Jump to content

SAMI, MAM, June & July issues


KLN

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Derek D. said:

Pocetmags have credited 11 month balance to my account, still scammed for December double up though.

 

Will probably put it against Phoenix, though I would like more 1/72 content!!!!

Most makes trending towards larger scale these days.......

 

Derek

Must admit, that is what is putting me off at the moment. I dont do 1/48 plus only 1/72. I guess they can only publish what reviews/builds have been completed. ill keep a lookout for a mag that interests me and if that is furitful then I may subscribe to Phoenix.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting area for discussion.  An editor is indeed dependent upon who he can interest/cajole/find willing for reviews, but it is also a matter of his personal interests, who he knows that he can ask, and how "proactive" he is in chasing contributors.  This is something that over the years has been perhaps most obvious with IPMS magazine, which has varied considerably, but there are obviously other examples.  I would entirely agree that the shortage of 1/72 articles makes the magazines less attractive, but this is partly driven by the tendency to show large amounts of internal detail, which is obviously much easier (and generally better provided anyway) in the larger scales.  This isn't helped by the snobbery that 1/72 is for beginners and 1/48 for "real" modellers.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In additon to the point re detail, this also helps the magazines sponsors of which are likley to produce aftermarket. This is shown off more in 1/48+ scale than 1/72 and therefore the editor may want to maximise that relationship.  Both SAMI and more MAI suffered from this i feel and you may only get 1 or 2 1/72 builds in a magazine as apposed to 3/4 1/48+.  There is no right or wrong and its the editorial prerogative, but to inscrease sales, there needs to be a good balance of scaled build reviews it they are to cater for the whole market. I still believe that 1/72 is the most built scale so why not more reviews/builds?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the right place to raise these concerns/requests as some of the Editors and contributors are on this thread, so they may be able to help get more 1/72 subjects into the Phoenix magazines, I think they are trying to cover as many possible bases as possible and are very open to suggestions of what everyone wants to see.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the Phoenix  Editors are aware and hope to feature smaller scale models in future, not just 1/72 but 1/144 as well.  Graham Boak's observations are spot on. 

Modern close up photography occasionally depresses me. What looked  like a good result to my eyes looks poor when a real close up zoom in is done. I keep having to  remind myself I aim to produce a model  which has the right look and feel. That usually involves viewing at fair distance, not ultra close up.  It is tempting to go up a scale to make things 'easier'. Silly, given I have so many fine 1/72 kits to build !  

 

Actually, thinking about that further, don't look too closely at the real thing. Some have noticeable grotty bits; working aeroplanes develop 

flaws. I can think of one I fly regularly  which has a piece of fabric under the belly which keeps coming loose, another which has cowling panels which are heavily re-rivetted to deal with small cracks. I have flown on airliners which likewise have small patches and resprays where minor repairs have been done. Occasionally real life paint jobs look quite rough close up. That includes some military schemes; it's not just D-Day stripes that were hastily applied. (Sea Harriers in the Falklands are a classic example of that, Hand repainting on some while at sea,. Hard to get precision.)   So maybe sometimes we modellers are our own worst enemies. The real thing ain't perfect, so neither is  a replica !

 

John B

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the end it takes willing and active reviewers as well as willing and active editors.  To forestall the inevitable comment, I simply don't build rapidly enough for deadlines nor well enough for the result to be worth publishing.  My congratulations to those who do. 

 

As always, there is a "However..."  From this biased position it often seems that this is achieved by ignoring major and minor errors in aircraft shape or camouflage or markings.  The kit is taken as a finished object on which to celebrate their painting skills rather than a starting point for a small replica.  There should of course be a significant difference between a review, which needs to be little more than a pointer to the kit, and a critique which requires an ability not just to see flaws (wherever they may be) but also to describe how to correct them 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

This is an interesting area for discussion.  An editor is indeed dependent upon who he can interest/cajole/find willing for reviews, but it is also a matter of his personal interests, who he knows that he can ask, and how "proactive" he is in chasing contributors.  This is something that over the years has been perhaps most obvious with IPMS magazine, which has varied considerably, but there are obviously other examples.  I would entirely agree that the shortage of 1/72 articles makes the magazines less attractive, but this is partly driven by the tendency to show large amounts of internal detail, which is obviously much easier (and generally better provided anyway) in the larger scales.  This isn't helped by the snobbery that 1/72 is for beginners and 1/48 for "real" modellers.

Many build 1/72 due to display/storage restraints but it is also the scale that many older builders grew up on and its the scale that gets new people into the hobby through starter sets or even lidl/aldi offers. While its not an ideal scale for detailing, particularly with photo-etch, it offers the greatest range of subjects and choice. The relative pricing also allows the purchase of multiple kits of the same subject to be finished in various theatre or national schemes, benefitting 3rd party decal makers. You can also experiment wear and  weathering techniques at low risk to your pocket. Who is going to try a new technique on a 1/24th Spitfire at a £100 a pop.

The emergence of YouTubers showing techniques and skills, building and finishing both old and new kits has stolen much of the reasons for purchasing magazines, reducing their content to ads and effectively advertorials (build reports on the latest and greatest releases). It would be great to see proper modelling of both new and old releases, vintage builds and similar regulars to Colour Conundrum in SAM.

Build/box reviews are not enough, lets see creative articles, build a few of P-40s and finish them for different theatres with suitable weathering on each. Build an Airfix and Eduard kit of the same subject and give us the pros and cons. If an editor is going to cajole someone for an article then make it interesting.

 

Derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, John B (Sc) said:

I have flown on airliners which likewise have small patches and resprays where minor repairs have been done.

So true - I recall boarding a Ryanair 737 which was so patched I was having 2nd thoughts!

 

47 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

This isn't helped by the snobbery that 1/72 is for beginners and 1/48 for "real" modellers.

Is that really a thing? I always thought it was the other way round as in the larger scales so much is done for you, whereas in 1/72 extra detail required scratch building. But of course that's probably a bias I have from 30 years ago.

 

15 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

From this biased position it often seems that this is achieved by ignoring major and minor errors in aircraft shape or camouflage or markings.

I wonder if this is a policy to avoid upsetting manufacturers - i.e. to make the product look as good as possible

 

Cheers

 

Colin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John B (Sc) said:

Modern close up photography occasionally depresses me. What looked  like a good result to my eyes looks poor when a real close up zoom in is done.

Oh so true !!!!

 

Finished my first model since the Pandemic began earlier this week , intended as a 'Christmas Holiday' build  to get me going again but stretched to three weeks.

 

End result I felt was a bit heavy handed in places and some aspects did not work out as I planned but nonetheless I was quite happy with it until I took some photographs yesterday afternoon to share with a friend . . . . .  argh !!!!!!!!!     However, I have at least made a start and have a mind to get on with things that were started so long ago.

 

As regards some of the other points that have been made in the thread.

 

I have never been aware of any 'snobbery' regarding scales , in my own case an increasing preference for 1/48 scale has come about through age related issues concerning deteriorating  eyesight and increasing clumsiness through arthritis but I remain in awe of the work that many do in 1/72 scale.     Depending on what the writer has written and what the reader is looking for out of an article than rather than merely an extended review of a particular kit many well researched articles do contain information that is applicable to all scales.

 

As regards the thought that basic errors in kits/colour schemes and markings are ignored in some magazine articles this could be because the writer is unaware of them , perhaps through a general lack of knowledge or maybe more specifically working outside of their comfort zone on that particular project or it could even be as seems to be the case with some 'house styles' the general aim is not to illustrate accuracy but to showcase finishing skills.     Perhaps the reader needs to use discernment at point of sale and decide if they want to pay their fiver a month for what is being offered, this is more likely to influence a publisher than what is written online especially as at least one is reported as having no interest in what forums have to say about his publications.

 

About two years ago just before plague struck I started a modelling project intended to end up in print which like all of my modelling until recently has stalled through a surfeit of free time but the kit chosen was very much a compromise to maximise serial re-releases of different variants and the text which is much further on than the plastic does very clearly identify the shortcomings , acceptable for the publication I am writing for but maybe of little relevance for others.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Derek D. said:

It would be great to see proper modelling of both new and old releases, vintage builds and similar regulars to Colour Conundrum in SAM.

Build/box reviews are not enough, lets see creative articles, build a few of P-40s and finish them for different theatres with suitable weathering on each. Build an Airfix and Eduard kit of the same subject and give us the pros and cons. If an editor is going to cajole someone for an article then make it interesting.

 

Derek

 

Agree to all of that. There is to much of Blue Peter/Art Attack of 'look what we made earlier' articles/reviews and not enough of 'oh s**t this doesnt fit so this is how i solved it etc. There are too many finished models, showing painting and weathering techniques to promote the latest addition to a manufactuers range, which has been done to death and of which is not new if you have a bit of oil paint and thinners. There simply is insufficeint construction techniques and general modelling build threads imho which has unfortuantly transposed over to forums such as this in the GB's, where you see lovely box contents and a month or two later no detailed build thread showing the process, but you do get nice artistically licenced fictionally painted and weathered replica.

 

Unfortuanly its either a generational thing or an editorial thing imposing a deadline to the modeller or simply accepting that this is what the 'reader' wants. I say reader loosly as its not much text but there are a few pretty pictures to look at. Thats actuall what i saw in SAM and MAM in the last couple of years. I hope that the Editorial Team of Phoenix dont make the same mistakes.  They need to be different to whats out there or they may fail on this venture. It will also be interesting to see the re-boot of SAMI and whats they have 'learned' or notso but we will see next moth apparently.

 

This is where SAM nail it and is my magazine of choice, due to their variety in not only scal, subject but also the content writers and an editor that has been aroudn the block so know what works and what doesnt and finally a magazine that takes on board comments from the market reader which afterall, if there are no readers there is no magazine.

Edited by Hardtarget
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ckw said:

I wonder if this is a policy to avoid upsetting manufacturers - i.e. to make the product look as good as possible

 

Cheers

 

Colin

 

In my limited experience, constructive criticism is not something an editor will object to, nor have I ever had any alteration made by an editor, except where poor grammar was concerned.  

 

Something I have noticed is that occasionally both modellers writing for magazines and enthusiastic modellers in clubs demonstrate extraordinary gaps in their knowledge of real aeroplanes, That may explain some of the failures to point out the rare major errors which manufacturers have inadvertently foist on us.   As a pilot and engineer, I try to look at my models and ask myself if things make sense. If not, why not.  I've learned a lot about aeroplanes that way ! 

 

Personally, when  I wrote reviews, it was the errors, commonly mine by not reading the instructions properly (!) or more rarely the manufacturers for not writing those correctly, plus the awkward bits of the build I had difficulty with, that I felt people would want to know about.

 

John B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this one has droned on past the point where it's fulfilling any useful purpose, so as people are now critiquing what's wrong with the world of modelling, I'm going to close it down.

 

As they seem to be on a merry-go-round of recycled content, there's little point in discussing it, but we'll leave this thread here as a salutory tale of what to look out for with a magazine. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Mike locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...