AIRFIX MODEL WORLD

[keefr22]

Since we're keeping a running total, the above should be 'coming from the same individual's PC'.

Shouldn't that be 'coming from the same individual's P.C..' ??

Keef

[Spence]

My own personal observation is that the very section of the modelling community that seems to dismiss the current crop of model magazines as being a bit glib, superficial, also seems to be very apathetic when it comes to doing something about it. As the saying goes, "be the change you want".

"Ah but" comes the reply "its not down to me, its down the editor and writers, I shouldn't have to get involved" which in many ways it is, but equally if everyone just sat on their duffs having a bit of a moan and expected others to provide them with then kind of magazine they seem to think that they - and everyone else - really wants, rather than what they are getting, then we'd have no magazines at all.

And while I can't speak for any of the magazines or editors out there, I'm sure they'd be delighted to get the kind of material that often gets alluded to, which some feel is lacking. But its going to take someone to actually make, write, photograph and send it in to get the ball rolling.

Plus, and this is where it perhaps starts to become a bit of a generation thing, times change. Perhaps the rise of the "assemblers" is just a reflection of a shift in modelling culture, that maybe a lot of people do like that kind of thing and far from the magazines being out of touch, maybe its some of us who, rooted in an earlier era of magazines, no longer make the connection?

But then that comes back to my first point - be the change you want.

It's often best that I keep out of these discussions but in this instance I have to agree with Jonathan. It is a fact that the ones who complain the most about how poor magazines are these days are the LEAST likely to be kicking down my door with articles that help to improve the situation. Bottom line - it's always someone else's responsibilty. But where do you think these articles come from? I'll tell you where - from members of BM (Mike Williams, Jonathan Mock, Andy Davies, Ian Ogilvy, Nick Turner, Dean Large etc.) who instead of moaning about the editorial content of the country's magazines, actually put scalpel to plastic and then pen to paper and then make a difference. Simple isn't it?

I'm sorry that this sounds harsh, but frankly I'm sick and tired of this constant criticism of magazines and Editors who have to work hard to try and bring you something to enjoy every month (for little more than the price of a pint and a packet of cheese and onion crisps). No, we can't always give YOU everything that YOU want every month but we try - within the boundaries of what we can commission for that issue, within the budgets that we are set (which are getting tighter and tighter all the time...) and the time that we have between each one.

And also while I'm on a roll, modellers or assemblers? Give me a break. Just because the current generation of authors aren't converting kits, using balsa and dope or having to superdetail everything from scratch does not make them any less a modeller than those that do, or did - and I'm sorry, but I defy anyone to tell me different, unless you want magazines only to print articles on models made from scratch...

Honestly...

Spence

[The Hooded Claw]

Touched a nerve that then Spence.

Pint at Telford sir.

THC

[cmatthewbacon]

...and count me in, too...

The bar at the CBK SIG is open!

bestest,

M.

[AnonymousFO98]

I'm a hobbyist.

I would like, as a potential customer, to see certain types of modelling articles in magazines.

Apparently the publishers are producing a certain type of magazine with features that I don't really need, because that is not profitable/saleable.

And but so who is going to publish this non saleable article I write, assuming my modelling skills, photos and wordsmithying are good enough?

In which I fall short on all three counts.

So if no one is going to publish it I suppose you will now suggest I stump up the dosh which I don't have, and produce a magazine all by myself with publishing skills that are similarly lacking.

Apologies for being glib in wanting a certain type of article. Please forgive my superficiality.

All I wanted was some tips on kit bashing and scratchbuilding, rather than an advert for X's kit with Y's resin and Z's PE.

Again for the record, if that is what people want that is fine, and there is already a proliferation of magazines catering for that.

If the sort of article I require is not available then so be it, I will make do without.

It is disingenious to suggest that people are being glib just on the basis that they dont like what they see in a magazine.

[keefr22]

I'm a hobbyist.

I would like, as a potential customer, to see certain types of modelling articles in magazines.

Apparently the publishers are producing a certain type of magazine with features that I don't really need, because that is not profitable/saleable.

And but so who is going to publish this non saleable article I write, assuming my modelling skills, photos and wordsmithying are good enough?

In which I fall short on all three counts.

So if no one is going to publish it I suppose you will now suggest I stump up the dosh which I don't have, and produce a magazine all by myself with publishing skills that are similarly lacking.

Apologies for being glib in wanting a certain type of article. Please forgive my superficiality.

All I wanted was some tips on kit bashing and scratchbuilding, rather than an advert for X's kit with Y's resin and Z's PE.

Again for the record, if that is what people want that is fine, and there is already a proliferation of magazines catering for that.

If the sort of article I require is not available then so be it, I will make do without.

It is disingenious to suggest that people are being glib just on the basis that they dont like what they see in a magazine.

And that makes two of us, well said Mr. Walrus......

Keef

[pigsty]

Plus, and this is where it perhaps starts to become a bit of a generation thing, times change. Perhaps the rise of the "assemblers" is just a reflection of a shift in modelling culture, that maybe a lot of people do like that kind of thing and far from the magazines being out of touch, maybe its some of us who, rooted in an earlier era of magazines, no longer make the connection?

If this exists at all, which I doubt, bear in mind what was available back in Ye Goode Olde Days: to wit, cack. The reason people had to sweat to make a decent representation of the real thing was that the bulk of kits were only approximations. What's available now is far better and, yes, it can just be assembled rather than having to be fought to a standstill. Is that wrong? Depends what you're after. If you value the process more than the end result, it may not suit you. If your aim is to have a decent-looking miniature of something real, plus the satisfaction of saying "I made that!", it may suit you fine. I tend towards the latter, but am happy to take a more challenging kit from time to time and try to do it justice. And I suppose I was also merely an "assembler" thirty years ago when I first got into this stupid hobby. Doesn't make me a lower order of modeller, and nor does it make a new magazine that pitches towards that part of the market a bad idea. Especially not as it must be the greater part of the market.

Besides which, if any magazine leans heavily on the Britmodeller crew for content, can it really be that bad?

[andym]

I've tried to keep out of this discussion but I feel I no longer can.

I fully understand those who want a specialist magazine containing niche articles on scratchbuilding, conversions etc. The fact however is that this would only be bought by a very small number of people. We have to get it into our heads that those of us interested in this sort of stuff are only a small minority in the plastic modelling world, which itself is very small, FAR smaller than the railway modeller brigade for instance. The majority modellers are more than happy to build out of the box and a smaller group like to add all the resin and brass they can find, not everyone wants to add loads of scratchbuilt details and accurise as much as possible, that's just the way it is! Also a magazine aimed solely at those of us that want to scrathbuild, superdetail etc. simply would not be economically viable. I've accepted this. Of course it means that I have to get the info elsewhere and that is were websites such as this have become so useful. Also there are several excellent books availible dealing with scratchbuilding etc. If you look around you will find the info out there.

I must say I also get tired of constant harping on about grammer etc. Language is dynamic, it changes from year to year, century to century. We do not speak, or write, in the way of our forebears nor will our decendants speak, write or express their language in the same way as us. I do not express myself in the same way as my Father and my kids use terms which I sometimes don't understand. One only needs to look at text speak to see how our language is changing and then look at an old book such as the Bible to see how it has changed. Grammar (prescriptive grammer is simply not always contemporary), syntax and indeed spelling will continue to evolve and change through usage.

My ha'penny worth

Andy

[Madam I'm Adam]

My tuppence worth

I like having an Airfix magazine

I like having a magazine with a British slant, which is why I'm here.

Surely this debate will be monitored and others on other websites so the magazine will undoubtedly evolve

And gosh there are other magazines with far worse grammar

[thx6667]

I'm a hobbyist.

I would like, as a potential customer, to see certain types of modelling articles in magazines.

Apparently the publishers are producing a certain type of magazine with features that I don't really need, because that is not profitable/saleable.

And but so who is going to publish this non saleable article I write, assuming my modelling skills, photos and wordsmithying are good enough?

In which I fall short on all three counts.

So if no one is going to publish it I suppose you will now suggest I stump up the dosh which I don't have, and produce a magazine all by myself with publishing skills that are similarly lacking.

Apologies for being glib in wanting a certain type of article. Please forgive my superficiality.

All I wanted was some tips on kit bashing and scratchbuilding, rather than an advert for X's kit with Y's resin and Z's PE.

Again for the record, if that is what people want that is fine, and there is already a proliferation of magazines catering for that.

If the sort of article I require is not available then so be it, I will make do without.

It is disingenious to suggest that people are being glib just on the basis that they dont like what they see in a magazine.

I don't think anyone said that people are being glib, but rather a perception held by some that the magazines are. And it is perhaps slightly disingenuous to the people who are writing for magazines - who are, ultimately us, fellow modellers - that what they're doing isn't what is wanted by a potential readership that only ever seems to know what it doesn't want and can someone else do something about it.

I taker your point Walrus, not everyone has the time or resources to produce the kinds of articles that they themselves would like to read, that's fair enough. But a good few surely do have the time and resources and it is perhaps worth wondering why their much wanted - albeit unspecified - material, which were told in discussions like this is just what everyone is waiting for, doesn't make it into print whereas the "assembler" (for want of a better phrase) stuff does. As I said, I don't think its because the editors don't want it, far from it, but something clearly isn't happening with that niche segment where they're not getting the kinds of articles they want when the people who are best placed to produce that material is that niche market. What we're left with is a collective sitting on hands waiting for the magazines to magically start producing the kinds of material they want to see.

Perhaps what we're getting in model magazines is reflection of the kind of modelling scene that exists now. That modellers make models using resin from X and decals from Y, and all use the same kinds of techniques and present it in a very similar fashion, is just how it is now, and other people like to read that because it reflects their modelling tastes.

Like Spence and the other editors out there like, I'd love to know exactly what kind of material would make people buy a magazine - specifics, subjects, approaches, name it.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Jonathan Mock

[davidelvy]

My local Tesco has it , the shelf is still full.

Not surprising I suppose, considering it is a monthly and came out yesterday.

[Dave Fleming]

My own personal observation is that the very section of the modelling community that seems to dismiss the current crop of model magazines as being a bit glib, superficial, also seems to be very apathetic when it comes to doing something about it. As the saying goes, "be the change you want".

"Ah but" comes the reply "its not down to me, its down the editor and writers, I shouldn't have to get involved" which in many ways it is, but equally if everyone just sat on their duffs having a bit of a moan and expected others to provide them with then kind of magazine they seem to think that they - and everyone else - really wants, rather than what they are getting, then we'd have no magazines at all.

And while I can't speak for any of the magazines or editors out there, I'm sure they'd be delighted to get the kind of material that often gets alluded to, which some feel is lacking. But its going to take someone to actually make, write, photograph and send it in to get the ball rolling.

But then if none of them are publishing the sort of articles you want to read, is it because they don't have them - or they don't want to publish those types of articles? And my modelling skills are no where near good enough for a magazine - maybe SAM in the days of muddy B+W photos, but not now in the super clear big pic era. What I probably could write is a historical articl, or one on colours and markings, but nobody seems to be publishing them these days without an accompanying modeling article (I know, as i have asked and the answer has always been 'Do you have a modelling article to go with that'

Plus, and this is where it perhaps starts to become a bit of a generation thing, times change. Perhaps the rise of the "assemblers" is just a reflection of a shift in modelling culture, that maybe a lot of people do like that kind of thing and far from the magazines being out of touch, maybe its some of us who, rooted in an earlier era of magazines, no longer make the connection?

A more erudite way of saying what I tried to!

[The Hooded Claw]

But then if none of them are publishing the sort of articles you want to read, is it because they don't have them - or they don't want to publish those types of articles? And my modelling skills are no where near good enough for a magazine - maybe SAM in the days of muddy B+W photos, but not now in the super clear big pic era. What I probably could write is a historical articl, or one on colours and markings, but nobody seems to be publishing them these days without an accompanying modeling article (I know, as i have asked and the answer has always been 'Do you have a modelling article to go with that'

A more erudite way of saying what I tried to!

May I suggest that you find a modelling partner to build what you describe.

I published several such pieces in AMi and MVMi back in the day

THC

[thx6667]

But then if none of them are publishing the sort of articles you want to read, is it because they don't have them - or they don't want to publish those types of articles? And my modelling skills are no where near good enough for a magazine - maybe SAM in the days of muddy B+W photos, but not now in the super clear big pic era. What I probably could write is a historical articl, or one on colours and markings, but nobody seems to be publishing them these days without an accompanying modeling article (I know, as i have asked and the answer has always been 'Do you have a modelling article to go with that'

Well there you go Dave, you write the historical schtick, I'll do the modelling - sorted!

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

It's often best that I keep out of these discussions but in this instance I have to agree with Jonathan. It is a fact that the ones who complain the most about how poor magazines are these days are the LEAST likely to be kicking down my door with articles that help to improve the situation. Bottom line - it's always someone else's responsibilty. But where do you think these articles come from? I'll tell you where - from members of BM (Mike Williams, Jonathan Mock, Andy Davies, Ian Ogilvy, Nick Turner, Dean Large etc.) who instead of moaning about the editorial content of the country's magazines, actually put scalpel to plastic and then pen to paper and then make a difference. Simple isn't it?

I'm sorry that this sounds harsh, but frankly I'm sick and tired of this constant criticism of magazines and Editors who have to work hard to try and bring you something to enjoy every month (for little more than the price of a pint and a packet of cheese and onion crisps). No, we can't always give YOU everything that YOU want every month but we try - within the boundaries of what we can commission for that issue, within the budgets that we are set (which are getting tighter and tighter all the time...) and the time that we have between each one.

And also while I'm on a roll, modellers or assemblers? Give me a break. Just because the current generation of authors aren't converting kits, using balsa and dope or having to superdetail everything from scratch does not make them any less a modeller than those that do, or did - and I'm sorry, but I defy anyone to tell me different, unless you want magazines only to print articles on models made from scratch...

Honestly...

Spence

I'd like to second this - as someone who failed to do an article for Spence ( time - work, family, apathy etc) . It takes a lot of effort to write articles - so kudos to those that actually do. You really have to want to write an article though - as I found out, my willing was there - but my actually wasnt.

Here' s where I differ from Spence's post. And just in case it confuses things, the following should not be attributed to Spence's Editorialship either.

However - I dont think thats whats being called for here is the old "Alan W Hall balsa and talc" conversions: I think that whats being asked for is some separation between content and supplier, and some editorial cojones. Its a rare day in a print mag nowadays that a model is taken to task for pretty much anything ( accuracy, fit etc) - these things are usually forgiven under the aegis of "well it looks like etc etc" or " its probably me".

To my mind theres just too much "never a bad review" nowadays in some mags, when plainly the model being reviewed is not a paragon of virtue, and this is I think what gets peoples goats up. To wit, magazines appear to have become the mouthpieces of the manufacturers with faults being apportioned by the writer, to the writer, as a kind of apologetic afterthought.

I would just like certain magazines to give me some truth in their articles - or at least admit they dont know. Instead it seems that for a lot of mags, its us in the internet who get the blame for whipping up "bad press" or as a justification for saccarinising things. - 'Theres been a lot of discussion on the web about this model , but Arthur Stonks builds HobbyBugler's Farley Fruitbat and finds its very much a Fruitbat.' or 'The usual online experts have been up in arms over Skyfix's new Tvat Wobbler MkXIV, well it's a nice kit and we've given it to Arnold so see what he does with it, even though he admits he's no Wobbler-boffin'.

Its a very long time since I read a review in a magazine that actually said anything honest about a kit - ie it fits like a dog or its woefully inaccurate, and strangley those models dont seem to make it into magazines nowadays either - perhaps because of those very reasons?

Ultimately I want these magazines to be on the side of the modeller, but until editors of these magazines ( and yes chaps I'm afraid its you who are in the firing line here: you call the shots, so you take the flak) start taking manufacturers to task for inaccurate, or badly fitting models again, you are still going to get pulled over the coals, every once in a while, online.

Cheers

Jonners

[edited to make stuff clearer]

Edited November 5, 2010 by Jon Kunac-Tabinor

[Spence]

To my mind theres just too much "never a bad review" nowadays in mags, when plainly the model being reviewed is not a paragon of virtue, and this is I think what gets peoples goats up. To wit, magazines appear to have become the mouthpieces of the manufacturers with faults being apportioned by the writer, to the writer, as a kind of apologetic afterthought.

I would just like magazines to give me some truth in their articles - or at least admit they dont know. Instead it seems that for a lot of mags, its us in the internet who get the blame for whipping up "bad press" or as a justification for saccarinising things.

Its a very long time since I read a review in a magazine that actually said anything honest about a kit - ie it fits like a dog or its woefully inaccurate, and strangley those models dont seem to make it into magazines nowadays either - perhaps because of those very reasons?

Ultimately I want magazines to be on the side of the modeller, but until editors of magazines ( and yes chaps I'm afraid its you who are in the firing line here: you call the shots, so you take the flak) start taking manufacturers to task for inaccurate, or badly fitting models again, you are still going to get pulled over the coals, every once in a while, online.

Cheers

Jonners

I'm sorry Jon - but you can't be talking about anything that I've overseen. Whenever we've taken a detailed look at a model we've ALWAYS told it as it is. You only have to see recently the reviews of the Airfix Sea Harriers or MiG-15 where we laid out in detail where the problems were (the MiG-15 being particularly terrible...), my feature on the Dragon Nashorn (where I panned the instructions and ludicrous assembly sequence), to see that we are not afraid of speaking our minds. I can't speak for anyone else, but let me lay this on the line; I have never once been asked to temper a review to ensure support from a manufacturer, nor have I ever been asked by a manufacturer to either show them a review before it was published, or change it once it has been. Never. Not once. Ever.

As a modeller who builds a fair number of models every year, I have always been on the side of the modeller (if I wasn't, I wouldn't visit sites like this) and feel that I have only ever wanted to share my knowledge with my readers so that they can build better models and enjoy their hobby more along the way. In so doing, I certainly would not be afraid to tell readers that a kit that I'm building doesn't fit together well - why? Because it's my name on the door - an funnily enough, I'm not that keen on being pulled over the coals...

Spence

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

I'm sorry Jon - but you can't be talking about anything that I've overseen. Whenever we've taken a detailed look at a model we've ALWAYS told it as it is. You only have to see recently the reviews of the Airfix Sea Harriers or MiG-15 where we laid out in detail where the problems were (the MiG-15 being particularly terrible...), my feature on the Dragon Nashorn (where I panned the instructions and ludicrous assembly sequence), to see that we are not afraid of speaking our minds. I can't speak for anyone else, but let me lay this on the line; I have never once been asked to temper a review to ensure support from a manufacturer, nor have I ever been asked by a manufacturer to either show them a review before it was published, or change it once it has been. Never. Not once. Ever.

As a modeller who builds a fair number of models every year, I have always been on the side of the modeller (if I wasn't, I wouldn't visit sites like this) and feel that I have only ever wanted to share my knowledge with my readers so that they can build better models and enjoy their hobby more along the way. In so doing, I certainly would not be afraid to tell readers that a kit that I'm building doesn't fit together well - why? Because it's my name on the door - an funnily enough, I'm not that keen on being pulled over the coals...

Spence

Hi Spence - and my apologies - I should have made it clear that I wasnt talking about you - even though I used your post as the starting point to my reply. My apologies, though I'm sure you would grill well

Jonners

Edited November 5, 2010 by Jon Kunac-Tabinor

[mrcooljules]

I'm sorry Jon - but you can't be talking about anything that I've overseen. Whenever we've taken a detailed look at a model we've ALWAYS told it as it is. You only have to see recently the reviews of the Airfix Sea Harriers or MiG-15 where we laid out in detail where the problems were (the MiG-15 being particularly terrible...), my feature on the Dragon Nashorn (where I panned the instructions and ludicrous assembly sequence), to see that we are not afraid of speaking our minds. I can't speak for anyone else, but let me lay this on the line; I have never once been asked to temper a review to ensure support from a manufacturer, nor have I ever been asked by a manufacturer to either show them a review before it was published, or change it once it has been. Never. Not once. Ever.

As a modeller who builds a fair number of models every year, I have always been on the side of the modeller (if I wasn't, I wouldn't visit sites like this) and feel that I have only ever wanted to share my knowledge with my readers so that they can build better models and enjoy their hobby more along the way. In so doing, I certainly would not be afraid to tell readers that a kit that I'm building doesn't fit together well - why? Because it's my name on the door - an funnily enough, I'm not that keen on being pulled over the coals...

Spence

yes the Mig 15 was crap, and remember your review.

oh, im still waiting for the completion of the 'century series' to be completed from many many moons ago, i think i was waiting for the Super Sabres lol

i picked up the last edition of MIS today (i get it from a small newsageng the other side of sheffield when i go past, suport the little newsagent!!)

also got this new mag and im very disapointed....the Sukioi build etc disapointed me a great deal. some of the mag i really liked, some i didnt but its early days

[Spence]

Hi Spence - and my apologies - I should have made it clear that I wasnt talking about you - even though I used your post as the starting point to my reply. My apologies, though I'm sure your would grill well

Jonners

To be honest, I knew you weren't - but I figured in for a penny in for a pound and explain how we do things at MIS...

And you're right - I would grill well!

Spence

[corporate]

.........

To my mind theres just too much "never a bad review" nowadays in mags, when plainly the model being reviewed is not a paragon of virtue, and this is I think what gets peoples goats up. To wit, magazines appear to have become the mouthpieces of the manufacturers with faults being apportioned by the writer, to the writer, as a kind of apologetic afterthought.

I would just like magazines to give me some truth in their articles - or at least admit they dont know. .............

Its a very long time since I read a review in a magazine that actually said anything honest about a kit -.............

Jonners

Common sense, fair and so on, nothing wrong with your attitude Jon. I come to this thread late but allow me to comment briefly. As a magazine journo (nothing to do with modelling) I know a bit about it; I started a long time ago as a part-timer who did it out of enthusiasm and because I could both write, and take pro-standard photographs; I developed into a full-time freelance. Certain hobbyist publishing niches - shooting, fishing, modelling - depend on amateur/semi-pro contributions to such a degree that the level of fees has been established, historically, at such a low(-ish) level that pros are not motivated to contribute; the same niches, or many of the titles within these niches, cannot pay full pro rates anyway because the readership is so restricted; "restriction" is to be interpreted both in terms of numbers, and disposable income. This last point? Magazines do not become profitable by making money on their cover price, but by selling advertising space: this is what makes publishers permit and encourage a given title to continue. This often means that a title's content is to some extent driven by lowest common denominator considerations, and specialist/minority topics (including some of those mentioned earlier in this thread) are never going to get a look in, being subordinated to safe subjects, mass appeal subjects, variations on well worn themes.... Editors are not thanked by the hard-headed money men at their publishers for being radical, adventurous, and riskily experimental in catering for minority tastes.

I enjoy what I do but that's because it coincides with what my sort of titles want: I don't write just any old stuff that I fancy. The sort of magazines I write for have very specific requirements, and sometimes have brief-notes for contributors that spell out in great detail what they want and how it needs to be presented. Journalism is hard work, and part of it is writing to a brief, providing what editors and their publishers want; and that is dictated by an informed awareness of market forces, what the bulk of readers out there want - and the sort of readers that potential advertisers want to reach. If that excludes the sort of contributors and subject matter that one might want to see in modelling magazines, it's a pity, but that's reality.

Tony

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

To be honest, I knew you weren't - but I figured in for a penny in for a pound and explain how we do things at MIS...

And you're right - I would grill well!

Spence

with some fava beans and a nice chianti.....

I wonder if you could explain why you think other magazines may be more 'lateral' in their views?

Jonners with rock and harder place for you to squeeze between

[thx6667]

I have never once been asked to temper a review to ensure support from a manufacturer, nor have I ever been asked by a manufacturer to either show them a review before it was published, or change it once it has been. Never. Not once. Ever.

Likewise, in all the time I used to write occasional stuff for magazines (going back 20 years - eek!), there was never any editorial pressure or guidance to "talk that kit up a bit old bean, they're advertising with us don't you know" - I've been told that, of course, that kind of stuff goes on all the time, usually by folk with zero experience of writing for a model magazine but who just know.

I do remember a review in the mid 1990s that ended with the writer apologising to a manufacturer for a negative write up and hoping they would not withhold review samples in future, "grovel grovel". I'm not joking, that's how it actually ended.

End of the day sometimes a reviewer is given a kit and if they like it and enjoy it, that's what they write up. Hands up here, I really did enjoy making the Academy P-39, I thought it was a terrific kit and wrote a glowing review, I then read a piece a while later tearing it apart!

[The Hooded Claw]

Likewise, in all the time I used to write occasional stuff for magazines (going back 20 years - eek!), there was never any editorial pressure or guidance to "talk that kit up a bit old bean, they're advertising with us don't you know" - I've been told that, of course, that kind of stuff goes on all the time, usually by folk with zero experience of writing for a model magazine but who just know.

I do remember a review in the mid 1990s that ended with the writer apologising to a manufacturer for a negative write up and hoping they would not withhold review samples in future, "grovel grovel". I'm not joking, that's how it actually ended.

End of the day sometimes a reviewer is given a kit and if they like it and enjoy it, that's what they write up. Hands up here, I really did enjoy making the Academy P-39, I thought it was a terrific kit and wrote a glowing review, I then read a piece a while later tearing it apart!

I recall reviewing some resin bits from a certain interglalactic manufacturer which pointed out issues with the design of said bits. Never paid his outstanding advertising invoice and we never saw a review sample from them again. Still didn't miss them just made sure that any of their stuff used in the magazine thereafter was never credited to them.

THC

[TheModeller]

Hmmm, so what I'm getting from all this is that the new Airfix mag isn't intended for modellers like me, I see now, and the new SAM isn't intended for modellers like me either... OK. And if I want a magazine aimed at modellers like me I should shut up and get on with writing it myself!

Well lets see if my lottery ticket comes up tonight then... I'll be the one buying all the beer at the bar at SMW if it does!

[Nigel Bunker]

To any contributors who feel insulted by my use of the word "padding", I offer an unreserved apology.