Scale Aircraft Modelling

[Darius at Home]

I have to admit that I am finding SAM to be a bit lightweight these days. I used to buy SAM, SAMI and FSM every month but dropped FSM as it was getting vary repetitive with basic "how to" articles and less and less "fine scale" stuff. Now I find that reading SAM from cover to cover takes only 15 minutes and leaves me quite unsatisfied. To me the way the models are photographed makes them look somewhat sterile and anaemic - but that's just me. Also the way that the text is arranged haphazardly around the photos makes the articles hard to read. There also seems to be a degree of padding with rather obscure real aviation news popping in for no aparrent reason and some of the product reviews fail to mention the manufacturer, and those that do are next to the photo of the next product...and...and...and...

I agree that they appear to be copying SAMI and doing a poor job of it. Alas after almost 20 years I will no longer be buying SAM. On the plus side that will leave me with almost £50 more per year to spend on other things.

SAMI still takes a bit longer to read and seems to click with what interests me.

And I also noticed the poor fit of the Rafale windscreen - seemed ironic after the tips on subtle weathering that the author provided - perhaps the print deadline forced his hand.

Darius

Edited August 30, 2010 by Darius at Home

[kitbasher2009]

Point taken about constructive criticism, a fair call.

As per a preevious entry, photo and colour repro quality is excellent.

At he risk of being stoned as a heretic I think Alan Hall had got into a rut with SAM because it didn't evolve sufficiently, especially with regards to colour (anyone remember the first couple of attempts at colour profiles? I do, basically hand coloured B+W jobs, and not very well done). Not of the talc and balsa brigade myself, my pont of reference is the improvements Neil Robinson made to SAM. Paul Eden was I think of an evolutionary mind but perhaps not at the right pace.

I endorse Dave Fleming's point that SAM was a magazine for aircraft modellers, and is now an aircraft modelling magazine. Has the basis of th ehobby changed, therefore? Model makers of a certain age got into the hobby because they were aviation enthusiasts, but now they are model enthusiasts whose favourite subjects are aircraft? In which case the thrust of most model mags is probably right. The nature of those coming into the hobby has changed, therefore periodicals supporting it have changed accordingly. Sadly, that means that those who grew with the hobby as the hobby grew are perhaps becoming a minority within it, and maybe are becoming marginalised as a result. An unfortunate fact of life; perhaps it i us who needs to adjust - to keep pace with certain aspects of the hobby's evolution - in order to keep those aspects of the hobby alive?

[aw-boss man]

I have to admit that I am finding SAM to be a bit lightweight these days. I used to buy SAM, SAMI and FSM every month but dropped FSM as it was getting vary repetitive with basic "how to" articles and less and less "fine scale" stuff. Now I find that reading SAM from cover to cover takes only 15 minutes and leaves me quite unsatisfied. To me the way the models are photographed makes them look somewhat sterile and anaemic - but that's just me. Also the way that the text is arranged haphazardly around the photos makes the articles hard to read. There also seems to be a degree of padding with rather obscure real aviation news popping in for no apparrent reason and some of the product reviews fail to mention the manufacturer, and those that do are next to the photo of the next product...and...and...and...

I agree that they appear to be copying SAMI and doing a poor job of it. Alas after almost 20 years I will no longer be buying SAM. On the plus side that will leave me with almost £50 more per year to spend on other things.

SAMI still takes a bit longer to read and seems to click with what interests me.

And I also noticed the poor fit of the Rafale windscreen - seemed ironic after the tips on subtle weathering that the author provided - perhaps the print deadline forced his hand.

Darius

I buy Replic, Kit and Wingmaster for the quality of the magazines, the articles, paper and printing. This is the quality we should be aiming for in a magazine and one which I know Key Publishing is aiming for with the new Airfix Modelworld Magazine.

We have been involved in some of the content and layout discussions and from what we have seen and heard this will be the magazine that gives many modellers and aviation enthusiast the best of both worlds. There will be many well known names appearing over the next few months including authors and artists that are no longer working for other Publishing Houses as well as picking the best features from the magazines.

I believe this is to be launched at Scale Modelworld in Telford with some exciting features and articles produced by their team and I am looking forward to its release and finally getting a modelling magazine of a quality similar if not better than our European cousins. Key has the experience and backup to produce this better than any other publishing company in my opinion. Great stuff!

Gary Madgwick

The Aviation Workshop

[thx6667]

At he risk of being stoned as a heretic I think Alan Hall had got into a rut with SAM because it didn't evolve sufficiently, especially with regards to colour (anyone remember the first couple of attempts at colour profiles? I do, basically hand coloured B+W jobs, and not very well done). Not of the talc and balsa brigade myself, my pont of reference is the improvements Neil Robinson made to SAM. Paul Eden was I think of an evolutionary mind but perhaps not at the right pace.

I think that's perfectly fair. From the 90s I got the impression, from reading AHWs editorials, that it was a case of the readers getting the magazine Alan felt they should be reading rather than perhaps responding to what the readers were asking for.

Let's not forget that AWH pioneered pretty much everything we take for granted in model magazines these days and his stuff in Airfix magazine in the 1960s was truly cutting edge, but it never really evolved from there and I think its fair to say that SAM never did quite shake off its 60s influences and did have lot of things wrong with it by the time it reached the late 80s and early 90s. Its main strengths were Mike Keep's artwork and the Ian Huntley column, but even the latter could delve into almost dry academia at times with stuff that, whilst historically interesting, had little practical modelling benefit. And the good stuff was not helped, in my opinion, by often poor repro, a presentation that looked like a 1950s Home Office leaflet and model photography was so poor that it beggared belied that anyone editorially thought it was acceptable - in fact there was often a deep irony of reviews suggesting kit companies improve their product whilst accompanied with an underexposed, out of focus photo of a model on a cluttered desktop. In comparison to the way Fine Scale Modeller cared about the presentation of their magazine, SAM just looked plain bad at times more so when the stuff was being produced on DTP but still looking like it was cut and pasted on galleys, Compacta typeface and all.

[Andy Young]

I’ve been following this debate with some real interest. I thought it was just me when I felt that I was being let down by my regular magazines. I used to have 3 a month all on subscription. That was until early 2010, and now I only have one.

The things that have got me are the obvious “space filling” tactics, large print size, low word counts per article and excess “white space”, and the feeling that on reading an article, it’s told me nothing.

I’ve also become aware of the fact that lots of articles seem to be “in association with…”. Why’s that?, to get more sponsorship from suppliers?, would that then mean that the article is biased?.

The cynic in me thinks that all of this is bad news. No considered information or “telling it straight” reviews, which is what I want a magazine to do for me. It seems that they are now becoming little more than expensive "cover to cover" adverts.

Maybe this is their response to the interweb, but that’s life. If they don’t give me what I want, and now, I’ll go where I can get it, and the web seems increasingly the place to go to!.

I just long for some of the great articles from the Scale Models 1970s era by the likes of Ray Rimmell et al.

Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be!

Cheers, Andy

[Dave Fleming]

.Has the basis of th ehobby changed, therefore? Model makers of a certain age got into the hobby because they were aviation enthusiasts, but now they are model enthusiasts whose favourite subjects are aircraft?

Interesting point, and perhaps explains the use of with my own particular idiosyncratic irritation (The use of the word 'build' as a noun to describe the making of a model) - perhaps todays modeller is more focused on the building process than the end result?

[Shane]

Now I find that reading SAM from cover to cover takes only 15 minutes and leaves me quite unsatisfied.

Darius

Short simple words, and not too many of them to scare off those who don't really read the language at a very high level, whether they be young, or from a background where English is a second language.

If Jay is pitching at young modellers, and Europeans outside the UK and Eire, I suppose that would be a smart idea. If it's really pulling in Euro modellers he may in fact be right to do so.

It doesn't excuse the sad lack of content though. Articles with multiple near identical photos, very little text dribbled around them at random, lousy choice of graphic style so that what there is, is hard to read, suggests to me that the magazine has gone *back* to cheap back room layup, or amateur DTP at best.

I *really* wanted to like the magazine after Jay took over. I've long been an admirer of the way he espoused the larger scale on the 'net, but making a paper magazine look like a bad web page has been disappointing, even without taking the content far away from the subject matter that made SAM *be* SAM.

Shane

[davidelvy]

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.

That is a good rule, and one which I also like to apply. Unfortunately for publishers that often means I buy no magazines most months. I used to subscibe to MAM, which rarely failed on that rule and even when it did the articles I liked were often so long they were a substantial part of the magazine. Regrettably my interests did not fit the new reader profile and the magazine moved in another direction without the benefit of my subscription.

[Tony Whittingham]

Hello All,

I haven't seen the issue yet, so I cannot comment on it specifically. But I have found, IMHO, that SAM is short on content compared to previous issues. Perhaps the editorial group should consult Coca-Cola, who found out the hard way what " If it aint broke, don't fix it" means.

A somewhat distressed reader,

TW

[Tony C]

Being the mug that I was/am, I subscribe(d) to the following...

SAM since volume 21

The paper used, gives the magazine a quality feel but as mentioned by others above, I feel that it is let down by the content. I was not a lover of the new presentation and did in fact contact Jay directly by email and as he had the decency to acknowledge my concerns, I was prepared to continue to support the magazine. Whilst I can say that the magazine has improved since Jay first took hold of the reins, it is regretfully not the SAM of old and no longer has that "something" which made it different to all the others that I subscribe to and has now become another sheep in the flock. I am currently letting my subscription run its course but I really am unsure if I will be renewing, although I am now on the look out for those back issues/Volumes that I do not have.

SAMI from issue 1

The very first copy of any modelling magazine ever, was Volume 4 Issue 6. Although I have been modelling on and off since I was about 7/8, I had no idea that that there were such things as resin, photo etch, vacforms, alternative paints to Humbrol and Revell. This magazine was was a real "smack in the face" for me and as such become my favourite (and probably the cause for most arguments with SWTSSBO) and I subsequently purchased all previous copies from Issue 1. SAMI gave me my first insight into the after market world, what was newly available on the market kit-wise and good modelling features. Whilst to some extent, this is still true, the magazine now seems to be aimed predominantly at the American market, the paper quality is little better than bog paper and I do not like the 'Sponsored by" sections, nor the indication that a kit is only available from the Sponsor of a particular section and as such, it is unlikely that I will renew my subscription when the time comes.

MAM from issue 1

I feel that the Neil Robinson era was the Golden Period for this magazine and following closely behind SAMI and SAM as my favourite read. However, I did not like the changes made and whilst I haven't checked myself, I get the feeling that the content can be readily found freely on the internet, it has absolutely no modelling content (which was the reason I bought it in the first place) and as with SAMI, the paper is little better than bog paper. It is also heavy in American content and as I have no interest in this area, I cancelled my subscription last month, with six months left to run as I realised that I had not found anything that was of interest to read, in the previous 6 issues.

MAI from issue 1

Along with MAW, this is currently my favourite magazine. Admittedly their Historical features could possibly be a little longer but it does seem that I take longer to read both MAI and MAW than any of the others.

MAW from issue 1

Still finding its feet but along with MAI, is my preferred choice of modelling magazine.

Now for a couple of things that really wind me up with all the above magazines, if you're going to include pictures please, can you make them bigger than 1" (2.5cm for our continental friends) square as it really is not possible to see any detail in pictures this small. An ideal size would be an image 1/8th the size of the page!

Another issue that I have, is when the text accompanying a picture states that that item was airbrushed, I know what an airbrush looks like and I don't need to see someone's hand, holding the airbrush, pretending to use it and similarly with a paint brush, I know what a paint looks like and what it does!

No doubt, when Airfix Model World is available, I will subscribe but have also been toying with the idea of subscribing to Scale Modelling Now but as I haven't seen any comments, either good or bad, on the board, I am currently unsure.

[Nick Millman]

I'm going to let my SAM subscription lapse. The last issue with "Inspection Moulded" as a category code for new models, a beautifully painted MiG-17 in a compact build review that said not one word about how the scheme was achieved or with what paints and the implicit suggestion that Russian aircraft were painted in FS595B colours does it for me. Also the review of the AZ Ki-48 by someone who confessed to being out of his comfort zone about Japanese aircraft when there are plenty of good modellers in the IPMS (UK) Japanese Aviation SIG who would probably have been ready to oblige. Two Japanese models in two issues that manage to reinforce misperceptions to anyone new to the subject.

There is editing magazines and there is modelling. Very rarely the two skills are combined in one individual (e.g. Neil Robinson, Ray Rimmel). Where they are not it's perhaps better for the publishers to hire editors as editors rather than as modellers.

And if you think this is harsh, try reading the October issue's editorial.

[Darius at Home]

As stated earlier I have stopped buying SAM. I picked up a copy of the October issue up in Smiths and a scan through confirmed there is nothing of interest for me in there anymore.

Looking forward to the new Airfix magazine though.

Darius

[TheModeller]

And if you think this is harsh, try reading the October issue's editorial.

Is that the one banging on about the evil individuals trying to establish online publications? And how poor, dumb, vunerable manufacturers are being ripped off for review samples?

Reading between the lines I felt it was more an attempt to ensure an un-interrupted supply of new styrene and advertising-revenue than anything else, not all that long ago the same editorial column was used to denigrate the very websites now being held up as paragons of hobby related news and information.

I read it and promptly put the magazine back on WH Smiths shelf. I didn't even bother to look at the rest of the content, but then again, I'm a very cynical person.

Though I do wonder if altitude sickness is a concern being all the way up on top of that pedestal.

EDIT: Oh yeah Nick, to Ray Rimmell and Neil Robinson I'd add Chris Ellis and Ken Jones as well. Its still a pretty short list!

Edited October 7, 2010 by TheModeller

[Jon Bryon]

EDIT: Oh yeah Nick, to Ray Rimmell and Neil Robinson I'd add Chris Ellis and Ken Jones as well. Its still a pretty short list!

Probably not popular, but I'd add Paul Eden as well to that list, since I think he did a fine job differentiating 'old-style' SAM within a busy marketplace. I am also a fan of Mr Hatcher, since I like his turn of pen, if not his editorial reviewing policy.

I still get SAM because someone buys it for me. If it were my own money I'd have stopped a long time ago. IMO, a pity that MAW has gone under.

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Is that the one banging on about the evil individuals trying to establish online publications? And how poor, dumb, vunerable manufacturers are being ripped off for review samples?

Reading between the lines I felt it was more an attempt to ensure an un-interrupted supply of new styrene and advertising-revenue than anything else, not all that long ago the same editorial column was used to denigrate the very websites now being held up as paragons of hobby related news and information.

I read it and promptly put the magazine back on WH Smiths shelf. I didn't even bother to look at the rest of the content, but then again, I'm a very cynical person.

Though I do wonder if altitude sickness is a concern being all the way up on top of that pedestal.

EDIT: Oh yeah Nick, to Ray Rimmell and Neil Robinson I'd add Chris Ellis and Ken Jones as well. Its still a pretty short list!

Well I suppoose as we've given him so much grief he's entitled to a swipe or 2 back

Out of interest, what happens to all the review samples a printed magazine gets? I mean some get built for review - but not all of them. So what becomes of them then?

Wouldnt it be be nice for a magazine to have a "Gadget Show" style competition every month to win whats left - they could even do it as a paying phone number type thing ( ie entries cost £2 or whatever).

Cheers

Jonners

[pigsty]

A few thoughts from someone who’s only ever bought two issues of SAM …

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.

Many of the people commenting here are highly experienced, highly skilled modellers who find some features too basic. There’s a danger of forgetting that not everyone is so experienced or skilled. Anyone publishing a magazine has either to identify a die-hard niche that will buy absolutely every issue, or appeal to a wide demographic. If he’s going to sell it through WH Smith, he must take the latter course, because Smith’s has only limited space and it won’t even agree to stock anything that doesn’t justify that space via turnover. Because of this, we’re bound to see stuff in magazines that we feel is way beneath us. But this is actually because of us.

I’ve been in this position for some time over models, and also over gardening. I used to watch Gardener’s World religiously, but once I’d become familiar with the techniques and got used to them in my own garden, it became less important. I wouldn’t, though, insist that the BBC change the format to suit me (Ferns Weekly might be the only show to post negative viewing figures), and I know that others getting into gardening will get a lot more out of it than me, so good luck to ‘em. On models, the bits of magazines that deal with technique are likely to be more valuable to the inexperienced. They do seem to be repetitive, but that’s because there are only so many techniques and with five subscriptions a month, I’m bound to see them all eventually. But magazines’ other value is to show you new kits: both telling you what’s coming, and letting you know how good they are. I have no objection to parts of a magazine amounting to a catalogue, provided there’s a bit more meat to it. This is true even in the age of the Interweb, because I know of no website that lists as much new product in one place as, say, SAMI.

It’s also important to remember that in the good ol’ days, there was actually a lot less choice of models. Some magazines date back to the days before Japan got into plastic modelling, never mind the Czech Republic. Having so few kits to choose from and close to zero after-market meant that it was good idea to devote space to history and scratch-building. There’s so much more to cover now. Bear in mind that magazines aren’t infinitely elastic - every page has to pay its way, and if there’s more new stuff to look at, other types of content are inevitably going to have to make room. And I don’t think a magazine that overlooked the flood of new material would last very long.

Perhaps the editorial group should consult Coca-Cola, who found out the hard way what " If it aint broke, don't fix it" means.

I don’t think this is a valid comparison. People drink Coke because they like it and expect it to be identical every time. The world of models is vastly more dynamic and the way it’s covered has to respond to the evolving market - both buyers and sellers.

The theory that magazines won’t publish critical reviews has been aired again. I write reviews for KitMaker on the web and for Military Modelcraft International on paper, both of which rely on review samples, and I can promise you, I don’t hold back. Nor have I ever been told that I should. I don’t know about the approach of some manufacturers or the other magazines, but this does make we wonder whether this is more of a worry than an established fact.

I’ve also become aware of the fact that lots of articles seem to be “in association with…”. Why’s that?, to get more sponsorship from suppliers?, would that then mean that the article is biased?

I shouldn’t think so. In SAMI, for instance, the sponsor is almost never the maker of what’s in the article, and some sponsors are retailers, not manufacturers. This may not be the only driver of editorial policy, of course.

Out of interest, what happens to all the review samples a printed magazine gets? I mean some get built for review - but not all of them. So what becomes of them then?

Well, some make their way into stashes, some get recycled as raffle prizes, some go on eBay. I dare say some get chucked out too. This doesn’t just apply to the printed market, though.

[TheModeller]

Well I suppoose as we've given him so much grief he's entitled to a swipe or 2 back

Ah but its not the likes of us being discussed in the editorial Jonners, not forum users, or as I like to think of them in the context of attracting readers, potential customers... No, its some un-named ne'er-do-well trying to cripple and bankrupt multi-national hobby product manufacturers and greedy distributors. The nerve of them! A pox on thier kind for such demonic deeds!

Out of interest, what happens to all the review samples a printed magazine gets? I mean some get built for review - but not all of them. So what becomes of them then?

Well thats the real question isn't it. While these upstarts are apparently guilty of reviewing the samples they get before banging them out on e-Bay to help cover thier running costs, a practice right up there with eating babies and drowning kittens it seems, the approach 'respected' printed and online magazines adhere to is conveniently omitted from the editorial.

Still, like I said, I'm a cynical person, it just seems to me that hobby magazine editorial columns aren't the right place for airing such dirty laundry, even if they do have some truth to them...

Edited October 8, 2010 by TheModeller

[Dave Fleming]

apparently guilty of reviewing the samples they get before banging them out on e-Bay .

The former editor of one paper publication used to do that - I know because I bought some of them!!

[AnonymousAA74]

Nothing that is reviewed on my site is EVER sold on. I consider selling something which is freely given to be immoral, but that's my own stance.

Whatever is supplied to us is either used by the reviewer, or they are passed onto model clubs such as Bolton IPMS or Medway IPMS. Some items are raffled for causes such as the British Heart Foundation, and now to the Royal Air Force Association.

Noboby on my team will EVER sell items generously donated.

[TheModeller]

The former editor of one paper publication used to do that - I know because I bought some of them!!

Now I don't see anything wrong with that, if the proceeds are going into the cost of running/printing the publication, simply a matter of book-keeping, if someone was selling thier samples online and then just slipping the profits into thier pocket that would be a different matter, but then again, is it necessarily 'wrong' or illegal?

[pigsty]

Now I don't see anything wrong with that, if the proceeds are going into the cost of running/printing the publication, simply a matter of book-keeping, if someone was selling thier samples online and then just slipping the profits into thier pocket that would be a different matter, but then again, is it necessarily 'wrong' or illegal?

Just to clarify my own position: I'm not paid for my reviews, so I think we all treat samples as fair game. They're not "freely given" as in generous donations to the club raffle, remember; they're commercial samples, provided in the hope of improving the supplier's commercial position*.

* you may say, why not make better products then? I couldn't possibly comment. Oh no, wait, I can!

[TheModeller]

I consider selling something which is freely given to be immoral

...

Noboby on my team will EVER sell items generously donated.

Ah, but as Sean said, they're not 'freely given' or 'generously donated' are they, the manufacturer/distributor/whatever expects to make bucks off the samples sent out.

I'm not attempting to second guess you or say there is anything wrong with your approach, just trying to establish whats what.

Edited October 8, 2010 by TheModeller

[AnonymousAA74]

Ah, but as Sean said, they're not 'freely given' or 'generously donated' are they, the manufacturer/distributor/whatever expects to make bucks off the samples sent out.

I'm not attempting to second guess you or say there is anything wrong with your approach, just trying to establish whats what.

I understand what you mean. Perhaps my phraseology is wrong.

[seawings]

Having had my two penny worth over on the MAW postings, one of the saddest things I've seen is the gradual demise of certain mags over the years and SAM is a real case in point. I just got back from WH Smiths having picked up, and rapidly put down the latest issue; sorry Guys but IMHO it's awful......

To add to that, I've just been on the SAM website; I don't think it's been updated since 2008/2009 - leastways I can't find where, except for this current issue being on display. All the other sections either don't exist or have stuff dating back to 2009 in them.

Back to the mag: honestly, I'm not one to openly criticise, throw brickbats or whatever (honest) but I have never seen a poorer issue (IMHO). The photography is appalling, there is so much white space on the pages that I began to think that something had been left out! Correct me if I'm wrong, but the printers will still print a page full of text or pictures for the same rate as what I was seeing on the page, won't they ?..........so why not use it all.....? That would give me better value for money.

Of all the model mags around, this is the one that has the weakest content by a military mile (IMHO) It dosn't matter what the subject is, or whether it's a tips and techniques page, if it's full of white space you ain't gonna learn nuttin'.

I must admit that I'm surprised that Mr Auckland has let it go for so long, especially in the light of the other publications under his wing; namely MMI. Got the June 2010 issue in front of me now and it's a cracking publication, yet from the same stable....weird!

So, into the 'den' I went and I have spent the past 2 hours looking through some of the back issues ( I have them all up untill a year ago) and the difference is, well, staggering. Even if one yearns for the 'good 'ol days' (when will today be a good 'ol day??) it looks like three different sets of magazines, yet with the same titles. But, the BIG difference for me is the CONTENT. Even if your ignore the writing styles, ignore the drawn profiles and plans, ignore isues in black and white before colour, ignore the 'names' that authored the articles, even ignore the models and kits, even ignore the paper, what stands out more than anything is the CONTENT. They were packed with stuff, no white pages here.

And there's the rub; look at what you paid back then on the cover price and what you got for it, look now at what you get and the cover price and someone can do the math; it just don't add up. Well, actually it does....it's a lot worse off now than then in good old fashioned value for money.

I have just enjoyed reading through some of the stuff again; I had forgotten a lot of it!

Well, that's my opinion for what it's worth. I do sincerely hope that someone, somewhere is listening to all the chat both here and the MAW posting co's if they take note of everything that has been said, and I have to say that none of it has been unwarranted criticism for critisisms sake in my book, if you put all of that into one magazine you really would have a winner!!

Have a happy modeling weekend.!

Cheers,

[John B (Sc)]

The former editor of one paper publication used to do that - I know because I bought some of them!!

I seem to recall that chap got fired once that practice came to light.

James H - well said. I agree.

Incidentally I know of others who do the same as you - pass material onto help good causes where appropriate. Good plan.

John B

Edited October 8, 2010 by John B (Sc)