Military Aircraft Monthly

[Haggis]

Sorry for boring you Haggis

That's OK fella, there's plenty of modelling on this site to interest me.

[Dave Fleming]

Much as SAM isn't to my taste these days, there is little point in going on about it as the magazine seems to be doing well - so it obviously is to the taste of others.

I do think there is scope for dicussing some of the editors views, but as they tend to get personal the thread gets closed.

[AnonymousFO98]

They do modelling here too?

[Jon Bryon]

Much as SAM isn't to my taste these days, there is little point in going on about it as the magazine seems to be doing well - so it obviously is to the taste of others.

I do think there is scope for dicussing some of the editors views, but as they tend to get personal the thread gets closed.

One thing that I think has helped me a bit is reading this from Jamie Haggo's blog:

'A magazine article is not just a review of a kit, it's there to entertain the reader, to show case what is possible with the kit. It's there to inspire, to make the reader think I can do that or, I can't do that but I'll maybe use some of the techniques and advice in the article and I'll aim to try and get close.'

If I shift my expectation to understand that articles in SAM are there primarily for entertainment, rather than to primarily provide insight into how the model builds and its accuracy, then I find myself understanding more why SAM has taken the form it has. Words become secondary and the focus shifts to the photos; white space increases, word count drops and the pictures get bigger. It becomes more about showcasing great models and less about how to build them. And if that's what the editor wants to produce and people want to buy, I have absolutely no argument with that.

I do prefer to buy magazines that focus more on the words and less on the pictures. Showcasing lovely models is fine, but to be honest, I think models I build are already comparable to most that are published, and if I want to step up a notch what's stopping me is not lack of knowledge/skill, but time, because I am unwilling to invest the extra time to build better models. To that end, I'd rather read articles that focus more on how the kit actually goes together, where the fit problems are, where the inaccuracies are, etc. But that's just my preference.

Let me provide a couple of examples from the April issue:

Neil Pinchbeck builds a very nice 1/48 scale Supermarine Seagull. The model is great and well photographed, and Neil writes pretty well. But it shows that the article is primarily written to entertain rather than inform. The best example is on p.31 top of the third column column, where Mr Pinchbeck draws attention to a mistake in the undercarriage, but having mentioned this, the reader is left none the wiser as to what the problem actually is, nor how to solve it.

Dale Smith builds a beautiful Tamiya F-16C, again well photographed, but low on details about the build (I've built this kit and *know* there are problem areas) and high on text that doesn't really have anything to do with the kit (the first and last paragraphs in particular being largely irrelevant). Again, it *is* good entertainment (and, IMO, good model-making), but not great reviewing.

'Jen' builds a Tamiya Spitfire and Hasegawa Bf109E. It's labelled as a Compact Build Review. Again, the models and photography are something I'd be proud of, but the actual review comes to two very, very short paragraphs near the end of the article. The rest is interesting (although the last two paragraphs are content-free), but is in no way a 'review'.

And so on.

No doubt I will be misunderstood on the point I'm making, but essentially it's just that the 'new' SAM and the old are entirely different beasts, and the very nature of what it is trying to do appears to have changed. It's not that one is right and the other wrong, it's simply a judgement made by the owner (I guess) as to what the market wants, and that (if SAM really is selling better than ever before) is good looking models, good photography, and superficial text; a kind of 'inspire me with the finished product' rather that 'tell me how you got there'. And that's fair enough. Some people like to read The Sun; me, I prefer The Telegraph :-)

Jon

[AnonymousFO98]

It seems a strange topic for a modelling blog and can only be motivated by the vested interest of writing for said magazine.

Jamie now states there is plenty modelling on the BM to look at.

I would go further and suggest the amount of posts threads and posts about said editor is in all likelihood no where near to breaking into whole numbers in terms of percentages of total site traffic.

Making a public statement that is out of context and derogatory about Britmodeller is disingenuous. Sorry but I fail to see any more merit in such behaviour than that is apparently so boring.

Not everyone has an editorial column, or articles to publish, nor even a blog to vent frustrations.

Apologies to Colin

[Eric Mc]

I would just like to see a bit less carping in the editorials and a more positive approach of the hobby. I can find the editorials rather depressing at times - surely not an approach that will encourage people to get involved in the hobby.

And a bit of humour wouldn't go amiss.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Eric Mc

[Jon Bryon]

And a bit of humour wouldn't go amiss.

QFT. IMO, the humour is what makes SAMI so readable and entertaining enough that I can forgive the generally lower quality of the modelling (notable exceptions being noted, especially towards the sublime Mr Grant).

[AnonymousFO98]

Might have to consider starting a magazine.

My model making is a joke.

[keefr22]

One thing that I think has helped me a bit is reading this from Jamie Haggo's blog:

'A magazine article is not just a review of a kit, it's there to entertain the reader, to show case what is possible with the kit. It's there to inspire, to make the reader think I can do that or, I can't do that but I'll maybe use some of the techniques and advice in the article and I'll aim to try and get close.'

If I shift my expectation to understand that articles in SAM are there primarily for entertainment, rather than to primarily provide insight into how the model builds and its accuracy, then I find myself understanding more why SAM has taken the form it has. Words become secondary and the focus shifts to the photos; white space increases, word count drops and the pictures get bigger. It becomes more about showcasing great models and less about how to build them. And if that's what the editor wants to produce and people want to buy, I have absolutely no argument with that.

That's interesting Jon - and thinking about it, maybe the internet is to blame for the direction that most magazines seem to be taking? Your description sounds just like a paper version of many a build on BM, HS plastic pics, ARC, Zone 5 etc.... so maybe they are just aiming at being a paper version of a modelling forum. Easily transportable to the loo......

I'm one of those who also liked the old MAM, & I'll have a look at the re-incarnated version. But as to the others I don't care what they do anymore as I can get similar 'content' on t'net for free. Which saves me an absolute fortune to spend on more plastic.....

K

[Dave Fleming]

It's labelled as a Compact Build Review.

On an entirely trivial level, the use of phrases such as that is one that turned me off the magazine. It just jars!

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

That's interesting Jon - and thinking about it, maybe the internet is to blame for the direction that most magazines seem to be taking? Your description sounds just like a paper version of many a build on BM, HS plastic pics, ARC, Zone 5 etc.... so maybe they are just aiming at being a paper version of a modelling forum. Easily transportable to the loo......

Thats quite an interesting take I hadnt considered before. I suppose where the interwebnet differs is that it allows for a greater spread of abilities to show their builds, whereas printed mags, obviously, go for the cream.

Though if I were to ponder this a little more - one might consider and wonder if the current focus on the finish and end result that seems to be popular in print (ie the destination rather than the journey) is perhaps just another facet of our instant-results, want-it-now-without-having-to-work-at-it society? We are obsessed with image these days -so if our hobby ( and its magazines) reflect that in terms of what it concentrates on, should we be surprised?

Personally - one modeller in print who seems to buck this trend and be able to blend build with finish is Mike Grant. His articles on updating old kits are, to me, great examples of what modelling can be about. His revamp of the Airfix Bird-dog stands out as a perfect example.

It would be interesting to know how sales figures of mags in todays web age compare to pre-web: Has the internet spurred on modellers to buy magazines, or as some have said here, just allowed them to view similar content without having to fork out for a printed mag.

Cheers

Jonners

Edited April 19, 2011 by Jon Kunac-Tabinor

[keefr22]

Personally - one modeller in print who seems to buck this trend and be able to blend build with finish is Mike Grant. His articles on updating old kits are, to me, great examples of what modelling can be about. His revamp of the Airfix Bird-dog stands out as a perfect example.

I also used to like the models Vic Scheurman (sp??) did (maybe still does?) of old kits in MiS/MAW. I even kept his article on detailing the Airfix Lysander as I liked it so much. Not many model builds I can say that about...

K

[Giorgio N]

We should never forget that if we ask 3 modellers what should be in a magazine, we'll probably get 4 different answers...

Different "cathegories" of modellers will consider different magazines better than the others, and personally I'm happy to see a variety of options.

Regarding the approach some editors seem to have toward the web and forums like this, I have to say that sometimes I'm quite disappointed. The internet allows information to be available very easily and a magazine would only benefit from this, yet some editorials seem to depict the same tool as a nest of rabid wild animals.... now it's true that there's a lot of useless ranting going on on the web, but there's also a lot of collective knowledge.

Now I can understand that magazines might see the web as a competitor, and an unfair one in a sense: cheaper, less constrained by legal and commercial issues, faster. However it's not insulting websites and fora that a magazine can win its lost readers back. The only way to achieve this is by providing a product of the same quality that these readers can find on a forum.

[Giorgio N]

Thats quite an interesting take I hadnt considered before. I suppose where the interwebnet differs is that it allows for a greater spread of abilities to show their builds, whereas printed mags, obviously, go for the cream.

Not sure if this is the case anymore... I've seen models on magazines that showed poor skills by the modeller. Nothing against these modellers of course, even the masters have all been poor modellers at some point and I consider myself a poor to average modeller.

I agree with your view of Mike Grant's work. Of course there are others that make me want to read their article as soon as I read their name. Have to say that one of the nice thing of a forum like this is for me the chance of interacting with these same names.

[Seahawk]

One thing that I think has helped me a bit is reading this from Jamie Haggo's blog:

'A magazine article is not just a review of a kit, it's there to entertain the reader, to show case what is possible with the kit. It's there to inspire, to make the reader think I can do that or, I can't do that but I'll maybe use some of the techniques and advice in the article and I'll aim to try and get close.'

That sentence brought me up short as well. My initial response was, a la Shirley Valentine, "review is review, article is article" but in fact it's hard so see how a good build article can avoid partially reviewing the product. But, now that I grasp that all the myriad classifications ("Compact Build Review", "Feature Build Review", "New Releases in Focus", etc) are all "articles", just to different word counts, I understand better. I also now understand that for SAM "entertaining" is more important than informing.

There may now be a generation of modellers who just want a magazine to be eye-candy. For myself, I part with my hard-earned dosh to acquire information that I did not previously have - on real aircraft, on a kit or sometimes on techniques. SAM seems to major on the last: fine, good luck to it. But I expect something called a review to contain informed comment about the accuracy and buildability of a kit, leaving me better informed on whether I want to buy it. That's where SAM has, I feel, largely vacated the field: little comment and not always informed (Sea Harriers with Sidewinders on the inboard pylons, anyone?). This is exemplified in its most extreme form by the "Marketplace" section where new releases are reduced to postage-stamp size pics of the box-top and transfer sheets plus basic detail like scale and stock code - zero comment, in fact nothing (apart from the transfer sheet pic) that I wouldn't get from Hannants' new arrivals list. Where SAM has stirred itself into providing good-quality information that caught my interest (eg IAR 80, Canadian F-5s), I've bought it.

Anyway, if it works for them, let them get on with it. Maybe BM and SAM could agree a non-aggression pact. But I must say it diminishes the status of any editor to use the privilege of his column to snipe, month in, month out, at people who disagree with him.

Finally, a plea to all magazine editors: photos of the transfer sheets can be a useful part of a kit review. However please understand that fewer pictures at readable size are more use than loads of illegible postage stamps.

[Solly]

Perhaps we should all step back a little here. It could be that magazines and internet modelling are aimed at different audiences. I am sure that there are many beginners who buy magazines, but possibly not as many as read internet fora. Just look at the number of new members on this site who state that they are just starting. Are the magazines aimed at the more discerning audience? I really don’t know. It has been said elsewhere that there seems to be a generation of disenfranchised modellers. What has caused this? Is it the magazines, the internet or the modellers themselves who are becoming more knowledgeable/skilled/experienced and therefore find less to interest them in any of the mediums?

I have been modelling since 1963, and reading internet modelling articles and fora since close to when they started. But I have become tired of internet modelling, and it could be that the fans (and the editors and publishers) of the printed stuff are the same. Let’s not forget, that criticism can and should be a two way street. Why is it acceptable to criticise magazine content here but they can’t criticise internet content? I can chose to ignore an editorial and move on to the body of the magazine, in exactly the same way that many posters say don’t read posts which don’t interest you. We have seen that said often enough.

I agree that too small photographs in a magazine are of little use, as are reviews which do not comment on accuracy or buildability. However, we can find reviews of exactly the same kind no more than a stone's throw from here, and they get such compliments as "great review".

Don’t think me ungrateful, internet modelling has brought the hobby on in leaps and bounds, and I have made friends around the world through it, but there is a downside. I find that there is just too much dross on the web related to our hobby. Sure, one can say that the quality of modelling articles in the printed media are of mixed quality, but, in my opinion anyway, the majority are reasonably good, and that goes for the quality of the models as well. It is obviously in the interests of the publishers to present quality in order to drive sales. There is no such quality control in internet forums.

It is great that the internet has given a window to all standards, but I want to be inspired by the good stuff. I have to wade through an awful lot of the other stuff on the internet before I find it.

The same goes for research. Too often people simply pitch up with a question and get the information given to them straight away, sometimes the wrong information (which of course then gets to be passed on and becomes "fact"). The art of research seems to be dying. Don’t just ask on a forum, get to the root of the question and do some digging yourself. Perhaps that is similar to what Jonners was saying about the instant gratification generation.

another facet of our instant-results, want-it-now-without-having-to-work-at-it society?

How many times have you seen the comment "I don't buy any magazines or books because everything is on the 'net for free"? Well, certainly in my area of interest, which all happened pre the internet, someone actually had to do some proper research to get such information. It could have been note taking, photography, reading or searching of archives to get the information. And of course, lots of it has gone to the 'net, but the fact that someone had to do something has been forgotten. I generally find, again, in my opinion, that most printed articles have been reasonably well researched and can provide references. I agree that there are lots of knowledgeable folks out there in discussion group land, but most appear to be of the old school and have the books and reference material to hand.

[keefr22]

How many times have you seen the comment "I don't buy any magazines or books because everything is on the 'net for free"?

The reason I made that comment in my earlier post was because I have no intention of paying £4.25+ for a magazine that is providing almost exactly the same type of content as I find on this & other sites. If said magazines revert to having someone actually doing some proper research & actually providing references as you suggest (& I agree with) then I may start shelling out my cash again (which is why I further said I'll take another look at MAM) But as we have read on here earlier from a regular contributor to the popular mags that they are now intending to provide 'entertainment', then I'll continue to get said entertainment for free! Should forums start to become subscription only, then I probably won't miss them either.....

When you say "I want to be inspired by the good stuff. I have to wade through an awful lot of the other stuff on the internet before I find it." I somewhat agree again. But I also contend that the top 10-15% of models on this site, together with the other main fora (is that a word?!) easily equal, if not frequently surpass, those shown in any magazine, including Air Modeller & Replic, which I personally think are the 'best' magazines for showing modelling excellence. If you then count how many builds there are in each magazine compared to the ones 'published' on all the internet sites, then I think the 'free' internet offers superb value for money....!!!

And as to research, then some of the threads on here in the era specific fora, & places like Hyperscale, surely surpass anything currently available in the printed modelling media. Someone also mentioned earlier the advantage of immediate interaction on such threads. Whilst this can obviously also be a drawback when threads sometimes descend into bunfights, I think the amount of information that can be gleaned from the knowledgeable individuals that choose to post here far outweighs that. And such immediate interaction is surely also preferable to having a follow up correcting or adding to a magazine article in the form of a letter to the editor a couple of months down the line. If such things still exist...!!

Finally there is also a wealth of good modelling & research on the internet in the form of personal blogs. In fact there's far too much there for me to have even scratched the surface of (to do any more would take away all my modelling time!)

Keef

[Haggis]

I think a few people have perhaps misinterpreted what I meant when I said on my blog. I deliberately tried not to be black and white and leave room for exceptions to the rule. However;

'A magazine article is not just a review of a kit, it's there to entertain the reader, to show case what is possible with the kit.

Read the quote again. "....not just a review of a kit" means that as well as reviewing the kit, articles should also try and entertain. In other words, do both. However, I still maintain that for a well known kit which has appeared in a magazine and online many times, then why go over old ground? Yes some people may not have seen this kit before but a lot probably have and may well have built that kit themselves.

I have an article out in SAM soon. It's of the new tool Italeri Ju 87B-2 in 1:48. In this I have done both, I have reviewed the kit fairly and objectively. I have also done a winter white wash finish, that is the "main theme" of the article. There is only so much space in which to write so inevitably in many cases the author perhaps cannot write everything he wanted, that's probably one of the hardest tasks an editor has to do.

If I was editing SAM then of course I would do things a bit differently, we all have our perfect magazine in our heads and our own ideas. However I think Jay has done a great job and I hope the magazine continues to grow and expand and enjoys continued successes. If the format hadn't changed, then SAM would probably have ceased publication long ago (I have seen the sales figures).

Edited April 19, 2011 by Haggis

[Jon Bryon]

Read the quote again. "....not just a review of a kit" means that as well as reviewing the kit, articles should also try and entertain.

Yes, I did notice that and maybe in my post I should have inserted a caveat that entertainment and reviewing are not mutually exclusive.

Last night I read your article on the NZ 1/72 Corsair. This is a great build, no visible seams, smooth paint, no silvered decals, great photography, etc. This article has made me aware for the first time that I might be able to add an F4U-1D to my collection of Post-War aircraft, and is an inspiration which may see me buying the 1/48 Tamiya kit and trying to find suitable NZ decals. But (and I fear this 'but' may be misinterpreted, but anyhow...) the article is not a review. If I were to actually want to build this kit your article is of little help. I have no idea if the Corsair kit is accurate, no idea if modifications to the base kit are necessary, no idea of how to best put the kit together (beyond the one issue you mentioned), etc. And that is fine because it looks like the article was written to primarily inspire rather than guide or inform. It seems clear to me that under the old regime this article would not have been published. Now, that sounds like a criticism because I'm from the group that would prefer more guidance and information rather than inspiration, but that's *just my preference*. If articles like yours improve sales figures, more power to them and SAM; I am not going to dictate what other people should and shouldn't like (which is why, shockingly, I totally agree with the last SAM editorial).

I think magazines come in for more criticism that Internet Webzines because of the cost of entry. SAM is £4.50 of my money (actually of someone else's money which is why I still get it; if I was paying myself I'd have dropped it simply because it's not giving me what I want from a magazine). I write articles on the models I build and publish them on my own website and on Hyperscale. I write them to provide the information I'd be looking for if I was building the kit for the first time. Anyone is free to come and criticise them if they want, but the fact I provide it all free and IMO that *does* change the nature of the game.

Cheers

Jon

[Haggis]

Hi Jon

I'm glad you picked that particular article as it illustrates my point exactly. It's Tamiya and it's been out for about 10 years or so and consequently the model has been reviewed many many times before both in print and on line (I may have mentioned that but I don't have the issue to hand, it was written off in a broken flask incident!). Also, being Tamiya it's pretty much a given that it's accurate and falls together hence I only mentioned the one and only problem I had in putting it together. If there were other problems then they would have got a mention as well. I only had a couple of pages with this model so why go over old ground at the expense of some useful information? Under the old regime this article would not have appeared in SAM because SAM wouldn't exist! I didn't build this model for the magazine anyway, it was just for me however Jay saw it and asked for a short article, he printed it word for word.

The article was written to "guide or inform"; how to a Corsair in other than blue! Hopefully it will inspire some others to think a bit outside the box for finishing models. In fact I know it has as I have had some really nice feedback other than yours, especially from New Zealand which was quite humbling.

As I said in my blog, "horses for courses". Each magazine has it's champions and detractors, it's always been like that with niche magazines and always will.

Cheers

[keefr22]

Also, being Tamiya it's pretty much a given that it's accurate....

And so the myth is perpetuated!! It's Tamiya, therefore it's right!! Spitfire Mk1? Mosquito tail? Meteor airbrakes? (OK, I give Tamiya their due, they fixed the latter) The point is though, as has been said soooo many times on this & other boards, is that a good review is what brings points like that to light. Having said that, I don't ever recall seeing any mention of the first two issues in any magazine review, I believe it was only the dreaded internet forums that brought them to light.....

And it may have been reviewed when it first came out, but as you say that was 10 years ago - after the first flush of enthusiasm, models aren't then regularly re-reviewed - at least as far as I noticed when still buying magazines. What about any new modellers who've entered (or even those returning to) the hobby since it was first released & are tempted to build their own after seeing your superb build? (which I do admit was truly inspiring!) Will they have seen any reviews of it?

But I fear this thread is once again starting to go round & round before disappearing up it's..... so I'll bow out now!

K

[Greg B]

What’s quite disappointing is that a discussion on MAM turned into yet another gripe session at SAM. Gents, if you have an issue with Jay, or SAM take it up directly with him. He is a member here and his email is given in SAM, I'm sure that he would welcome constructive criticism.

Please leave the continual SAM bashing off BM, if you really, really do not like SAM vote with your wallet and try to refrain from reading it in WH Smiths in order to look for those editorial comments to be outraged at. Whether SAM grows or withers will be down to the sales and revenue, if Jay's approach is working then maybe he has got it right for the majority and not the minority.

Greg B

[AnonymousFO98]

Don't recall seeing any personal attacks on Jay on this thread other than to defend the internet forums against his editorials.

People have voted with their wallets.

The constant censorship wears thin too

Like Tamiya, Hasegawa and the Pope, SAM is infallible.

Like Keef gonna make like the pea and split

[Greg B]

Don't recall seeing any personal attacks on Jay on this thread other than to defend the internet forums against his editorials.

People have voted with their wallets.

The constant censorship wears thin too

Like Tamiya, Hasegawa and the Pope, SAM is infallible.

Like Keef gonna make like the pea and split

Where did I mention personal attacks? As I stated, using BM as a soapbox to constantly bemoan SAM without actually engaging Jay Laverty is wearing thin on here. Editorials about Internet forums and internet commentary about those editorials are both one way conversations and do nothing for either side. Criticism should be constructive, balanced and is certainly not acceptable where the person being criticised cannot defend himself. If you still think this is constant censorship on the part of BM because you have derailed a thread to get your comments on a completely different subject heard and therefore wish to leave BM, no problems we will happily lock your account off.

Greg B

[Mike]

Don't recall seeing any personal attacks on Jay on this thread other than to defend the internet forums against his editorials.

People have voted with their wallets.

The constant censorship wears thin too

Like Tamiya, Hasegawa and the Pope, SAM is infallible.

Like Keef gonna make like the pea and split

constant censorship?

The clarion call of the troll - Boo hoo, I can't say what I like about who I like, therefore you're all nazis and censoring me