A Quick Rant

[Geek44]

But perhaps an ongoing one.
I used to buy a lot of modelling magazines. I found them inspiring, interesting and above all, I learned a lot from them. Sometimes I learned what NOT to do as well. But I've stopped buying them for many reasons, but one reason is editorial laziness and utter stupidity. One of the very glossy ones that always has a very high standard of mouth-watering models is so full of typographical errors that it's hard to read. I'm a bit of a stickler for proper English grammar and spelling...I make certain allowances for people for whom English isn't their first language and Americans (), but the magazine in question is published in England. You'd think they'd know the difference between 'to', 'two' and 'too' wouldn't you?! I'm also dog-tired of the modelling cliches that are trotted out in every article. I've said before, if I see the phrase 'to add depth' again I'll have to cut my lips off with a pair of blunt scissors! My main gripe is silly by-lines. Here are a few that I remember (sadly) off the top of my head;

'Easy Tiger' - predictably, a Tiger 1 build. Seen this one three times!
'Hetzer Way To Do It' - also self explanatory.
'Russian About' - an SU 122.
'Wacht Am Rhein' - Tiger II...seen this twice in different mags...now a threadbare cliche to my mind. Then they start to get a bit 'esoteric'.
'Zim Zimma Who Took The Keys To My Bimma?' - a BMW car build (?)
'It Is I, Leclerc' - A review of Tamiya's new (at the time) 'Leclerc' French MBT.
'Forest Management Aussie Style' - a Vietnam era Aussie Centurion conversion. And the worst I've seen...
'So Near Yet So Späh' - a German armoured recon. vehicle (I forget which type)...the big issue for me is that 'Späh' doesn't even remotely rhyme with 'far'.

Rant over for now... feel free to add to this if you can.

[LAH 1 SS]

I used to collect FSM regularly as well Miltary Modeling. I know longer get either anymore. I now collect Model Airplane International, Model Military International and Tamiya. I find these three cover things alot better than the previous two. Just my personal opinion

[MAGNA]

fair comments by all so far. The price of these publications is starting to outweigh their use for me too. Far too much in many cases for far too little. $19 is money I can spend on models each month. The errors and typos are annoying and really make it look like someone doesn't know what hey are talking about sometimes. The spellchecker is ok but a bit of proofreading wouldn't go astray.

I am learning more by posting here as far as I'm concerned as the magazine articles don't contain all that much in the way of new techniques or info for me. I get a much broader spread here from a wider knowledge base.

I don't know if the price in part reflects the influence of the internet but I suspect the sales are lower than they were.

[Geek44]

Total agreement on all points...except I'm surprised that you have to pay $19 MAGNA. I know you're kinda 'remote' but that's a bit rough. I was paying between $12 and $15 depending on the mag.
What I'm doing with this thread is trying to get a stupid 'pet hate' off my chest in a humorous way. Incidentally, LAH has mentioned the worst offender. I won't name it...it's a very good mag but lets itself down badly on this score. It's just plain sloppy. Here are a couple more I remembered.

'Mountain Pass-Ta' - a diorama set in Italy (no kidding) featuring the Autoblinda armoured car. (Yuk yuk ).

'Snow Business' - Review of Master Replica's outrageously priced but seriously under engineered Star Wars Rebel Snow Speeder ($500 US a pop).

'Boss Hog' - An A-10.

'Four On The Floor' - Review of Dragon's Panzer IV.

'Tracking A Big Cat' - How to use Friulmodel tracks on a Panther.

'Worn Hawk' - Vintage's 1/24 P-40 Warhawk with lots of weathering.

And by far the worst trip into the gutter so far...

'Big Jugs' - I kid you not! A review of Vintage's 1/24 P-47 Thunderbolt. Why they had to build two, except to use that title, is beyond me.
God I'm bored with it.

[Commander Waffle]

I agree. Some of the titles are lame, but the best 've seen was Fine Scale. I mostly look at the pictures and captions (I know... I'm still that 7 year old who loves picture books) so I haven't read too many errors.

[MAGNA]

You might as well stick to the pics Trev. There isn't a lot that's new in the text most of the time. The other thing that puts me off with one particular magazine which is very well known (from England), is the blatant kit reviews which favour the major advertisers. For example, Dragon don't advertise heavily in this magazine so they don't get much of a look in whereas other manufacturers in the same scale (mostly 1/35 1/48) all seem to have great reviews and make the best stuff you could ever hope to get hold of. Very misleading at best. The smaller advertisers don't get reiviewed except for small snippets about new products. For beginners this is unfair as they are not being told what is the best out there.

I only know this because other people still buy these mags and I see them. I haven't bought one for a long time now.

[McCoy]

I buy TMMI, MMI n' odd numbers of FSM n' MM but I find that it starts to be a waste of money as I've bought 'em for roughly a year now. Much is just variations of the same thing n' that I can be without. The best way to learn stuff on modellin' is in fact to participate in a modellin' community such as this one here at the Zone or a local club. n' not by readin' "Glossy" magazines at overprize (they cost me 99SEK/issue).

[Geek44]

The recycling of articles bugs me too. I have several articles that are directly copied...word for word, pic for pic with maybe a year in between.

[Freightshaker]

Originally Posted by Geek44

The recycling of articles bugs me too. I have several articles that are directly copied...word for word, pic for pic with maybe a year in between.

That was the downfall of the final years of the old Military Modeler. In the 70's and 80's it was a great magazine but the 90's really took a turn for the worst and they finally went out of publication.

[Geek44]

I guess they need to be mindful that people don't throw them away after they read them. For magazines, they make great reference material.