Military Aircraft Monthly

[Moofles]

im sorry i may of missed something here (im at work, so no access to my magazines) but is haggis/jamie the editor of SAM, sorry but what is his involement in the magazine? No disrespect or anything like that, just a honest question as im getting confused.

[Nick Millman]

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

As an observation I don't think SAM would attract so much criticism if it were not called SAM! What seems to have happened is a classic case of taking a familiar brand identity and so radically changing it that its old consumer base is thoroughly discombobulated. I can't see why discussing that should be such a problem. SAM was special as it almost represented an iconic British modelling institution - bound to attract strong feelings. Also, and I'm on dangerous ground here, I think it better represented ordinary modellers rather than celebrity modellers and the "industry" side (there is after all some crossover these days). It inspired from a "consumer" perspective in a very simple way rather than creating (for many) unattainable benchmarks of ultimate skill. There is a division (I think) between modellers who appreciate models that can just look like well-made models and those who create ultra-realistic miniatures with highly complex finishing techniques. The magazines seem to have swung more to the latter to become a showcase of those skills, perhaps leaving the former feeling somewhat unrepresented. This is not to take anything away from those expert modellers but to recognise that the results can to some be almost as much intimidating as inspiring.

[Jon Bryon]

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.

Greg B

From my perspective I think this has been a pretty intelligent and civilised conversation. We haven't been criticising a person, we've been critiquing a magazine (and if anyone thinks I've been objectively criticising SAM then they've misread what I wrote; I was stating a preference and supporting it with some analysis). I don't think most participants in this thread have been treating it as a soapbox, but as a forum for discussion, which is what we've been doing. Jamie has been giving an alternative viewpoint and others would, I think, be most welcome to join in. I personally feel this thread has dramatically improved my understanding of what SAM is trying to do and where it fits in the marketplace, and that's a *good* thing.

As for having to engage Jay Laverty directly, is this really necessary? SAM is a product; it's out there for evaluation. We discuss Tamiya kits without contacting Mr Tamiya first. We discuss Trumpeter kits without contacting Mr Trumpeter first. What makes magazines special?

Not being smart, but looking for some guidance because if the above is not allowed then there are currently double standards. Or maybe get rid of the Magazine part of this forum altogether, otherwise what function does it serve?

As for the thread being hijacked/derailed, fair cop, but hey ho, it's an internet forum; these things happen.

Best

Jon

[keefr22]

And I just said 'magazines'. Not tarring any particular one with any particular brush, because they now all look too much the same to me to single any particular one out....

Keef

[Greg B]

Unfortunately it seems to be the case on BM, SAM takes more than its fair share of one sided criticism. In this case a discussion about MAM was used as a springboard to moan about the changes to SAM from the old format and editorial musings. I can see both sides, there is no perfect magazine out there, but what is not helpful is that it consistently descends into denigrating SAM. As Nick said, if SAM was called something else would it have attracted the same discussion? Jay mentioned the moaning on Fora in his editorial, whilst I don't fully agree with him using that method as its one sided, on the other hand these constant gripes on BM about new improved SAM compared to old faithful SAM are pretty one sided as well. That I would say would be double standards. This is far from being the first thread about SAM and Jay on BM as well. Currently, its his train set, if his sales figures are up then he is doing something right, we may not agree with that and want the old style back but it will tell a story as to what the majority of purchasers want and not the minority.

As before, these discussions about SAM need to be balanced and its the same old gripes and faces popping up. if you don't like SAM, its format or its editor, vote with your wallet and stop reading the editorials in order to be outraged later on BM.

There are no double standards here, balanced critical comment is of course welcome, when it becomes unbalanced and personal, then its not.

[AndyC]

Back on thread...

I for one am glad they changed the format back to Model Aircraft - I didn't like the forced inter-relation between MAM and SAMI; I can see why they did it but forgot that some of us bought both magazines therefore one or the other was redundant.

I also agree about the paper! It shows how far we have come since early magazine days as I have SAM from issue 1 (see, I knew I would have to mention SAM! ) and the paper on that was awesome - I have a couple of issues that were almost unreadable and the pictures were blobs of ink! Happy days!

Andy

[Jon Bryon]

There are no double standards here, balanced critical comment is of course welcome, when it becomes unbalanced and personal, then its not.

Thanks for the reply Greg. My personal feeling is that it hadn't yet degenerated to the above in this thread, but maybe we all have different tolerance levels. If you want to take it further regarding my own comments, feel free to PM me.

Cheers

Jon

[Nick Millman]

Unfortunately it seems to be the case on BM, SAM takes more than its fair share of one sided criticism. In this case a discussion about MAM was used as a springboard to moan about the changes to SAM from the old format and editorial musings. I can see both sides, there is no perfect magazine out there, but what is not helpful is that it consistently descends into denigrating SAM. As Roland said, if SAM was called something else would it have attracted the same discussion? Jay mentioned the moaning on Fora in his editorial, whilst I don't fully agree with him using that method as its one sided, on the other hand these constant gripes on BM about new improved SAM compared to old faithful SAM are pretty one sided as well. That I would say would be double standards. This is far from being the first thread about SAM and Jay on BM as well. Currently, its his train set, if his sales figures are up then he is doing something right, we may not agree with that and want the old style back but it will tell a story as to what the majority of purchasers want and not the minority.

As before, these discussions about SAM need to be balanced and its the same old gripes and faces popping up. if you don't like SAM, its format or its editor, vote with your wallet and stop reading the editorials in order to be outraged later on BM.

There are no double standards here, balanced critical comment is of course welcome, when it becomes unbalanced and personal, then its not.

Roland?

[PsiFox]

I just use my own form of editorial control.

I go to W H Smith and have a look at the mags on offer. If there is something I find useful, I'll buy the issue in question(of any mag). If not I'll try again next month.

As for opinions on the Internet, it is a case of where 2+2 =5. People will always differ, similarly there will be others that agree with a point of view. Reviews are just the opinion of the author and should be accepted as such.

It is exactly the same on a photographic forum I frequent, Nikon bashers and Canon bashers all mixed in a cauldron of keyboard warriors and anonymity

[Dave Fleming]

Roland?

You use very similar avatars!

[Dave Fleming]

There is a division (I think) between modellers who appreciate models that can just look like well-made models and those who create ultra-realistic miniatures with highly complex finishing techniques. The magazines seem to have swung more to the latter to become a showcase of those skills, perhaps leaving the former feeling somewhat unrepresented. This is not to take anything away from those expert modellers but to recognise that the results can to some be almost as much intimidating as inspiring.

I think it's more that that, I think the 'view' of SAM was as a reference source on the real thing from a modeller's perspective, with modelling as well - what MAM was and what I hope it goes back to.

[Greg B]

Roland?

Sorry Nick, got confused with your avatar! Will edit accordingly.

Thanks for the reply Greg. My personal feeling is that it hadn't yet degenerated to the above in this thread, but maybe we all have different tolerance levels. If you want to take it further regarding my own comments, feel free to PM me.

Cheers

Jon

I've no issue with you Jon, if so there would have been a PM from myself, Mike or Skii.

[Dave Fleming]

I appreciate Jamie commenting on the thread, it adds another perspective to the debate - I often think about posting a new topic called 'what do you want from a modelling (or modeller's) magazine, but then my sanity returns. Actually, that last bit in bold may be the crux of the matter!

I can also understand why magazine editors shouldn't join in these debates (You'll note Spence doesn't very often) as there is a danger they could get drawn into it too much.

[Nick Millman]

I think it's more that that, I think the 'view' of SAM was as a reference source on the real thing from a modeller's perspective, with modelling as well - what MAM was and what I hope it goes back to.

True!

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

I suppose its a case of Vive la Difference! Probably enough said from me on the subject anyway for now , and as Greg B does point out - if SAMs sales figures are up - then its because its appealing to wider audiences than it was in its previous formats.

Hopefully Model Aircraft will get back to what MAM was - and perhaps provide the kind of mag that I think a lot of used to see as SAM in its older guise.

cheers

Jonners, suffused with feelings of harmony, love to all, and an annoying bottle of Pollyscale Sky

[Tedfellows]

I buy several magazines a month, including SAM, SAMI and sometimes MAM. I buy these mags to look at the beautiful, models on display that Jamie, Steve Evans or John Wilkes make and review. I don't really want to see built out the box stuff thats been made to a pretty poor standard, as I want to be inspired to better myself as a modeller. I bought SAMI for probably the last time last month, as there were 2 build reviews of two subjects (i'll not name them) which were, basically horrible, and i was very cross that I had wasted my money on this. So basically i want to see super-detailed builds in mags, I want to see perfectly painted builds and I want to see more of them!

Just my tuppence worth

Adam

[Eric Mc]

Received my latest SAM today and have to say that the editorial is quite thoughtful and not that model related.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Eric Mc

[Dave Fleming]

Received my latest SAM today and have to say that the editorial is quite thoughtful and not that model related.

I have to agree.

Also, having been a critic of several elements of the new format I found this month's to be much better - there seemed to be less white space.