standards.

I'd like to see Jon's Tornado build published, but if that was all a magazine published about the new Tornado I am not sure how well it'd sell to the rest of us - or even those of us who are passionate about a differant subject, and may hurt the potential sales of the kit (as if the pricing didn't already do that).

Matt

P.S. Now for those of us who won't see MAM until next month - what is 'wrong' with the Dora 9 article? And did the previous ones that Neil R did last year work for you?

[thx6667]

What I do find hard to understand is the slightly sniping tone the magazine takes with internet forums that express any other opinion to this. If he wants to have a go - come out and say it, defend his stance, rather than adopt this rather teenagery whinge drip feed.

Sitting on the fence (ouch, splinters!) one could also argue that magazine editors have a right to draw a bead over internet forums sniping at their efforts.

I hate to go all pipe and slippers here but sifting through some old Scale Models in the 1970s, they always seemed to have the right balance between weighing up the pros and cons and presenting good constructive critiques.

My hope is that we don't end up with a polemic here, both becoming a reaction to each other. Some magazine reviews are so saccharine as to be positively teeth rotting, equally some fori are quick to ignite into shouting matches, neither of which are much use for anyone looking for an informed opinion.

And of the latter, I've always held that the best reviews just present the facts, the pros and cons, and let the modeller decide, rather than bludgeoning them into submission.

And, hey isn't balance all what "Hemispheres" is about, pop pickers?

[AnonymousFO98]

Probably right there Matt, but Jay has nailed his colours firmly to the mast of the populist option.

Again I think the shift in SAM's emphasis is as much to do with the overall marketing strategy of Guideline Publications.

Previous editors managed to get the balance in accepting that there is more than one way to build a kit.

[John]

I have a feeling that we may see SAM go more towards "the nicely finished, a damn the accuracy" school of modelling, because I'm starting to get the idea that thats what the editor likes ( and thats not intended as a dig, just a statement of what I think).

I think he sees the mag as one for modellers that like to build kits form the box mostly - with perhaps occasionally a bit of resin for a seat of wheels or exhausts etc here and there. I guess this is what we would all identify as the perceived mainstream modeller, so I can understand this, and it does make sense. Nicely finished well buitl models, reagrdless of kit accuracy, are nice things to look at.

Personally I think that new SAM and a lot of their older ( ie long term rather than aged) readers are going to go separate ways over this, because I think there's still a very strong section of modellers that like to know if a kit is accurate in shape as well as detail.

What I do find hard to understand is the slightly sniping tone the magazine takes with internet forums that express any other opinion to this. If he wants to have a go - come out and say it, defend his stance, rather than adopt this rather teenagery whinge drip feed.

Or maybe I'm just reading too much into the whole thing. Who knows?

Jonners

I'd probably fit straight in to that definition of a "mainstream" modeller then; I tend to build OOB if the subject takes my fancy and add some scratch-built or bought in bits and pieces as the mood takes me. I'm also much more tolerant of the issues with the recent Airfix Hurricane and Sea Harriers than I am with, for example, the Tamiya 1/48th scale Spitfires!

I've also bought Scale Aircraft Modelling from the very first Tomcat featuring, newsprinty, muddy photographed issue in 1979 but I finally gave in three issues into the new regime. I can't stand the new format and "direction"so I've voted with my cash.

John - the alienated Mainstream Modeller!

[Solly]

Apart from the internet vs printed matter debate, has anyone else noticed the extremely poor editing in the latest issue?

Page 16 A review of (I think) the Two Bobs' Buckeye with pics of Two Six Models' DC-9 kit. In the "Marketplace" section, small pictures of various kit box art, with (sometimes) a few words about the kit, but no indication of who the manufacturer is. In the books section, we get more of what the publisher says about the book than the review. In the "Briefing" a comparison of decal setting solutions, with 4 brands shown, but only "ratings" for two.

Hmmmm....

[airjiml2]

In the books section, we get more of what the publisher says about the book than the review.

I had to laugh the first time I saw that. Really? What a waste of space.

Just silly.

Jim

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Gents, I think we've covered the pros and cons of the new SAM format - however much we like or dislike it. And we've done that discussion on here too.

I'd rather my thread steared clear of that topic if you lot dont mind. But having said that - the editor's view on internet forums is still fair game. So tally ho - as they say.

Cheers

Jonners, with a steering hand ( he hopes)

Actually - just go for it

[FalkeEins]

You need to have a look at Jonners Tornado fix article. Pics of a finished model within a few weeks of it being issued - it was certainly valuable to me!!!

..I really didn't think I needed to say how instructive Jonners build/thread was.. that was self-evident. Just more the exception than the rule..even on this forum.

Not enough rivets eh?

..or text, photos, or, heaven forbid, accurate artwork. Quite why any editor could imagine that he could usefully contribute anything of interest on the 'operational' history of the D-9 (the stated aim of the piece) in only three pages is beyond me, but when combined with Peter Scott's error-strewn 'artwork' then impressions are rather less than positive!

(PS ..a taster for you Matt on my blog..)

Edited May 2, 2010 by FalkeEins

[John B (Sc)]

Personally I think that new SAM and a lot of their older ( ie long term rather than aged) readers are going to go separate ways over this, because I think there's still a very strong section of modellers that like to know if a kit is accurate in shape as well as detail.

Jonners

You may well be irght Jon. I started buying SAM at Issue No1 & had a subscription for a lot of years. While I stopped buying it every month a while back, it still has run over 50% purchase rate. Not any more I think, while this sort of negativity and poor editing (IMO) goes on.

Ah well. Things will change again, no doubt. Mutatis mutandis.

John

[Dave Fleming]

I hate to go all pipe and slippers here but sifting through some old Scale Models in the 1970s, they always seemed to have the right balance between weighing up the pros and cons and presenting good constructive critiques.

That's because Ray Rimmel was, and probably still is, one of the finest modelling journalists this country has produced. Perhaps the problem is todays editors are not journalists per se, and were not full time magazine writers before becoming editors?