Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Jonny

SAM November2019

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, cmatthewbacon said:

I have to say, back in the days when I did reviews for Gary's SAMI and the odd build for AMW, the word count was always something I had to work hard to get DOWN to, not the other way round... I'd say it took about a third of the total time for each of first writing the article, then cutting it down to length, and finally writing all the captions. What you probably don't appreciate until you have to do it, though, is the additional burden of stopping regularly in the build to take "in progress" photos IN THE HOUSE STYLE (so none of the quick benchtop shots most of us use in WIP threads), and finally taking the finished article (RFI) pictures to the expected standard (brightly lit, 100% in focus over the entire model...) It's all a lot harder than sometimes the results in print make it look...

 

best,

M.

Exactly.  Well said.

Jonners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jon Kunac-Tabinor said:

I didn't notice much balsa, talc or dope on sale at Telford though ... times change perhaps?

At 72 years old, my stash continues to grow, must be close to 200 and still buying, Alis Hunter conversion being the latest, plus last week Dynavector Scimitar...…...I know they will never get built as I still have endless KFS 1/24 AFV, 1/35 Accurate Armour to finish, plus Meng D9R Bulldozer, all 80-90% complete...……...and endless others to complete, Dynavector Gannet, Wyverns...….great at starting, but not too good at finishing. I used to post my builds on Britmodeller, but when I found articles and photographs ADDED to other peoples collections on the web/pinterest I stopped posting builds.

 

As for Out of the Box builds...….I was of the opinion it was just that, out of the box, if its states in the article Out of the Box, which part do they NOT understand?  I find some out of the box builds bend the rules by saying its out of the box, and the seat came from this box and the wheels came from this box...…...true, you can say its out the box, but when I used to buy a magazine it was just that, straight out the box, and no extras.

 

As for Talc and dope, you would never expect to see that at Telford, BUT you did see loads of Super glue?  I use Talc and Superglue now and for complicated parts I use silicone mold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, rayprit said:

I find some out of the box builds bend the rules by saying its out of the box, and the seat came from this box and the wheels came from this box...…...true, you can say its out the box, but when I used to buy a magazine it was just that, straight out the box, and no extras.

 

As for Talc and dope, you would never expect to see that at Telford, BUT you did see loads of Super glue?  I use Talc and Superglue now and for complicated parts I use silicone mold

Which reviews do that?

Plenty of CA on sale at Telford

 

cheers
Jonners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry if you feel offended by what I wrote, that was not my intention. I would point out that you mentioned worx limits in one of your posts. 

I am also slightly miffed at your suggestion about third rate academics. I do not know what your experience is, but some academic journals do specify length (usually no more than) and in the area I worked it was  text only.

I also wrote course documents and advice documents to fairly strict timetables and length requirements. 

Also when I was doing my own writing for advanced qualifications, there are fairly strict guidelines as to word count with usually a ten percent allowance. This is fairly common in the UK where for example on one of the modules I taught on was assessed by an essay of no more than 2500 words. The point of this is to encourage students to a) think realistically about their chosen topic and b) encourage them to write concisely

I have written articles had them published in the past, but since my stroke, writing anything on a PC sized screen is a bit of a struggle as is reading a lot of print on a page, which is an instant cure foe insomina. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been very interesting reading this debate about what we look for in magazines, so please don't spoil it by bickering.

 

I don't know who Jon is, but he makes his points well from the magazine view, as do others from the buyers side.

 

I have visited model shows around the world and sadly, from the British angle, we don't like change and refuse to spend money, in the main, on resin and brass aftermarket parts, preferring to use scrap items and leftovers. How often have you heard the word bargain at a UK show, knowing that the kit will never be built? I have rarely heard it abroad and that's ays a lot for the UK attitude.

 

As Jon says, if you don't like what is in the magazines, write something for them, perhaps highlighting the older techniques too.

 

 I only get AMW now, having stopped SAM and SAMI for the very reasons mentioned above, and even that is becoming repetitive, in spite of it's language and photo quality.

 

It would be interesting to know what the percentage of subscribers to monthly purchasers is. In other words, how many people see the same old, same old each month? Maybe editors need to offer more variation too?

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RedDot said

Quote

I have visited model shows around the world and sadly, from the British angle, we don't like change and refuse to spend money, in the main, on resin and brass aftermarket parts, preferring to use scrap items and leftovers. 

This is a bad thing? (Well yes from the aftermarket point of view) But I that's a huge part of the fun for me - turning an empty cockpit into a busy office with scrap, spare parts and ingenuity. Beautifully cast resin is a joy to behold, but eliminates the fun - kind of like the difference between a paint by numbers and an original painting.

 

I must admit though that given more time and skill, I'd be into scratch building anyway - maybe one day.

 

Cheers

 

Colin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rayprit said:

. . . . .  some modellers . . . . . 

 

And therein lies the rub , other than reviews of the latest kits or the occasional editorial request to pursue a specific theme most of us who contribute written work for print magazines are modellers pursuing our own modelling projects  to our own individual whims and invariably out of our own pockets.

 

My own output has been rather reduced over the past year or so due to commitments to other more time consuming projects and in any case I do not build review models but when inspired by some passing illustration or new kit (more often new to me rather than new to the market) I source the relevant references , plastic , decals and paint and make a start.      It is essentially my modelling project rather than a nascent magazine article and gets finished to a standard that pleases me so if the seat, cockpit detail or whatever is poorly rendered in the kit I will either attempt to remedy this myself or if this is not feasible replace with aftermarket in order to finish my modelling project in a way that pleases me.

 

If the model works out as planned without any major disasters along the way and if nobody else has covered anything too similar recently it might end up being submitted for consideration with any aftermarket changes clearly explained for those who are happy to build solely with the parts supplied just as I will be happy with my effort on my shelf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Red Dot said:

It would be interesting to know what the percentage of subscribers to monthly purchasers is. In other words, how many people see the same old, same old each month? Maybe editors need to offer more variation too?

I have only once subscribed to a magazine (the exception being the German magazine Flugzeug, where a subscription was the only way to get it delivered).  My reason for this was that I did not wish my money to be held hostage against the magazine folding or, more likely, a change in proprietor, editor or editorial policy.   Nowadays I might add the curse of the graphic designer (bigger pictures, more blank space (="fresh clean modern look"), more silly gimmicks like fake "tabs" around the page edges, less content) to the list of threats.  I have always felt that each magazine should be bought strictly on its merits viz is the information contained in this magazine worth enough to me for me to divert my money to it from all the other things I could be spending it on?  Applying that rule (and, TBH, the rise of Britmodeller) means that, whereas I once bought about 6 magazines routinely, I now rarely buy any.  The things most likely to lure money out of my pocket are one of Brian Derbyshire's detailed reviews or one of Paul Lucas' less speculative research articles.  Tony O'Toole's name in the byline was also a "must-buy" flag: always interesting, well-researched and backed up with rare photos even if he sometimes unaccountably strayed into 1/48 for the actual model.

 

PS It seemed to me that about 10 years ago Aeroplane Monthly were particularly adept at "the subscription game": they would produce about 3 really cracking magazines, followed up by a reasonably tempting subscription offer, followed by a succession of magazines with very little of interest to me in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I appreciate Jon's efforts to show it from the other side, you're on a hiding to nothing my friend. These folk wont be offering new content, and be gutted if they did only to suffer the inevitable online slating of their article by those who just want to find an angle to complain about it for not being exactly as they want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr T said:

I am sorry if you feel offended by what I wrote, that was not my intention. I would point out that you mentioned worx limits in one of your posts. 

I am also slightly miffed at your suggestion about third rate academics. I do not know what your experience is, but some academic journals do specify length (usually no more than) and in the area I worked it was  text only.

I also wrote course documents and advice documents to fairly strict timetables and length requirements. 

Also when I was doing my own writing for advanced qualifications, there are fairly strict guidelines as to word count with usually a ten percent allowance. This is fairly common in the UK where for example on one of the modules I taught on was assessed by an essay of no more than 2500 words. The point of this is to encourage students to a) think realistically about their chosen topic and b) encourage them to write concisely

I have written articles had them published in the past, but since my stroke, writing anything on a PC sized screen is a bit of a struggle as is reading a lot of print on a page, which is an instant cure foe insomina. 

My point was that your post implied reviewers fill articles with words purely to make up the word count.  As another member has said it's usually a case of trying to cut down the word count for it to fit with magazine articles, as we want to say as much as we can that we hope is of interest! ( but plainly isn't a lot of the time it seems alas :( )

If I inferred incorrectly my apologies.

Jonners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if I implied it was about meeting a word limit, re reading my post, it was ambiguous. I know from experience that cutting words is more usual than adding them and that editors fit a constant battle to fit everything in. 

I usually buy SAM and  I think it is the best of the pure aircraft modelling mags. The new one is in my shopping bag as I write this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Red Dot said:

In other words, how many people see the same old, same old each month? Maybe editors need to offer more variation too?

I actually think that, compared to the 1990s for example, the current variety in the various magazines has never been better in terms of scale, era and subject matter. WWII is also much less dominant, which I think is a good thing.

 

However, the exception in my opinion is MAI, which I have lost patience with and won't renew my subscription. By their own admission in the latest issue, they've published three articles on the Eduard 1/48 Tempest in the past calendar year, and the number of P-51s, Eduard Spitfires and Fw190s that have featured becomes boring very quickly. Even worse, they've taken to republishing the *same [preview] articles* (!) more than once, with the excuse that 'we thought you'd like to read this again." Well no, I wouldn't, because I already have paid to read it once and it's still in the loft. And before anyone advises I do my bit to help out, some time ago the editor put out a request to hear from potential contributors; I emailed him and heard nothing back.

 

Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main reason for still buying SAM is the Colour Conundrum series of articles. Usually these are well researched, although the subject varies to catch my interest or not. Similar articles, and series of such, have been published by various magazines through the years. Worth mentioning is The Ian Huntley Column in SAM back in Alan Hall's days. Being an academic type of articles, it is of high importance for the reader to know who the author is, as some authors are known to be thorough in their research while others have reputation of making their own conclusions. I am thus a bit annoyed that in both the November and December issues of SAM, there is no mention of the author of the Colour Conundrum article. I would guess both are written by Paul Lucas, but I cannot be sure as other authors also have contributed to the Colour Conundrum column, at least some years ago. Anyhow, I think the author should be named in all articles in any magazine.

 

Living abroad I have to subscribe to SAM - and other British magazines - as they are not available at local newsagents. Travelling to the nearest retailer will cost me the amount of two issues, which is rather expensive, especially for issues that I would decide not to buy.

 

Nils

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2019 at 7:20 AM, rayprit said:

.I hope somebody does a kit build and conversion of the recently released Airfix Hunter  and the Hawker Hunter T7 conversion...…..Alan Hall always ran conversion topics in his magazine and how to achieve a wonderful result. We need more conversion topics and somebody that knows what Out Of the Box means

 

 

Agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2019 at 9:48 PM, Jonny said:

As it happens I *did’ Email SAM’s editor pointing out that so far as I know, the Type 464 Provisioning, I.e. the Dambusting, Lancaster's didn’t carry radar.

 

He responded to the effect that his references (he didn’t say what they are) stated that radar was carried.


To my knowledge, the only navigation aids carried was Gee ... one navigator reported it was ‘jammed something chronic’ close to the Dutch / German border.  Gee wasn’t radar.

 

If anyone has evidence that radar was carried on the Dams raid I’d appreciate being told it was, and what it was..

 

Jonny

Hi Jonny,
I just wonder whether you might want to respond to the latest edition of SAM?

cheers 

Jonners

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...