Scale Aircraft Modelling

[Greg B]

Gents,

The subject of SAM seems to be a reoccurring issue on here. Far be it for me to interfere with the Baahing, humbugging and grumbling emanating from such august company as yourselves, but Jay is as far as I can remember both a member on here and in possession of a contactable email address as the editor. Likewise is his partner in crime Karl (DSWoofie) and assistant editor. If you really feel that strongly, offer up some constructive criticism or heaven forbid, provide an article such as you would like to see. If he doesn't get them, he cant publish them!

Now be off back to your Chesterfields with your large snifters of Brandy and Airfix Series 1 Spitfires and settle down!

[Skii]

Indeed, positive criticism please chaps - lets keep comments directed toward the publication please, not directed towards the individuals.

Thankyou.

[thx6667]

I just think it might be a case of all change is considered bad.

Yes and no. There was a reticence to update SAM to the point where, in the 1990s as DTP was taking over fast, SAM still looked like a relic from the 1950s, typographically and layout wise - take a look at the cover logo, in era of digital artwork it was still a camera-(un)ready artwork that had seen better days decades ago.

"OK" some of you will say "I don't care for that I care for the articles", but there were simple things that were proposed to update SAM in an non-instrusive way to provide the best of both worlds, but were all rejected outright - and which led to Mike Keep leaving and setting up "Scale Aviation Modeller" in 1994.

Neil Robinson did manage to turn SAM around and both update it and keep the core material without upsetting too many.

My own personal feeling is that SAM has now lost something - I think it still has the the right ingredients to make a great magazine, but the mix isn't there, or at least to me. The Aircraft in Detail was never meant to be be-all reference but just a primer, perhaps in this age of instant information its felt that it no longer relevant, I don't know., but I'd like to see something that at least points people to go and look into a subject further.

But if its selling copies, you really can't argue with that because its struck a chord - perhaps its us who are now out of touch with what everybody else likes in magazine?

Edited August 29, 2010 by Jonathan Mock

[Ed Russell]

Indeed, positive criticism please chaps - lets keep comments directed toward the publication please, not directed towards the individuals.

Okay I found something positive to say! I looked at some issues from 20 and 30 years ago compared to the latest one - the photos of models in the current issue are better quality than those of yesteryear. There you go - something positive!!!

I used to buy and index all these magazines religiously until a couple of years ago - now I apply the three-article rule - it's gotta have three moderately good articles or one outstanding one - and I rarely buy any these days. Mind you, if the circulation is climbing ever higher it's us whingers here who are in the minority not buying the magazines.

[AnonymousFO98]

But if its selling copies, you really can't argue with that because its struck a chord - perhaps its us who are now out of touch with what everybody else likes in magazine?

This is true, but at the same time it feels like being sidelined and the homogenisation of the magazines leaves us with nowhere to go.

[thx6667]

This is true, but at the same time it feels like being sidelined and the homogenisation of the magazines leaves us with nowhere to go.

I seem to (loosely) remember AWH editorial saying that he thought the average SAM reader was over 40 and hand painted their models, and even that he would prefer a return to the old fashion talc-balsa conversion that in the face of the rising after-market sector - I don't doubt there were a lot of readers who felt same way when SAM changed under Robbo.

And there's the irony - we worry about keeping this hobby accessible but seem to baulk at a "dumbing down" which may just be a reflection that the things that some of us felt made up "good" magazines in the past are not relevant to todays generation whom we are trying to encourage for the future of the hobby.

In fact maybe the same way the modellers 50 years ago felt that plastic kits were "dumbing down" the skill of model making...

[FalkeEins]

the things that some of us felt made up "good" magazines in the past are not relevant to todays generation

good point ..this wistful nostalgia for the 'old' SAM - balsa, talcum powder, warts and all - just seems rather misplaced in 2010. Hang over from Airfix Magazine I reckon..on which we probably all grew up. And while I've mostly kept the Airfix mags those early 80's issues of SAM went in the bin a long time ago ...

Edited August 29, 2010 by FalkeEins

[AnonymousFO98]

I missed all the balsa and talc stuff (and don't miss the black and white colour profiles ).

imho that is a red herring.

The mags, as stated elsewhere, have become dominated by product. Whilst I can see the value in people wanting to see such content, the mags become wholly preoccupied by product placement and read like a catalogue.

They are uncritical, by which I mean an honest and fair assesment. In short it feels like being hassled by an overenthusiastic salesperson than being informed.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I had subscribed to SAM for the last 18 or 20 years. My subscription followed me all over the country, but it lapsed earlier this year. I do not like the format, the articles are all too simplistic, there are few reference articles (one of the things that I think set SAM apart from many of the others). And the Tools and Techniques articles helped me to develop into the modeller I am today. All now missing and replaced by compact builds and silly push button style graphics depicting whether the kit is resin, injection vacform etc etc. Given the amount of space why not just say resin, injection or vacform?

Sadly SAM is now too samey and not as good as some of the competition. The big font, poor "typesetting", sppolling, lightweight articles and poor use of graphics are just a few of the things that frustrate me. I have picked up and flicked through all of the issues since my subscription expired and haven't bought one issue. Sadly I have to say I don't miss my subscription which says it all really. For me MAI is the magazine of choice at present.

[FalkeEins]

The mags, as stated elsewhere, have become dominated by product. Whilst I can see the value in people wanting to see such content, the mags become wholly preoccupied by product placement and read like a catalogue.

They are uncritical, by which I mean an honest and fair assesment. In short it feels like being hassled by an overenthusiastic salesperson than being informed.

I don't like SAMI for those reasons. SAM isn't anywhere near there yet. But you're right, perhaps the nostalgia for the 'old' SAM is most keenly felt by those that never had the chance to collect the original Airfix Magazine.

Edited August 29, 2010 by FalkeEins

[BushBrit66]

A pass from me as well, alas.

I have to say, for as much as some of the old guard thought Robbo took the magazine away from what Alan Hall created, Robbo actually refined it and bought it more up to date.

The basic SAM template is very sound, it just needed better presentation.

Very true Mr Mock. I always liked the build articles for insiration. Now its flashy photos, which is fine and finishing only. Those old frame by frame builds are still very useful How about an updated version of the old Jim Howard articles. I have every issue but thus years subscrition will be my last.

SAMI was also the catalogue and SAM the more in depth read. Now its a pale inmitation of SAMI.

A real shame. Updating is one thing but why re invent the wheel?

[thx6667]

Very true Mr Mock. I always liked the build articles for insiration. Now its flashy photos, which is fine and finishing only. Those old frame by frame builds are still very useful How about an updated version of the old Jim Howard articles. I have every issue but thus years subscrition will be my last.

SAMI was also the catalogue and SAM the more in depth read. Now its a pale inmitation of SAMI.

A real shame. Updating is one thing but why re invent the wheel?

Mike Keep's original plan for SAM2 was more of less the same as SAM but with more modelling content, which was sometimes limited to one article in SAM, and also feature more reviews and previews of new products. Sadly Mike passed away on the eve of the first issue in 1994.

[Simon Cornes]

I suppose it is easy to criticise but very hard to do a better job, but then we are the ones who choose (or otherwise) to buy and 'they' are the ones who choose to be professional journalists so I think that we have the right to be critical (both positively and negatively).

I - like so many - started to buy SAM when it first came out. The alternative was Scale Models but I found that a magazine devoted to just aeroplanes was perfect for me and so I bought it month after month for the best part of 4 years and then stopped when I went to college.

When I started plastic modelling again, 3 years ago, it was SAM I turned to, amongst the bewildering array of alternatives. I also bought back issues of anything that sounded interesting. Sadly, I am now loathe to stop buying it (having missed 35 years worth, or how ever many it is!).

I agree, the photos are great, although they highlight any mistakes made by the modeller - for example, the lovely Hobby Boss Rafale C in the current issue. Does a Rafale really have a gap like that between the windscreen and nose? Maybe it does but it doesn't look right to me!

I suppose editors come and go and Jay has a finite amount of time before something bigger and better comes along for him. I notice the reference to him being a BM member and how we can e-mail him with comments/opinions, etc. Well I did - not harshly but with what I thought was reasonable criticism. Result? No reply so so much for that. It takes 2, and whilst he probably gets a lot of correspondence, the lack of response to me on one occassion is enough for me. I also often feel quite sorry for him - how often does he seem to be providing 50%+ of the content? Can't be easy and I agree that the lack of proof reading is appalling. Great photos of the Corsair build but some of the text is hard to understand - I suspect Mr Vrzak does not have English as a first language and he's done a better job than I could do in his native tongue but maybe Jay, at least, should have read (and tweaked?) the article?

I expect I'll carry on with my subscription - because I deliberately don't buy any other mags - and I hope it becomes more to my liking . Wouldn't it be interesting though if Jay was to have built the Hase Ju 188 alongside the Italeri version? That would have been useful but would there have been issues with the suppliers? I have an Italeri Ju 188 but I don't think I'll ever own a Hase example - unless its box-less, decal-less and instruction-less and selling for a tenner!

Oh yes, and I remember Jay saying months ago that he would have to be careful because of his involvement with Mastercasters but most months something from that firm appears somewhere and I now get the idea that he's going to be producing drilled exhausts for the Ju 188 ,based on the article. I could be wrong but that's what struck me.

And finally, I'm just reading the article about the Fiat BR20. It's by 'our' Mike isn't it? I had to look at the Features list on Page 4 to find that out - but then maybe Mike's name appears somewhere but I haven't read far enough?

Yes, I prefer my 1970's/80's version of the magazine on balance but we ain't going to be getting that in the future are we? And at least we can still read Mike McEvoy's website (Grumpy Old Modeller).

Let's hope the next issue appeals more to me (and you for that matter!)

Edited August 29, 2010 by Simon Cornes

[AnonymousER99]

And finally, I'm just reading the article about the Fiat BR20. It's by 'our' Mike isn't it? I had to look at the Features list on Page 4 to find that out - but then maybe Mike's name appears somewhere but I haven't read far enough?

No, that article was done by another Mike Williams.

Cheers

Mike Reeves

[roys]

Aviation in Profile has not been dropped-it's due to Mark Rolfe joining the Aviation Workshop and I found his stuff average anyway. Bring back Alf Grainger of Planes!!!

I have moaned to the Aviation Workshop about their decals in a private polite letter and had no response despite enclosing my email. I also feel the same way about

Hannants, after meeting the boss at the odd airshow, and now only use places like that if I have to. I also enjoy lurking at shows listening to some of the moaning that goes on to get a feel of things and opinions on the hobby!

SAM is still printed on decent quality paper and you would not be able to determine rushed builds in SAMI due to the printing quality-page 769 August/P61 Black Widow

article was awful and made me glad I had took out a sub with SAM. SAMI is great for Mike Grant in the way that Tony O' Tooles articles were most enjoyable but the number of adverts are too much.Went off Aeroplane Monthly when the paper quality went down. Never bought SAM in the black and white days-looked at it, found it dull and plastic modelling dull and continued with Aeromodeller and RM. Also a lot of books these days have b & w pictures ,that were originally published in colour which also kills my interest.

Would not like to work for any of the mags as it would kill any enjoyment of the hobby and when the credit crunch hits me its the internet thats going before the mags.

Think of all that time and lack of opportunity to buy more stuff!

[vandy1]

I'm not going to say 'that's when it started to go down hill........' but I always enjoy your articles Darren.

I didn't think you even hinted at that. One of the problems with working on a magazine is trying to keep a balance to keep readers happy. Railway modelling involves, at the core, three main scales, and all of which have a sub-class to do with finescale. Then you have the issue of eras, reigions etc. Also trying to put 20,000 words together and doing a lot of modelling yourself does lead to errors in models, typos and factual content. I am, and was far from perfect, but most issues can be ironed out by an editor (assuming he knows the subject) proof readers, designers and the like before it is sent to the repro house, and then you still have to check page layouts before comitting to final printing. Lots of issues still seem, to me to stem from 'cut and paste' rather than using templates.

As i said my comments towards SAM are of a personal opinion, but i know the problems they face each month. Its not easy to get a balance, plus each time you have a new editor they usually try to put thier own stamp on a publication.

As one person has put on here i suppose we are all guilty as we can all put an article thier way and help broaden the content. it is easy to complain about something, but can we do any better?

Cheers

DSJ

[Shane]

Well I picked up my copy today and I fear it has hit an all time low.

(snip)

Rant over.

After buying SAM from the very start and missing onlyt three issues in all that time, I sopped buying SAM in January.

It's become a lightweight comic book with nothing to recommend it over *any* of the competing magazines. Tragedy, in my opinion.

Shane

[Shane]

Actually, there's not a magazine that I truely say suits me anymore - MAM before Neil left was what I wanted form a modelling mag.

Another one that's gone to the dogs. Frankly, there are *plenty* of 1:1 aircraft magazines already, and MAM does nothing more for me than any of the others. A (very) few model company adverts is not enough reason to buy it, so my monthly magazine purchases dropped *twice* in January.

Shane

[Shane]

Yet according to Regis and Jay, circulation has never been higher, so some people must like it.

Of five members of my model club who bought SAM every month, none do so now, and only one buys an occasional issue of the newsagent shelves. They must be getting new subs from people outside my orbit, or they're telling porkies.

Shane

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

I was very sceptical of the New look SAM when it first came out, but I have to say that I think it has improved since then, so kudos to Jay for taking some of the criticism on board. Theres still plenty thats not right, in my opinion, but then I could say the same for all the mags too. If the circulation is up as a result then the owners will be happy, and it will be a "more of the same, keep it up" memo from the boss.

I quite like the little "Legendary anicillary" and "lexicon" items and the overall look is a lot cleaner than when it was first revamped. I still can't see the point of the book review style, especially as most of each 'review' is invariably taken up with the " what they say" bit. The little arrowed detail pics in articles need to be bigger I think, and the wayfinding on them can be confusing too.

As somoene who has been try to write an article for a magazine for several months (sorry Spence, I am that useless it would seem), the pressures of everyday work and family life do get in the way, so its not that easy to just "knock one out". I think that people who come up with " if you dont like it, write an article" rubric are often forgetting that; and anyway, as has been pointed out, the buyer is the consumer, so can justifiably complain if they dont like what they are buying.

I mean you dont buy a washing machine, and upon finding some annoying feature of it, have other washine machine users tell you to go and build a better one if you think you can, so I dont see why as magazine consumers we cant complain if we see fit.

Cheers

Jonners

[ancient mariner]

I mean you dont buy a washing machine, and upon finding some annoying feature of it, have other washine machine users tell you to go and build a better one if you think you can, so I dont see why as magazine consumers we cant complain if we see fit.

Cheers

Jonners

I think that is fair comment.

We have had almost the same thread before about SAM(and its latest incarnation) and the opinion is still split between the two main camps.ie: The friends of the editor and the "old guard".

European modeller is full of praise for the new look ,so I would hazard a guess that , that is where the new client base dwell.

Im with the if you dont like it dont buy it brigade. I stopped about six issues back. I do however always check to see if the content is worth(to me) the cover price

[thx6667]

Of five members of my model club who bought SAM every month, none do so now, and only one buys an occasional issue of the newsagent shelves. They must be getting new subs from people outside my orbit, or they're telling porkies.

I think there are plenty of people out there who make models or perhaps buy the magazines that are outside "our orbit", I think we all tend to see the hobby as we are to certain degree, and imagine that everyone else falls in line.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Jonathan Mock

[Dave Fleming]

We have had almost the same thread before about SAM(and its latest incarnation) and the opinion is still split between the two main camps.ie: The friends of the editor and the "old guard".

European modeller is full of praise for the new look ,so I would hazard a guess that , that is where the new client base dwell.

It was the only forum I'm aware of that an initial appeal for contributors was put on, so perhaps that has a bearing.

I think the issue is that SAM was a magazine for aircraft modellers. It's now an aircraft modelling magazine. The model is seen as the most important part, rather than the aircraft. It's an attitude to the hobby that permeates throughout, not just in our choice of magazine. There is no right and wrong in that. it's just not my particular bag.

I've said it before - I'm not that interested in pictures of models if the subject doesn't interest me.

Edited August 30, 2010 by Dave Fleming

[Seahawk]

Im with the if you dont like it dont buy it brigade.

Yes, you're quite right. Trouble is, I'm finding it difficult to find anything worth buying nowadays. In a short time I've gone from buying 3 mags a month automatically plus others as and when they had something of interest to buying just 1, maybe 2, mags a month, usually on a basis of a single article that piques my interest just enough to separate me from cash.

I suddenly feel I'm an untapped market after being milked steadily for 40-odd years. My money is waiting for someone producing a magazine which contains articles containing real information and honest informed reviews, and which doesn't just try to disguise lack of content with with big print, dodgy artwork, colour pics and verbatim regurgitation of the manufacturers'/publishers' blurb.

[AnonymousFO98]

That's how I feel Seahawk

though having got used to no magazines a month I rather think I can continue to manage without any at all.