# Magazines



## Tim Nott (2 Oct 2008)

I've had a sub to Taunton's Fine Woodworking for a while but am thinking of cancelling as it seems to be less and less interesting "Tune up your tablesaw - Again!"
What's good in UK mags? I live in France so visiting a UK newsagent is un peu difficile

Tim


----------



## Dave S (2 Oct 2008)

Cue the BWW groupies.....


----------



## beech1948 (2 Oct 2008)

Hi,

I've just cancelled The Woodworker and Good Woodwork because they don't seem to deliver much of interest. GW was becoming too much like a DIY mag and Thw Woodworker was just repetitive.

I still take Furniture and Cabinetmaker which I think has a combination of aspiration and higher levels of work.

regards
Alan


----------



## wizer (2 Oct 2008)

beech1948":26emkse3 said:


> The Woodworker and Good Woodwork



Diabolical publications IMHO

I am a British Woodworking _and _Furniture and Cabinetmaking groupie

I also take Popular Woodworking and Fine Woodworking


----------



## MikeG. (2 Oct 2008)

Free your mind.........read none of them at all!!!!


----------



## Steve Maskery (2 Oct 2008)

There are lots of people here who will tell you how good British Woodworking is. But then again, half of the forum's population is in the current issue!

That doesn't mean it's not true, of course.

And yes, I do have a vested interest. 

S


----------



## woodbloke (2 Oct 2008)

wizer":3rdwstly said:


> beech1948":3rdwstly said:
> 
> 
> > The Woodworker and Good Woodwork
> ...



Same here. Having had a swift perusal through the others on the shelves in WHS on a Sat morning F&C and BW are the only ones worth subscribing to IMHO - Rob


----------



## beech1948 (2 Oct 2008)

beech1948 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've just cancelled The Woodworker and Good Woodwork
> 
> ...


----------



## OPJ (2 Oct 2008)

I'm a subscriber (and contributor! :wink: ) to _British Woodworking_ and I still enjoy reading Good Wood. I tried F&C for a year but didn't see enough in it for me, personally. I'm currently 'trialling' The Woodworker for a year.


----------



## MikeG. (2 Oct 2008)

Everyone appears to be cancelling their subscription to Good Woodworking the month I appear in it!!!

Any other magazines out there want to be ruined? I'm cheap.... 

Mike :


----------



## Rob_H (2 Oct 2008)

Cancelled mine to GW aswell - was getting very repetitive. Sorry!!


----------



## bjm (2 Oct 2008)

I think it's a reflection of the 'sound-bite' world we've become used to? I flicked through F&C recently in WHS and probably got 90% of the content with a skim-read so sitting down to read it would have been a disappointment. There doesn't seem to be any in-depth articles in any of these magazines - something to sit and enjoy reading - or is it just me? I'd also like to see some impartial reviews (where they haven't been loaned the tools by the manufacturer) to get a real idea of the quality - or not - of some of the tools out there.

Brian


----------



## p111dom (2 Oct 2008)

Mike Garnham":e2fgrbb9 said:


> Everyone appears to be cancelling their subscription to Good Woodworking the month I appear in it!!!
> 
> Any other magazines out there want to be ruined? I'm cheap....
> 
> Mike :



Don't worry Mike I've been in GW too so you're not alone in feeling that way.


----------



## wizer (2 Oct 2008)

TBH the main reason for buying F&C is that it normally contains a lot of furniture which I aspire to make. Except for a few unfortunate articles, it seems to be aimed at fine furniture and not the DIY market. BWW contains good solid, interesting articles which I enjoy to read. Fair enough they all contain the same old "New innovative method in cutting dovetails" (which is nothing newer than the last time they aired a dovetail article), but this is what magazines have to do. A large percentage of the readership are hobbiests and if you are new to a hobby, then these articles are valuable.


----------



## Mr Ed (2 Oct 2008)

I have to be a bit careful what I say here, as an occasional contributor to F&C...

What I can say is that I don't subscribe to any magazines as I find that even the best of them can become repetitive over time. I also agree with BJM's comments that a 5 minute flick through a mag in WHS is enough in most cases.

In my view the internet has changed the landscape for these type of magazines as I suspect most of us feel we get a lot of what they used to provide online.

Cheers, Ed


----------



## Steve Maskery (2 Oct 2008)

bjm":gy2ejx3y said:


> I'd also like to see some impartial reviews (where they haven't been loaned the tools by the manufacturer)



Hi bjm

This is a common point of view put forward by many people who think that reviewers are in hoc to the manufacturers. We say it time and time again, but it seems we are yet to be believed, that reviewers DO write impartial reviews, and they are not always on things provided by the manufacturer or retailer. Often they are, yes, but not always. I have written reviews for things I've bought at full retail price before now.

Even things I've written reviews for where I've been loaned or, occasionally given, have rarely been without criticism. You see, we are human, and we have a conscience. Why on earth would I, or any of my jounalist colleagues, say "This is good" when inside we are thinking "This is not good" Is it so the the manufacturer of the nos-so-good item is so pleased that they send me more sot-so-good tools to use in my workshop? And am I really supposed to spend my hard-earned cash to buy all the new tools on the market, just to find out how good they are so that readers don't waste their money? What do I then do with the duff stuff?

Testing tools takes time, and journalism is not a well-paid profession. I have better things to do with my time than fabricate some review and destroy my own credibility. If I say something is good it is because it is good, not because my integrity has been bought off.

What you don't see are the tests that say "this is rubbish, don't buy it". I agree that it would be helpful to readers, but it doesn't make for a good read! When I'm critical I just keep my mouth shut (yes, I know that sounds far-fetched, but I can do it if forced). I've been sent things to review which just gather dust, even though I'd like to stay on good terms with the manufacturer. I can think of one product where I really do rate the manufacturer generally, but not for this particular product.

When we "media types" as I was recently, and not kindly, called, get together, this subject often crops up. A group of us went to Festool in Germany in April, which is why there is a flurry of Festool publicity in recent mags. It was 4 days of my time, no-one paid me for going and no-one has paid me to write about it. I've written, honestly, about some aspects of the trip, and if any of it gets published in the future, I will receive some financial remuneration. If it doesn't I won't.

As it happened, I enjoyed the trip even though it was knackering. I also made a useful contact who wants to publish some of my work abroad, so for me it was worth going.

I write this to say, yes again, that those of us who put our hearts and souls into producing material, month after month, for the benefit of the woodworking community, and for a very modest return (regardless of whether you are a jobbing journalist or an Editor-in-Chief) find it very frustrating - and occasionally offensive - when people imply that we are not writing the truth, simply because we have not paid for the item we are reviewing. 

If I say something is good it is because I think it is good, OK?

Cheers
an exasperated, but not, at this stage anyway, offended, 
Steve


----------



## ProShop (2 Oct 2008)

imho all of the mags have a limited attention span threshold, and over time I just lose interest. And I just try another mag for a while.

I have noticed over the years there seems to a cycle to these mags, where one mag publishes a series of articles, and then a bit later on another mag does the same articles (a few small tweaks & differences), but essentially the same articles.

F & C is not quite as good as it used to be recently imho, but I'll give it another couple of months or so to see if it improves, if not I'll try the American mags again, which I think are much better than the UK ones.


----------



## bjm (2 Oct 2008)

Steve

I'm sure that all input into these, and other, magazines is done with the utmost degree of integrity and I don't wish to imply otherwise. My concern with reviewing something that you have received, rather than purchased, is the human element of accentuating the positives and downplaying the negatives - intentional or not. 'Which' magazine has a policy of never accepting anything for review to address that element of potential bias. I understand the financial aspects of this but I do get a bit cynical with some reviews.

Personally, I think the purpose of a review should be to highlight a products weaknesses. I'm sure it would ultimately serve the manufacturers in order to make improvements to their goods (for those who truly value their customers). I see it in other areas; a new product gets released and the media gives it glowing reviews - read user forums and all the niggly faults come to light! It happens on this forum.


Brian


----------



## Steve Maskery (2 Oct 2008)

Brian

The reason I didn't take offence is because I inferred from the way you wrote that you did not intend offence, so we have no issue there.

But to equate the average woody mad (or indeed an exceptional woody mag) with Which? magazine is fanciful. The market, the circulation the budget - all are in different leagues. I'm sure any woody mag editor would give their eye teeth for those sort of resources, but it's simply not the real world.

If I write a review of a tool, and it occupies, say half a page or a page, if it gets published (and there is no guarantee that it will) then I may receive £50 OR £100. Would you, or anyone you know, sell their soul to the devil for £50 or £100? Perhaps you would but I suspect you wouldn't. Why, then, should you think that anyone of the rest of us would either? And if you want us to review stuff that has been paid for, who does the paying? If you want to foot the bill then I'm sure we will all applaud you, you know how to contact me. In the meantime, we all work with what we have and endeavour to do justice to ALL concerned without fear or favour.

S


----------



## lurker (3 Oct 2008)

I must admit that I dismiss the content of the tool reviews as bias. Regardless of what the writer might want to or is saying, surely the editor HAS TO have one eye on the advertising revenue from the said manufacturer.

So......... if Steve writes a review saying that the Acme left hand widget is overpriced and he can do the same job with a old screwdriver, his article isn't going to get published if Acme have just bought a double page advert for the next 6 issues. So I don't think anyone is questioning the integrity of the reviewer - more recognising the survival instincts of the Editor.


----------



## p111dom (3 Oct 2008)

To avoid offending anyone I will take a different tack. Years ago I was heavily into car audio and bought most of the modified car mags at the time. Every article was heavily biased in favour of the manufacturer Alpine. They came out on top in almost every review. However whenever I fitted a radio of system by them bought my a customer on a recomendation from a mag I just couldn't understand it. Vastly overpriced and not superior in any way to any of the other manufacturers. My preference at the time was Pioneer. Superb build and sound quality better IMO than the alpine and yet more technologically up to date and with better egronomics yet cheaper to boot. I always recommended them to anyone due to personal experience. I always came up against resistance with this though as their was a general perception that Alpine was better any why? Not because of peoples physical experiences with the products but purely from what people had read. Call me a cynic but when it came to advertising space Alpine outstripped it's nearest competitor in some cases by 4 to 1. Fifteen years ago I had a friend who took out a full page advert for his tuning garage and even back then it cost somewhere in the region of 5k. With Alpine having 4 pages an issue that's 20 grand per issue. What mag editor is going to bite that feeding hand? While I agree with Steve about writers integrity the bottom line is that most things are editied by the editor, chopped, cut or rejected ets regardless of what the originator thinks. These magazines are a business and who are they going to be more friendly to. The reader shelling out £3 per issue or the manufacturer shelling out 5 grand? Common sense says it happens but I don't think that really matters. Most of us arn't that nieve hence this thread. I just take it as a given that there will be a certain amount of not so much bias but maybe pulling of punches when it comes to tool critisism. The best advice is to go to a show and play with everything you can regardless whether you are in the market for it or not. That way if you do need a new tool in the future you will have personal experience to rely on.


----------



## bjm (3 Oct 2008)

I fully accept the finer points of maintaining good relationships between magazine editors and manufacturers. My personal observation though is that many 'reviews' are nothing more than longer adverts. Constructive criticism - and it has to be constructive - is far more informative. 

There will always be an element of compromise between price/performance and if you shop based on how low the price is then you also accept that you will not get the performance you might expect from a more expensive alternative. Conversely, there is a point at which high-end prices fail to deliver better performance and a cheaper alternative would perform equally well. Surely the whole point of a review is to be a warts-and-all assessment from an experienced persons perspective? 

I'm sure that some manufacturers are only becoming aware of their shortcomings - and doing something about it - because of the unbiased reactions that forums, such as this, offer - the nitty-gritty you never see in many reviews. 

Brian


----------



## Nick Gibbs (3 Oct 2008)

I agree that the Internet has changed the game. The forum performs a hugely valuable service in providing advice and discussion on topics that magazines could never do in their old ways. When I first edited Woodworker, 20 years ago, we were inundated by questions and had a huge panel of experts. We answered (and paid for) many more solutions to questions than we could ever publish. Nowadays we get hardly any technical questions, and to be honest that is a great relief. I thank forums and the community of woodworkers for that. Not all the answers are always spot on, but then neither are they in magazines.

That is why British Woodworking aims to offer something a little different. Specifically we try to make it interesting to read. This issue we have the expert on Arts & Crafts, Mary Greensted, looking at furniture at the Celebration of Craftsmanship and Design, and commenting on A&C influences. We try to find and tell stories. I'm sure we can do better, but the idea is to produce a magazine that is really interesting to read, as well as having some useful bits. 

Increasingly websites will be offering projects and tests for free, so my aim is to focus on good journalism, and hopefully inspiring images. So far the woodworking websites (and most other specialisms as well) haven't been able to afford the sort of editing and writing that goes into a good magazine. That may change in the future, but for the moment I hope British Woodworking (and our new mag Living Woods) provide an excellent read.

We're fortunate at British Woodworking because we're young, and we don't have a large management structure. When I edited Good Woodworking there was huge pressure from publishers to chase readers, offering yet more Best Ways to Cut a Mortise. That is how you capture the new readers. 

That is why the content can feel repetitive. Even Popular Woodworking, which is a great magazine, sometimes feels a bit samey for that reason. And don't forget that readers usually outgrow magazines (for any hobby) in a few years. They think a magazine has changed, when really it is they that have improved and learnt new things.

My hope is that British Woodworking can stay more impulsive and challenging, and keep coming up with evolutions of ideas rather than repeating the same old thing. Once we have the website running properly we'll have the basics of How to Cut a Tenon there, so that we don't have to repeat it every time in the magazine. 

Thanks again for everyone's support. It's been an amazing year. Hopefully see some of you at Stoneleigh next week and Harrogate in November.

Nick


----------



## Losos (3 Oct 2008)

The OP started by saying FWW had slipped a bit recently, and I tend to agree with him. I suscribe now, but will be looking for a return to their previous very high standard.

By comparison 'tho I considered all the UK mags well below FWW *until British Woodworking came on the scene*. I suppose one shouldn't compare FWW and BWW as they have different agendas.

But I must say that currently BWW is the *only UK mag. I subscribe too*, and the style is somewhat unique. *It is an interesting read *so I will likely be a suscriber for some time to come.


----------



## johnnyb (3 Oct 2008)

i have just brought fww tool guide 2009 on the strength of the 2008 issue.
dont bother it has many of the same articles!! i have thoroughly enjoyed the 2008 issue but why rehash the reveiws from last year? and the new reveiws are pretty shoddy unfortuneatly.... marking knives? just a heads up as its in the shops now. 
fww tool reveiws are superb as to unbiased... well probably not. when i read them with the tool in my hand i cant figure out there problem is. but they are infinitely better and more objective than the bilge in the uk mags. these are basically just reveiws of the features of a tool no opinion is usually expressed in case advertising gets pulled. at least people on the forum give honest opinions of stuff they buy if its rubbish they say.


----------



## Nick Gibbs (4 Oct 2008)

I think it's a bit harsh to describe all UK tests as 'bilge'. Have you read all the ones in British Woodworking? We did one on table routers a few issues ago which was as objective as you can get. It takes a lot of time to do so, but it was an effort to test objectively, not so much to drop the tool and see how it bounces, but to devise criteria that are linked to the use of the kit. 

We tested screws with a series of objective, 'scientific' test, and also glue. We'd love to do more, but it is hugely time-consuming and expensive.

And there's the rub. The more US mags people buy, the fewer UK mags get bought, and the less money UK mags have to spend on testing, and the worse their tests become. US mags sell so many, many more than UK mags that they can afford to do things we can only dream of. As a publisher I have to accept those terms, take it on the chin and battle on, aiming to produce the best magazine I can, but consumers have to recognise that they may also be partly responsible. Perhaps we should start a Save British Publishing Campaign!!!!

Thanks for listening!

Nick


----------



## johnnyb (4 Oct 2008)

probably a bit harsh as i have never read bww. but as a magazine consumer if i decide a magazine is better(for me) even though many of the machines reveiwed or advertised are not available to me and the furniture articles have an unbritish style bias and the adverts dont apply and the price is higher then how bad must my experience of brit mags have been and how good is fww. ps i will of course try bww with baited breath. fww can also be a tedious read but some issues are just pure gold especially the technique articles.
i dont think its possible for an english mag to equal them(us mags) on many scores tbh. its just a question of numbers. for instance fww rarely has a beginners guide to ....... . obviously a proportion of british mag buyers are newbies exploring there hobby a bit and they must be aimed at these. but they can be very tedious. adverts are the life blood of a magazine but are also tedious to read as i never buy from them as products are invariably cheaper sourced on the net. the smaller the readership the greater the proportion of adverts...the less im interested.
on the positive side british woodworking(in general not the mag!) is a unique niche with its own slant on things and products. so maybe a magazine could be a thoroughly good read and be published in this country. it strikes me there are to many brit mags for there own good with the talent spread thin between the lot!


----------



## Nick Gibbs (4 Oct 2008)

I agree with everything you say, Johnny. Email me your postal address and I'll send you a copy of British Woodworking for free. That offer's open to anyone who hasn't seen the magazine before. 

We aim to celebrate British furniture styles, British furniture makers and British toolmakers while also offering good technical information and interesting projects. We are far from perfect, and in trying to be impulsive and interesting we are possibly too chatty at times. The alternative is the more 'textbooky' approach of most US mags, which is very sleek and deep, but does by its nature tend to repeat itself. 

Cheers

Nick


----------



## Ironballs (4 Oct 2008)

The only one I subscribe to is F&C as it is generally interesting and aspirational with some useful reviews and projects - though it would be nice to see Kevin Ley occasionally build something that has no elm in it :wink: 

Of the others I browse in Smiths and decide then if I'll buy them so occasionally will buy Fine or British


----------



## beech1948 (4 Oct 2008)

Some comments just straight from my brain. No offence intended to anyone just my JUDGEMENTS:-

1) The UK market is small with too many magazines chasing too few readers. Its time to amalgamate some of the mags

2) The Woodworker added the Woodturner and became less than the sum of both parts. I have no interest in turning so 50% of the mag is wasted on me. Other mags suffer similar and worse dilution of focus its not just The Woodworker.

3) rubbish tools are reviewed but never given a rubbish rating. We 20yr + amateur woodworkers know what they are but we still see gimicks and rubbish reviewed as though the item was the holy grail. The ingrained lack of awareness of the intelligence and understanding of readers is staggering.

4) I saw a mag get 5 or 6 articles about Felder from one factory visit..it might even have been the Eden-Eden but the content was poor, repetitive and just too sucky to warrant such a waste of paper. This sort of thing happens too often and is an insult to the readers who spend hard earned cash on such stuff. The same with the repetitive standardised articles.

5) Where are the projects, properly photographed, fully described. These are what we want to see. Where is the meat.

6) Too much tool porn to no point.

7) Recent F&C projects photographed from strange angles but no overall view of the end result so no way to assess design aesthetics. This is a major irritation. All magazines are guilty of this at some time or other each year.

8) Too many large photos where several smaller ones would give more info and be clearer to understand.

9) The same adverts all the time....I know that this is essential...but where is the innovation eg a map with all of the timber suppliers on it that could lead to more adverts from timber suppliers...and I don't mean Travis Perkins.

Finally the shear dearth of innovation from the mags editors is astounding and a condemnation of the paucity of adventure, effort and striving for excellence.

Nick Gibbs is making something of an effort. But in general much more should be expected and delivered.

My final comment is to challenge why there is no internet magazine of good style and repute available. A UK based FWW + F&C+ BW but only offered as a digital medium.

regards

Alan


----------



## Tierney (4 Oct 2008)

I am a hobbyist woodworker and have been buying FWW and F&C for a couple of years now; and now find myself questioning both. Certainly repetition is an issue; and techniques you can pick up from several good books, e.g. Tage Frid, David Charlesworth etc.; which pound for pound are probably better value.

What I still look for from these magazines are the making of inspirational furniture (Kevin Ley step away from the elm!) and good tool reviews / tests. FWW did a couple of reviews on joint strength and glue's which had proper scientific measurement; which really impressed me; but, I haven't seen any facts and figures quoted in the F&C reviews - some of these tests are only as scientific as something an engineering student would do within their first couple of weeks at University. Similarly when FWW do reviews of say chisels, they have about 20 or 30 which inspires confidence (although I have read posts here where people have quite a different view).

What particularly infuriated me is the review of the de walt planer thicknesser coupled with the bench restoration article in the latest issue of F&C. I have been trying to decide which planer/thicknesser to buy and the following comments from F&C didn't help:

1) In the bench making article he describes two pieces of wood that were too big and heavy for the de walt, although they were well within the advertised capacity of the de walt. In the separate review of the p/t there was no mention of the fact that it apparently cannot handle its advertised capacity
2) In the review of the p/t he states that he achieved thicknessing accuracy of 1m; but thinks he could have achieved more by careful setting. Bearing in mind that Scheppach and I believe Jet (only 15% more expensive) quote accuracy of +/- 0.1mm. So why didn't the reviewer bother to trying to get a better accuracy; because 1mm seems rubbish and for the price of the de walt represents terrible value for money.

Finally for both magazines, if they put an article from the magazine for free on the internet it just makes me feel cheated out of part of the cost of the magazine.

David


----------



## Nick Gibbs (4 Oct 2008)

All very good points Alan. There should be fewer magazines. 

When we bought Traditional Woodworking and relaunched it as British Woodworking (a completely new mag really), I thought for a moment that the biggest favour I could do for the woodworking market would be to close and go away.

But then I saw that Good Woodworking was going to the stable that had amalgamated Woodworker and Woodturner and wasn't convinced they would put the effort into Good Woodworking unless I was there as competition. On balance it's been a good decision, but there's still a way to go. 

We need every bit of support we can get. I'm convinced we can produce great multi-media woodworking information and entertainment, but it will take a huge amount of effort and some good fortune to succeed, and the journey is long. I love what I do, so it's no chore, and really appreciate the help from other folk. Thanks.

Once again I extend the offer of a free trial mag to anyone who hasn't seen British Woodworking before. Just email me at the address below.

Cheers

Nick


----------



## andy king (4 Oct 2008)

I've followed this thread with interest and stayed away for my own reasons, but there are a couple of points i'd like to make, bearing in mind, like everyone else on this, and other forums, it's my own point of view.
Firstly, and most interestingly, when I worked with Nick, he made gret efforts to try and help and offer assistance on this forum, and was hounded from all angles, yet now he is held in high esteem.
Nothing has changed, he is still the exceptionally hard working bloke I know and admire, and his current postings follow similar tack, and most importantly, I am proud to call a friend now as I did then. So what is different? His goals a Good Woodworking were equally focussed as now with British Woodworking, yet he was given short shrift for trying to promote it.
I assume either those who hounded him have left, or kept quiet, or maybe have actually met him and realised what a really down to earth very entusiastic and helpful guy he really is? The latter I hope.
Now tool testing. This is where I always end up in a bit of a bun fight!
I review for one person, and one person only, and that is the person who buys the magazine.
When Nick edited me, he took everything I said as it was written, only altering to make it fit the page. (and edit my bad grammar!) The salient points remained. Phil Davy did the same, and my current editor does so as well, so what is put down by me is invariably published, irrespective of advertising.
I have always said if something is amiss, along with positives where necessary, and use my own woodworking qualifications to form judgements on them and how some things would be better for some than others, so a £20 sander can be brilliant for an occasional home user, but wouldn't last five minutes in industry.
Common sense maybe, but there are end users who see bargain as suitable unless told other wise.
I suppose its like me wanting some spanners. I know that I could buy Snap Ons, but if i only want to use them occasionally, a set of budget ones will do, but if I read a review that says a set are great, yet are actuall under or over sized, what signal does that send?
THe review should be aimed at the people likely to buy it, and should therefore tll the reader what to look for, positive and negative, and they can then look at the product in a shop or show and decide for themselves whether it affects them or not, but it is a guide.
Despite postings to the contrary on reviews, I do make negative judgements on tools as well as positives. As examples, Makita have recently launched a screw base router, that has been available in the US for a number of years, yet its single speed, has limited plunge, won't detach from the base for addition bases to be used or left inverted, and commented and marked accordingly.
Bosch released a dual base before that and had it well thought out, clever use of plunge and screw base, but no fence supplied, and quite expensive, but its a 'blue' model, so should be classed as 'expensive, but durable for industry' and priced higher accordingly.
Draper have just launched a similar one, and that is fantastic value, superbly built with some cracking features, and a bargain, and has been reviewed and marked accordingly.
At the other end, the latest S&J Predator saw with the laser? Absolute nonsesnse of an idea, and I've said as much in my review.
I think if the postings were along the lines of ' I read a review that said this tool was great, but its absolute rubbish, then the poster would have absolute right to post the review as 'bilge' and call the reviewer into question about his morals, but that isn't the case in the majority of postings.
Most interestingly for me in all of this, is the constant dismissal of reviews across the board, yet I get emails and PM's from members of this and other forums asking my advice on tools, and have done for a number of years and still do! 
I answer them all, and offer the best advice I can based on my knowledge of the tools in question, my own background, and the needs of the questioner, yet in open debate on th forum, I never seem to hear any positives about someone reading a review, looking at the tool or machine in question and buying accordingly and being very happy.
There are members here who have done just that, and thanked me at shows, which makes it worthwhile for me, but I wonder whether sometimes people don't want to admit to being a closet magazine reader if it doesn't fit with current forum climates! :roll: 

cheers
Andy


----------



## Losos (4 Oct 2008)

On the subject of tool reviews I can honestly say I've never had reason to complain, going back over the years I have learned to treat them usually as a *'guide' not a 'bible' *as mentioned above for so many UK mags there is a budget which is nothing like that of the American mags.

In the case of British Woodworking I would like to comment on one review - OK it's not a tool review but they recently featured Abranet and praised the product out of this world. To be totally honest I was dubious at first and thought there must have been some 'backhanders' involved.

But you know what - It is fantastic - It is a major improvement over the traditional sanding materials - and it does not 'clog up' *in fact it is everything the magazine said it was* - on bare wood it is a revelation (OK I've yet to try it on paint)

It always puzzles me why there are so many woodworking titles in UK. Nick Gibbs seems to have the right idea in producing a magazine with more human interest storeys and more of a good read. There are of course some 'how to' stuff and some 'projects' but with a recession on the horizon and still so many titles *it seems to me that a magazine needs to differentiate itself from the crowd *or it won't be around for too long.

As I said in a previous post *BWW is my only subscribed UK mag *and I expect it to be dropping into my post box for a good while. FWW on the other hand needs to get back to it's past standard or I may not renew when the time comes.


----------



## p111dom (4 Oct 2008)

I hear what you're saying Andy and I do believe you. I guess it all comes down to tone. You guys are just too nice. Where as in a motoring magazine I read recently the final verdict one one particluar car was "I'd rather cut my own arm off than be seen dead driving this thing". Where as faced with having to review the same vehicle a wood writer might tone this down to something like "well it's better than walking." Car mags probably give the most ferocious critisism but even home hi fi mags can hit pretty hard. I remember at one time Panasonic made the best alround plasma screen TV apparantly according to most mags. All that followed where compared to it regardless whether it was a back to back test or not. This was very useful info to a purcheser (so I don't know why I bought an LG :roll: ). At the back of car and hi fi mags there's extensive lists of everything tested with a corresponding star rating and while GW does this to a certain extent I think all the mags could do more. What I want to know is what is the best PT for the money without having to order a back issue for the specific review. A review might say the latest offering from say Jet is good but what I want to know is it better than the equivelent Scheppach regardless of whether that machine is reviewed in the same mag. Car mags will review say a new Astra and conclude that you're better off buying the Golf again regardless whether or not it was reviewed in the same issue and this is very useful. Why not with wood mags?

As for content I can see why some people find thing repetative but it is difficult to find the right medium. The last issue of BW I looked at was the one with that staggering jewelery box with metal circular hinges but as gorgeous as it was (and it was) I couldn't help but be a little frustrated when he got to the section where he got a relative to get the metal parts machined at work with a machine that probably cost tens of thousands of pounds. I don't have access to that facility so what have I learned there except for the fact that I cant make it? I stopped watching NYW for just for that reason. Every episode it was "now I'll just run the full 4 foot width piece though my horizontal drum sander" (or similar) and I'd just loose interest after that. Things are alot easier it you have a 5000 square foot work shop and 200k worth of tools and I can see that sort of stuff on an episode of 'How it's made'. None of this has any relevence to the kind of stuff I could make and I have a reasonable sized work space. I can imagine this sort of thing is doulbly frustrating to those producing decent usable furniture out of a 6 by 4 shed. Respect to them.


----------



## Nick Gibbs (4 Oct 2008)

This is very interesting. I support Andy King entirely. He is a fantastic tester, and if I want to find out what to buy I will view his tests. That's not just honour amongst thieves: I know that Andy tests things as rigorously as he can and gives an honest opinion.

At British Woodworking we've taken a slightly different approach. Years ago I introduced star ratings when I launched Good Woodworking because it was seen as a simple way of saying what's best. Very clear. Actually I've come to think that it hinders as much as it helps, for a number of reasons.

1. It stops readers reading, because all they do is jump to the star rating at the end.
2. It means people don't read about the products that come second and third.
3. It makes it more difficult to give a balanced view. You have to recognise that many products are produced to a tight budget and there are many different types of user. Take for instance our test of the Record Power TS200C saw last year. We concluded that this saw has huge potential for many keen home woodworkers, offering power, reasonable accuracy and some good features. However, setting it up is tricky and there are some possible safety issues. It has bags of potential in the right hands. We've had ours for a year now, and sometimes it needs a tickle, but most of the time it's great. But we wouldn't necessarily recommend it to someone who's unwilling to fettle. That's what happens when consumers demand cheaper products!!! We are all to blame, to some extent. 

We reiterated in that test the importance of woodworkers learning how to adjust and maintain their machines. We said that that is where freedom comes from. We even did a special article on how to improve that Record saw. We'll do more of the same in the future.

The trouble is these days that so many products are so similar. It's often hard to be a vitriolic as some people want us to be. And actually, I often wonder if the people in car magazines spout forth based on objective evidence or just their prejudices. Perhaps we are too nice, but perhaps also we are encouraging readers to make up their own minds, providing them with only some of the ammunition to make purchasing decisions but recognising that all woodworkers are different, and nothing's simple!!! 

Once again, if you want a free copy of British Woodworking as a trial do email me, and if you want a PDF of our router table routers test (which is a good example of what we do) please email me.

Cheers

Nick


----------



## Rich (4 Oct 2008)

Hi Nick,
Having been a mechanical engineer all my working life, I would say that I could expect to purchase a "cheapo" machine and after"fettling" it I could expect to get a very good performance out of it, however, if I were to purchase a brand new car(some hope) I would not expect to have to fettle it.
I suppose it's horses for courses really. the more you spend you expect a better performance, this is not always the case, and a lot more can be achieved with a cheaper model and a bit of fettling.  

Regards.

Rich.


----------



## Ironballs (5 Oct 2008)

Nick - I'm with P111dom on his second para, I saw that issue of BW and homed in on the jewellery box article as I'm building a couple. However, as soon as I saw the bit about getting those metal bits made up it turned me off. It may be just me but I'm only interested in the woodworking and if I have to break out a welder or milling machine then it's not for me.

That said you do have a tricky line to walk and it goes without saying that the jewellery box in question was utterly fantastic. The only other magazines I subscribe to are Evo (fast/interesting cars) and Singletrack (mountain bikes/general biking related b****cks), they offer a mix of great journalism, good reviews, aspirational items, real world reviews, personal interest and above all a genuine love of the topic in question, even if it leads to degrees of personal ruin to achieve that.

This I think is what some of the woodworking mags lack at present, F&C in particular can lack that warmth and human interest. I'd love to think that I could document a high end guitar build (this may be dreamworld!) and submit for publication, but they'd turn it away as it was too far away from their core values/beliefs?


----------



## Nick Gibbs (5 Oct 2008)

You've hit upon another frustration when you mention the jewellery box. Projects!

From all the research I've done over the years I've concluded that a tiny tiny percentage of readers actually make the projects featured in a magazine. My aim is to provide a few smaller projects and jigs that people will make, but more interesting projects that are for inspiration and ideas. They are more about techniques and design than Here's How to Make this Box. If you only want step by step how-to-make projects you'll get very boring stuff. If you want something to read we have to find you something interesting to write about. Which means that sometimes it will be irrelevant or too advanced or whatever for your desires and needs. 

As you say, it's a tricky line. If you want projects you can make we can give you that, but it will probably be a bit dull. 

Singletrack is a very good magazine, full of character. In fact it's the sort of magazine we are aiming to be, and if you read British Woodworking I really think that you'll find: "great journalism, good reviews, aspirational items, real world reviews, personal interest and above all a genuine love of the topic in question, even if it leads to degrees of personal ruin to achieve that". 

The offer's there for a free copy for anyone who'd like it! Just email me at the address below. We've got a good list of people already!

Nick


----------



## OPJ (5 Oct 2008)

p111dom":3w05ua5n said:


> Every episode it was "now I'll just run the full 4 foot width piece though my horizontal drum sander" (or similar) and I'd just loose interest after that. Things are alot easier it you have a 5000 square foot work shop and 200k worth of tools and I can see that sort of stuff on an episode of 'How it's made'. None of this has any relevence to the kind of stuff I could make and I have a reasonable sized work space. I can imagine this sort of thing is doulbly frustrating to those producing decent usable furniture out of a 6 by 4 shed. Respect to them.



You obviously didn't see my article in the same issue! :roll:  In one of the earlier issues as well, we saw Bill Newton make a tilt-top from the tiniest of workspaces with some of the smallest machinery (4" bandsaw, etc.).

Have you seen the current issue? Nick's looking for someone to join the team and produce furniture from the BWW workshop for both clients and the magazine, while testing some of the new kit they get at the same time. I'm sure this will eventually fill many of the needs you've stated above.  

You can add my name to the list of people regularly asking Andy for tool-buying advice. :wink:


----------



## OPJ (5 Oct 2008)

Rich":3i0g9qk1 said:


> Hi Nick,
> Having been a mechanical engineer all my working life, I would say that I could expect to purchase a "cheapo" machine and after"fettling" it I could expect to get a very good performance out of it, however, if I were to purchase a brand new car(some hope) I would not expect to have to fettle it.
> I suppose it's horses for courses really. the more you spend you expect a better performance, this is not always the case, and a lot more can be achieved with a cheaper model and a bit of fettling.
> 
> ...



I agree with your points, Rich. I think you'd have to spend several thousands of pounds on a large industrial machine before you have something will run beautifully from the moment it hits your workshop floor. Trouble, I reckon I lot of people don't see the bigger picture - if I was to buy a £1,000 planer thicknesser or bandsaw, I'd still expect to have to give it some time and attention to fettle it every now and again. I think the "Industrial" ratings in the catalogues have more in common with the motor quality than overall build of the machine. Walk in to a larger joinery/furniture workshop and any new machines would probably be Martin, SCM, Felder - not Axminster or Jet. That's what I'd call "industrial".


----------



## Anonymous (5 Oct 2008)

Nick - apologies for the length of this post

I have met you a couple of times and enjoyed our conversations. I have the utmost respect for your skills and the HUGE efforts in bring around GBW magazine. I should point out that I also admire Richard Kell's work immensely.



However, I have browsed all, but purchased only 3 of the GBW issues. From the outset I was very concerned by the tool reviews that demonstrated a strong bias in my opinion.

How can I say this?

How can I back this up?

Well, the current issue is a prime example. The review of honing guides is an absolute joke and I can only assume it was written as_ a parody of good, independent journalism_!

The basis of any argument is critical thought. Critical thinking leads to writing that produces arguments supported by the preceding 'supporting statements'. This is well known and well documented.

So, let's look at the supporting statements made in the honing jig article (these points are made in the body of the article):

Kell
* British made
* Holds blades square (however, you neglect to say that they are held to one side of the jig and, and with most chisels they will be held near the edge of the stone, this is a VERY bad idea)
* Need to make a set of runners for the wheels to roll on
* The set of runners needs to be 1/2" above the stone, yet still perfectly aligned to the stone - even as the stone wears!!!
* The tool's wheels are not in contact with the stone - i.e. no datum or reference to the stone's surface
* Have to make your own wedge to hold the iron (no doubt, one makes several wedges for chisels, varying blade thicknesses etc. )
* No wobble or movement ensuring perfectly straight cutting edges
* Sold as part of the scary sharp system

Veritas
* flexible and holds most tools without making any additional jigs (like a 'self loading rifle' - yes, we've all used those :roll: )
* The roller is referenced to the actual stone (this increases accuracy unless using scary sharp where it is referenced to the substrate)
* Lots of adjustments including ability to easily set for a back bevel
* Holds the tool square against a reference (like Kell) - however, you do not mention that the Veritas allows the blade to be held square at any point across the jig, so chisels may be central to the stone or anywhere else across it
* Can be used for all manner of edge tools (even mortise chisels in my experience)
* Has a set of stops that make setting angles very easy
* Has 3 settings on the roller to allow small adjustments for the micro bevel without re-setting the blade in the jig.
* One can produce curved blades on the Veritas (not mentioned, but a crutial ability if one follows DC or Scharz's advice on sharpening)
* One does not have to make wedges etc. to use it (not pointed out, but an advantage over the Kell)

There is more, but the supporting statements in the article CLEARLY point out that the Veritas is a superior device on a waterstone-based sharpening system. 
The Kell is beautiful and clearly well made, but flawed in many areas - except for scary sharp where the abrasive is thin.

*But that's not the point is it?* You interview Richard Kell, and his jig is 'British'.

*So, you chose the Kell despite the facts * :roll: 

I think *this edition of the magazine was the best by far *with some very good articles, but it was spoiled by the appalling bad 'review' (personally, I would find the word review inapropraite for this) of sharpening jigs.

Kill the bias, write independent reviews where the supporting statements DO support the conclusion (or argument) and you will be producing a magazine worth subscribing to, rather than one that is mostly left on the shelf.

My own bias? None really, I own a Veritas and it does all I could want but I use a version of the scary sharp system these days and, for a long time, have been tempted to buy a Kell for straight-sharpened blades (jointer, shooting board, skew, spokeshaves) for use on that. I am off ot look at Richard's web page now :wink: :lol:


----------



## johnnyb (5 Oct 2008)

i certainly was not suggesting that backhanders take place over tool reviews. just that negative reviewing is never welcome. i once purchased a record maxi 26, after several reviews in the mags and of course records glossy lit. i remember going to buy it and the chap in the shop saying "its a pile of rubbish dont buy it, buy the sheppach saw instead" needless to say it was a pile of c..p!! record shut down there forum after many people complained about this machine. the guy in the shop selling it to me warned me not to buy it and he was supposed to be selling it to me! what you say to me at a show etc and what you print are not the same.
since then i stopped reading all reviews except from ones on this forum and in fww or the american mags. you cant serve two masters in tool reviews.


----------



## Nick Gibbs (5 Oct 2008)

Hi Tony

You make some very fair comments about the honing guides piece. In trying to do something different it doesn't always work perfectly. I was trying to give a considered idea of what sort of person might want to use any of the honing guides, and if the Eclipse holds up for everyone. They are all so different that it is almost impossible to compare one directly against another. What I was hoping to do was to get people thinking about the various options, and how one might progress from one product to the next, or instead choose to learn how to do it by hand. 

I think it's unfair to say that I came down utterly in favour of the Kell jig. I do think his jigs are mainly aimed at more discerning woodworkers, and you're right there is a problem that they don't run on the surface of the stone (though that is also a benefit). I tried to make it plain what sort of woodworker might favour which of the guides, rather than just saying which was best. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, and yes interviewing Richard Kell in the same issue might be seen as compromising the test. I understand that.

And, actually, it being British is an issue. I think we should be encouraging British toolmaking, not at the cost of something better from somewhere else, but to help our local economy and ensure we don't lose vital skills.

I think it's unfair to say I didn't use any critical analysis. I thought I did. Calling the article 'an absolute joke' is the sort of language that does no one the forum any favours. I'm sure there are some people who will find it interesting and informative. Did you see our test of inverted routers?

Thanks for your support otherwise.

Cheers

Nick


----------



## p111dom (5 Oct 2008)

OPJ":10oroicg said:


> You obviously didn't see my article in the same issue! :roll:



Yes I did and it's very good. I especially liked your method of holding the small brackets while cutting them on tthe bandsaw. These are the type of tips intermediate woodworkers want to see. However on the next page there's the base of a four legged criss cross table. How did he cut that? "shaped on the spindle moulder and .......then the joint is cut using the router". That wasn't much help. 

On another point about general reviews and content there's still alot more that could and IMO should be done and stated. For a specific review what about the company or manufacturer. Are they easy to deal with? Are they there in a timely fashion when things go wrong? For example I have alot of Ryobi stuff and it's very good value for money but the after sales service is terrible. Had I known, that would put me off. Wood suppliers and locations. Contact numbers. General suppliers where to get things etc. All sadly lacking in most of the mags. The internet is so big these days that these sort of places can be difficult to find. Why arn't the mags taking advantage of this?


----------



## alan wood (5 Oct 2008)

I must say this is a most interesting thread and as a contributor to the magazine I would like to cover a few points.

I really don’t believe that British Woodworking magazine is bias towards British products and at no time has Nick me to promote them.

Having read through all of my writings to date here are the products that I use.
A Japanese marking knife
A German engineers try-square (although I didn’t highlight that fact)
Japanese water stones.
Stanley honing guide
An old steel rule
Cramps from Aldi
The Stanley marking knives
Hamilton paint scraper blades
Blue Spruce Tool works chisels
Zone razor saw.

As a person new to writing for a magazine I would add that Nick is an excellent person to work with, inspirational, and critical is a very positive and mentoring manner. 

cheers

Alan


----------



## stef (5 Oct 2008)

Tim Nott":2r5k4maz said:


> I've had a sub to Taunton's Fine Woodworking for a while but am thinking of cancelling as it seems to be less and less interesting "Tune up your tablesaw - Again!"
> What's good in UK mags? I live in France so visiting a UK newsagent is un peu difficile
> 
> Tim



The "bouvet" is not a bad read, fairly technical though.
and you'll find it at your local carefour !


----------



## bjm (5 Oct 2008)

Nick

I read your review of the TS200C, after I'd bought mine, and I don't think you were critical enough. To say it requires a little fettling is an understatement. There is nothing wrong with the saw mechanism but as a tool it has been crippled by the poor design of the rest of it.

I agree that there will always be benefits gained from a little fettling with any tool, especially when price is a factor, but this particular saw is in a league of it's own. I don't see that as a benefit to anyone.


Brian


----------



## MikeG. (5 Oct 2008)

I am interested in this conversation even though I don't read any of the magazines at all. 

What particularly interests me is the pre-occupation with tool reviews as a basis for deciding which magazine to buy. Are people really saying that they buy tools so often that a monthly tool review is the most important thing in a magazine? If so, I am staggered.

One of the reasons I don't buy magazines is that the only thing I would look for in a magazine would be inspiration for my projects. If the magazines were full of fantastic woodworking every month, stuff that I like but couldn't yet achieve myself, I would have been a customer for years. The ones I have flicked through in dentist's waiting rooms seem to be very long on instructions in basics (cutting a tenon, for goodness sake!!) and full of tool reviews, but very short of inpsirational woodwork. (Remember, I have only seen a very, very small sample of the output over the last quarter century. I could be very wrong.)

*Inspire me, don't instruct me!! *

If I need a new tool (and I don't buy many at all) I would go and have a look at the alternatives in a shop........or if I bought the magazines I would probably look through the advertisements before going to the shops.

I'm now wondering if the inspiration I seek for new projects equates in some way to the inspiration that some people seek for new tools. Could it be that most readers of the magazines are more interested in the _contents_ of the workshop than in the _products_ that come out of the workshop? 

Surely not.

Mike


----------



## stef (5 Oct 2008)

I agree 100%.
i flick through the mags from time to time, but it's been at least 6 months since i found anything of interests and bought one. 
the bouvet is good for learning about furniture making. it's comprehensive, and very educational, but it fails to inspire me most of the time.


----------



## Nick Gibbs (5 Oct 2008)

Nice one, Mike. It's important for magazines to talk about products, because that's where the change and the news is, and it's important to help readers with their purchases. Products are what drive most magazines, not necessarily because of the advertising, but because ultimately it is the 'News' for most hobbies, and it's what many readers want to know about.

However I agree that an obsession with buying advice is self-defeating. What do you do once the workshop is full??? I think it's more important to use tests to put tools in context, and help readers get more out of what they own already, and understand how it all works.

And yes, I think it's all about inspiration. It's all about getting people to try things they might otherwise not consider, and it's about getting people to read things they might otherwise ignore. 

Your free trial issue will be in the post tomorrow, Mike.

Cheers

Nick


----------



## wizer (5 Oct 2008)

Come on Mike, you have been around here long enough to realise the consumers of these magazine, and indeed this forum, are complete tool junkies. You see it all over the net. It seems to be all about the tools and the workshops. I'm not disagreeing with your point of view. But that just seems to be a fact. I get more excited about a workshop thread or one of waka's plane threads than 50% of the project threads. That's because everyone's taste in furniture is different and so we can't be inspired by every project that is churned out. I recently got that free book from F&C about chairs and tables, an area of woodworking that particularly interests me, but not one of the featured projects interested me, let alone inspired me. That said, none of them where rubbish from a craftsmanship angle, I respect the maker's skill and talent. I have a large folder on my server which is filled with inspirational furniture pics, but I don't add to it every day, maybe one a month. It _should _be all about the making, but it's not. 

With regard to magazine tool reviews, I always take them with a pinch of salt. I seek out users on internet forums that own the particular tool to get a real world review. I guess I use a magazine review to get a 'first look'.

I hardly ever read an article about making tenons or dovetails, even tho I'm not skilled in this area. Should there come a time when I want to tackle a joint, I know I can read up about it in either a book or on the internet. I don't want to read about it on a monthly basis. It's not just magazines. FWW Online have got a new video about dovetails and The Wood Whisperer has covered all the regular joints once ore twice. How much repetition have we seen with the New Yankee Workshop?

On the subject of Repetition.... How many times have we had this conversation?? 

One thing I can not stand in woodworking magazines is the real basic DIY type stuff. Even when I was a complete beginner (i.e right now  ), I never wanted to see how to chuck together 2x4's to make some god awful coffee table that wouldn't be seen dead in a jumble sale!! (you know who you are GWW).

*vent over*



:lol:


----------



## OPJ (5 Oct 2008)

With magazines, the tools and machines will generally get used once or twice for the test/review and that's often the last we'll read about them. On the forums however, you have the opportunity to obtain experience and opinions from people who've been using these same items for months, often longer. I've found that with some machines, they can appear to offer great value initially but, it isn't until you're further down the line that you begin to realise how poorly designed they can be in some areas (thinking back to the drive belt problems on my former planer thicknesser, the Perform CCNPT).

Nick does appear to be trying to stick with several items though - Record table saw, Fox router table, Tormek grinder and, is that a Charnwood spindle moulder I noticed somewhere? :wink:

That's where these forums have an advantage over the magazines.


----------



## MikeG. (5 Oct 2008)

wizer":f7xk9uhe said:


> On the subject of Repetition.... How many times have we had this conversation??
> :lol:



What, you and me? Once at Dave's Sudbury bash...... 

or do you mean "we" as in the forum.........?

Pass!!

Mike


----------



## wizer (5 Oct 2008)

We as in the forum mate. It comes up once or twice a year. Just like the Dado debate and various other hot topics.


----------



## wizer (5 Oct 2008)

I wonder if the lucky BWW workshop winner will give us some long term reviews on his new toy, er tools.


----------



## kenf (6 Oct 2008)

I have just read through the whole of this thread. How refreshing to to read reasonable magazine reviews/criticism answered directly by the magazine proprietor/owner!

Where are all the other magazine editors? Do they show enough interest in the subject of their magazines to read, let alone join a Forum, or are they just publishing houses in it just for the money. Money is a good reason, but not the only one.

I have tried various magazines as I have come across them in the shops, but now find they have to be hunted down, as most local stores don't stock minority interest magazines (either that or they get a few in and they go within days). I don't want to make special journeys into the city to buy a magazine.

Regarding the reviews, I only read them to confirm that I have previously researched and bought the right equipment/machine for me at the right price. The reviews must be written like horoscopes, as they mostly seem to confirm my choices. Occasionally they point out bad points that I just don't find with the one I have bought. I usually research everywhere before buying large price tag items and find any purchase is a compromise between quality, ease of use and price.

Articles I look for in a magazine are individual's workshops and ways of working, mess and all, personal experience stories relating to woodwork, technical information, (what joints to use where;different ways of 'skinning a cat', whale tail or wrap around joints); unusual projects such as making a pole lathe, cider press, secret compartment mechanisms. Perhaps my needs are better satisfied by spending a few months magazine price on a specialist book, if it exists.

A magazine cannot be all things to all people, as Churchill said " you can please some of the people all of the time............."

I will take Nick up on his offer of a sample magazine to see if his refreshed approach works for me.


----------



## p111dom (6 Oct 2008)

kenf":xep55gf0 said:


> A magazine cannot be all things to all people, as Churchill said " you can please some of the people all of the time............."



Though that was Abraham Lincoln :?


----------



## kenf (6 Oct 2008)

You are probably right, but it sounds so much better with a Churchill voice. I expect he said it to someone somewhere at sometime.


----------



## p111dom (6 Oct 2008)

kenf":w6c75zas said:


> You are probably right, but it sounds so much better with a Churchill voice. I expect he said it to someone somewhere at sometime.



Personally my favourite quote from Churchill was while in the house of commons a lady said about him "My lord I must protest, the honourable member is drunk" to which he replied " My lord I may be drunk but the honourable lady is ugly however I shall be sober in the morning." :lol:


----------



## wizer (6 Oct 2008)

My favourite Churchill quote is "ooh Yes!"


I'll get me coat.


----------



## MikeG. (6 Oct 2008)

I hate to be pedantic (do I really??!!) but I think that ugly/ drunk conversation took place on a train.....


----------



## p111dom (6 Oct 2008)

Mike Garnham":w2irx5u0 said:


> I hate to be pedantic (do I really??!!) but I think that ugly/ drunk conversation took place on a train.....



Possible should have added to my origional that I may have been paraphrasing and that's also possible as I didn't look it up. Was still him that said it though so I guess I get half marks.


----------



## Lataxe (7 Oct 2008)

The issue of woodworking magazines certainly seems to animate a lot of woodworkers. I suppose the magazines are somehow representatives (self-appointed) of the WW culture and in some way we all feel they represent us.....?

FWW is the only WW magazine I now subscribe to. I have a trial year of Pop Woodworking but won't be renewing that. I was an F&CM subscriber for a few years but got bored with the narrow perspective (big machines, elm, scandi-modern and a little A&C). I gave them all away - not something I would do with all the back copies of FWW, which are a mine of useful WW info.

I try a British WW magazine now and again but am always very disappointed. I feel they are badly written (over-chatty, look-at-me-the-author tone, padding out tiny amounts of hard WW information); overfull of meaningless tool "tests" (shallow, uncritical, no use help in deciding a purchase, often about crappy tools); awful standard of photography (lopsided, partial and badly lit pics often with no relevance to the text, such as it is).

It seems to be a matter of relativity and also of taste. A lot of people are satisfied with this stuff as they seem to want a kind of Hello! magazine for woodworkers rather than an educational publication. 

Anyway - little point to offer criticism as the editors are very fixed in their views of what a WW magazine ought to be and will only tell us critics that we "don't understand the WW magazine market". Ah ha! We understand it very well, as we are the consumers and may vote with our wallets.

Lataxe, spoilt by the high standards of FWW


----------



## big soft moose (7 Oct 2008)

Lataxe":3mybcil0 said:


> I try a British WW magazine now and again but am always very disappointed. I feel they are badly written (over-chatty, look-at-me-the-author tone, padding out tiny amounts of hard WW information); overfull of meaningless tool "tests" (shallow, uncritical, no use help in deciding a purchase, often about crappy tools); awful standard of photography (lopsided, partial and badly lit pics often with no relevance to the text, such as it is).



oof - a bit harshly worded , it will be interesting to see what nick gibbs has to say in response.

One thing i would pick up from this is the matter of photography - not in BWW in particular but as a general thing this often lets down otherwise well written articles - my feeling is that this is because magazines with a relatively modest circulation cant afford to send out a photographer and thus the pics are taken by the woodworking author themselves which is (understandably) not their main area of expertise.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Oct 2008)

Excuse my ignorance, but what are FWW and F&CM? (Obviously they are magazines......I just don't know what the letters stand for)

Mike


----------



## Anonymous (7 Oct 2008)

Nick Gibbs":3rhbxrzp said:


> Hi Tony
> 
> You make some very fair comments about the honing guides piece. In trying to do something different it doesn't always work perfectly. I was trying to give a considered idea of what sort of person might want to use any of the honing guides, and if the Eclipse holds up for everyone. They are all so different that it is almost impossible to compare one directly against another. What I was hoping to do was to get people thinking about the various options, and how one might progress from one product to the next, or instead choose to learn how to do it by hand.
> 
> ...



Hi Nick

Sorry if the 'an absolute joke' comment was a little strong. My feelings were strong about the bias I perceived in the article and I spend a lot of my time trying to get students to think critically and write in the same way. I want an honest review with conclusions drawn from the supporting statements

As i said, the magazine was very good apart from this article.

You might be interested to hear that I have a little card in the kitchen telling me that a parcel awaits collection at the local post office - guess I'll be sharpening a few jointer plane blades tomorrow on my scary sharp setup  (influenced to some extent by the article on Richard himself)


----------



## Losos (7 Oct 2008)

Mike Garnham":2281g1tn said:


> what are FWW and F&CM?



FWW = Fine WoodWorking (American)

F&CM = Furniture & Cabinet Maker (UK)


----------



## big soft moose (7 Oct 2008)

Mike Garnham":mn1w9v9t said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but what are FWW and F&CM? (Obviously they are magazines......I just don't know what the letters stand for)
> 
> Mike



"Fine wood working" and "Furniture and cabinet making" I think (i'm not a 100% certain on the F in the first one)

(edit: oops sorry losos I think we posted at the same time - nice to see that i was right about FWW after all)


----------



## big soft moose (7 Oct 2008)

Also a comment on turning articles / magazines

Wood turning (GMC group) used to be a good magazine but now getting over arty for my taste and somewhat repetitive - still worth a read tho

Woodturner - an unmitigated pile of poop - I particularly hate reg sherwin who comes across as a patronising gett, especial when he writes his cautionary tales about "Newk omer" 

I used to like the turning articles in trad wood but i havent been able to get hold of a copy since it was reincarnated as BWW to see if these are still going

and a word to GW and NW there is more to turning than making fruit bowls, and spindles, for the love of the high lord zombuglast try and carry an inovative turning article at least once in a while.


----------



## OPJ (7 Oct 2008)

big soft moose":qylx1z92 said:


> Lataxe":qylx1z92 said:
> 
> 
> > I try a British WW magazine now and again but am always very disappointed. I feel they are badly written (over-chatty, look-at-me-the-author tone, padding out tiny amounts of hard WW information); overfull of meaningless tool "tests" (shallow, uncritical, no use help in deciding a purchase, often about crappy tools); awful standard of photography (lopsided, partial and badly lit pics often with no relevance to the text, such as it is).
> ...



You're right about the photography, BSM. After I my article in the previous issue, Nick did mention to me that my workshop is "very dark" - this is something I plan to improve upon, when finances allow... I've think you've hit the nail on the head though - we're woodworkers, first and foremost!  I thought Nick did an excellent job in taking the main shots of my TV stand though, it takes a surprising amount of effort to get everything setup just right, now I've seen it for myself, first-hand.

Lataxe, I'm quite sure we've been over all this before. We have seen a lot of Nick's own work featured in the magazines, particularly in the earlier days when the magazine was lacking in contributors. I feel now this is an issue that has been addressed and that things are on the up. In some other magazines, we see very little at all from the editors.


----------



## big soft moose (7 Oct 2008)

OPJ":37xeqga7 said:


> You're right about the photography, BSM. After I my article in the previous issue, Nick did mention to me that my workshop is "very dark" - this is something I plan to improve upon, when finances allow... I've think you've hit the nail on the head though - we're woodworkers, first and foremost!  I thought Nick did an excellent job in taking the main shots of my TV stand though, it takes a surprising amount of effort to get everything setup just right, now I've seen it for myself, first-hand.
> .



I'm lucky in that i'm also a semi pro photographer so i have the gear and the set up - unfortunately I doubt that i'm a competent enough turner (amateur 8 years) to have anything to say which would interest the BWW readership

I have thought of contact nick re freelance photo work because as a semi pro i'm relatively cheap , but i suspect that the money just aint there.

BTW re the dark workshop the cheapest way of improving the lighting for photography is to use some builders site halogen lamps which are inexpensive from screwfix etc (and can be folded up when not in use) - these create a colour cast on digital photos but one which is easy to correct in post processing - that said as a point of safety these get hot so are not ideal if you are creating a lot of dust or solvents.

the other option is a multiple flash gun set up using slave cells on cheap flash guns bought via ebay or similar - this is relatively simple and can seriously improve the lighting - principally by having flash from more than one angle you cut harsh shadows and light up the background a little.

It is also worth making a cove (out of white or black card) and a diffuse flash tent (out of muslin) for photographing the finished product.


----------



## OPJ (7 Oct 2008)

big soft moose":e5rbnphy said:


> OPJ":e5rbnphy said:
> 
> 
> > I have thought of contact nick re freelance photo work because as a semi pro i'm relatively cheap , but i suspect that the money just aint there.



Well, it won't cost a penny to ask him, will it! :wink:  

Thanks for all the tips and advice. Long term, I plan to insulate the walls, paint them white and add more strip lights, which I'm sure will also help.


----------



## Nick Gibbs (7 Oct 2008)

Well, Lataxe, that's ok. There's always room for improvement, but fundamentally, I just don't think you're probably a British Woodworking reader. Fortunately plenty are. Just compare Issue 1 and Issue 8 to see how things have progressed. I've said before in this thread that sometimes we are too chatty, and I know we could do better with the depth of our testing and other things, but look what we've achieved in the last year, from a standing start with virtually no resources. We can't ape Fine Woodworking, but we can produce a magazine with character and passion. If it's frayed around the edges, so be it. 

Thanks, Tony, for your response. I appreciate that. I would love every one of our tests to be hyper-critical and objective, to test products scientifically (as we did with screws and glues), but there are only so many seconds in a minute. Thanks anyway.

Back to work. Do email me if you'd like a free trial copy.

Nick


----------



## big soft moose (7 Oct 2008)

OPJ":3fw25fgv said:


> Thanks for all the tips and advice. Long term, I plan to insulate the walls, paint them white and add more strip lights, which I'm sure will also help.



yes it will - though be aware that shooting under flourecent lights might also cause a colour cast (unless you have the camera set to flourescent white balance of course) and then there may be problems if you are mixing light sources , such as using a sodium anglepoise as well. My prefference is to shoot RAW format and sort such issues out in post processing.

if you (or anyone else) has other questions about photographing their work for publication i am happy to advise if i can either on the boards or by pm


----------



## Nick Gibbs (7 Oct 2008)

I'm with you Moose, regarding light. But still learning!!! We can but try. I guess that's what makes it fun, and the prospect of sparring with Lataxe. I can't say I much like my writing be criticised, but if you stick you head above the parapet you have to expect to be shot at. My thinking is that you have to have a go in life, to try to do something distinct, to test your own abilities and to find people who want to join the journey. I suspect Lataxe just isn't a fellow traveller, but I certainly do listen to his comments, and to your advice. Thanks.

Nick


----------



## bjm (7 Oct 2008)

If your work isn't being criticised it isn't being noticed?

It's all about how you respond!

Brian


----------



## Nick Gibbs (7 Oct 2008)

So true, Brian. So true. I hope I've responded appropriately. 

Nick


----------



## big soft moose (7 Oct 2008)

Ive sent you a pm re the free copy nick but as a matter of interest where do i buy BWW from ?

I used to get Trad wood in Smiths but neither they nor my newsagent carry BWW.

Pete


----------



## Nick Gibbs (8 Oct 2008)

You can buy it at Borders, various newsagents, and larger Smiths (but not railways stations and airports). Email me your postcode and I can find a stockist. 

Cheers

Nick


----------



## marcus (8 Oct 2008)

I'm coming in a bit late on this thread, but I'm with Mike when he says :



> Inspire me, don't instruct me!!
> 
> If I need a new tool (and I don't buy many at all) I would go and have a look at the alternatives in a shop........or if I bought the magazines I would probably look through the advertisements before going to the shops.
> 
> I'm now wondering if the inspiration I seek for new projects equates in some way to the inspiration that some people seek for new tools.



At the moment I'm regretting taking out a subscription to F&C a few months ago which I am finding rather dull and uninspiring. What I would like in a magazine is to read the sort of things which are harder to find on the net. Proper in depth articles from or about people who are doing interesting things in wood - and not just the _how_ of what they are doing but the _why_.

Take Krenov's writings. OK I know that he's not to everyones taste, but you only have to compare a few paragraphs of his writing to anything written in almost any woodworking magazine I have come across to feel the gulf that exists between what is and what could be. I would like, as Mike says, to feel inspired by what I read - and challenged by lots of different view points and approaches to aesthetics, design, working methods etc. 

I would like to feel that the magazines viewed me as a woodworker who thinks about what he does and cares about _the work_ and who doesn't need instructions on how to do the simple things - which can be found on the net in five minutes anyway, or in any basic book on woodworking.

To quote Mike again:



> Could it be that most readers of the magazines are more interested in the contents of the workshop than in the products that come out of the workshop?
> 
> Surely not.



When I was at boat-building college one of the instructors was a guy who was close to retirement and had been working with wood his entire life - on everything from fine furniture to boats and houses. He was a mine of information, and without question the best woodworker technically that I have ever seen. I doubt there are more than one or two on this forum who could approach him in this respect. But if you looked at his tools they were a ragbag lot. Not a lie nielsen in sight! Basic workaday tools, almost all made, or bought second hand and fettled. He had a set of turning gouges made from worn out files as I recall. But the work he did with them couldn't be faulted. To him a tool was not a fetish object, but what he used to do the job. It had to work efficiently and that was it.

Now I'm not immune to a bit of tool porn as it happens and have some nice tools mixed in with the (more numerous) workaday ones, but I do try to remember that they are not an end in themselves.

I guess that a sizable portion of the wood magazines' income comes from advertisers. It's in their interest to push the "you need to spend a fortune on tools because that's what woodworkers do" line. To be fair due to the nature of the material we work with, tools are an important part of our work. We need more of them, and need to think more about them than people who work in most other crafts. I would love to see more balance about this though. Perhaps a line of articles along the lines of "All the Tools you Don't Need", "Make do with Less Tools, or "Tools! - how to know when you have enough of them."!

In general the magazines I've come across seem to assume that the aspirations of their readers are set at a rather low level, and there is little in them to encourage us to really stretch ourselves or to broaden our horizons. The work pictured is often simply not that good, compared to the best of what's out there. Neither does it reflect the diversity that's available. There's very little WOW factor, few things which make me think "I want my work to be _that_ good". (FWW is an exception, or at least was last time I saw it).

Needles to say I won't be renewing my subscription to F&C.

Anyway I will be taking up Nick on his offer as I hadn't heard of BW and it sounds quite promising!

Cheers

Marcus.


----------



## Nick Gibbs (8 Oct 2008)

If you haven't asked us for a sample copy yet, Marcus, do please do so and we'll send you a free issue. The offer's open to anyone wanting to give British Woodworking a go.

I really hope we don't set the bar 'too low' at British Woodworking. I sometimes think it's a pity that woodworking magazines are judged by their skill level by many readers, rather than their attitude. As a result they tend to 'dumb down' and make the content focused on the beginners, who are relatively easy to please with tool tests and basic techniques. 

I believe that sort of information is going to be increasingly available for free from websites. What we try to do at British Woodworking is to bring a bit more passion to the subject, to make it not just quite useful, but a great read. In focusing only on the useful magazines tend to get a bit dull. I hope that doesn't happen with British Woodworking and that it has the capability to inspire, entertain, inform and challenge woodworkers of all abilities. 

Thanks for your support.

Nick


----------



## p111dom (8 Oct 2008)

Nick Gibbs":3r66506n said:


> I really hope we don't set the bar 'too low' at British Woodworking. I sometimes think it's a pity that woodworking magazines are judged by their skill level by many readers, rather than their attitude. As a result they tend to 'dumb down' and make the content focused on the beginners, who are relatively easy to please with tool tests and basic techniques.
> 
> Nick



That's fine but you need to take a definitive tack one way or the other. On one hand your have OPJ making a relatively simple table using techniques most of us know and use and on the other you have people making on off extreme high end pieces to be sold in Harrods. You said in an earlier post that very few of the readers attempt the builds and I'm not surprised that no one would attempt to build that one. If it's about inspiring people by showing them peices that they could never possibly make thats fine too and I would probably go for that as a purely inspirational publication but call the mag British Furniture Design and focus on that. Previous posts have shown that you certainly can't please everyone from beginner right through to pro so at some point all the mags have to choise their target audience a bit more definitively. I think GW have a reasonable middle ground containing intermediate (ie possible to reproduce) articles and more public interest pieces than the others such as owers of wood yards and life long builders without getting to involved in the manufacturing process which for me would leave me a little frustrated. BW is a good publication when you take each article on it's own merits but I find myself reading one, skipping one and since all of these mags are only in the region of 80 odd pages the feeling of value for money is quickly erroded. Take Top Gear magazine for instance. £4 but 300 pages plus on average.


----------



## Nick Gibbs (8 Oct 2008)

Fair point. Finding ways to encourage people to read as many pages of a magazine as possible is one of the critical challenges for an editor. That's always going to be difficult if the readers are deciding what to read or not to read based on the project itself rather than the story behind it or the techniques illustrated. We try to have a mix of projects to suit different abilities and tastes and approaches.

Nick


----------



## big soft moose (8 Oct 2008)

p111dom":2elrsqjh said:


> That's fine but you need to take a definitive tack one way or the other. On one hand your have OPJ making a relatively simple table using techniques most of us know and use and on the other you have people making on off extreme high end pieces to be sold in Harrods.



I'm not sure thats true - i would rather see a magazine that has both beginer, intermediate and advanced projects (though i appreciate that you can have them all every issue) because people who are starting out can then grow with the magazine as their skills improve.

For example i was originally inspired to stasrt turning by the article about mark hancock in "woodturning" there was no way that my skills were up to what he does then - but i saw the kind of thing i could make one day - while at the same time being encouraged by articles like "Ray key - turn your first bowl"

while i would still hesitate to compare my skills to marks, eight years later i am reasonably competent and i often return to those early issues to try projects that i like the look of but couldnt possible attempt back in the days of yore.

also some of us have good skills and drills in one or more fields (turning and scrolling in my case) but in other areas (such as cabinet making) we might be rank beginers but looking to improve.


----------



## Dave S (8 Oct 2008)

marcus":2zelg66o said:


> I guess that a sizable portion of the wood magazines' income comes from advertisers. It's in their interest to push the "you need to spend a fortune on tools because that's what woodworkers do" line. To be fair due to the nature of the material we work with, tools are an important part of our work. We need more of them, and need to think more about them than people who work in most other crafts. I would love to see more balance about this though. Perhaps a line of articles along the lines of "All the Tools you Don't Need", "Make do with Less Tools, or "Tools! - how to know when you have enough of them."!


Marcus, I agree with what you're saying, but I think one only has to look around here a little to realise that many are quite happy to purchase or hanker after tools they don't need. Ok, perhaps I'm exaggerating somewhat, but there seem to be people who spend literally thousands on tools - they polish them, take a picture for their avatar and then... well, what? Put hem away in a cupboard in the workshop? Get them out to gloat occasionally? I don't know, but you rarely seem to see any project threads from some of them. :? 

Ok, if that's what people want to do then fine, it's entirely their business. But I do think it means that many are looking for pretty much what the magazines (or some, at least) are offering. And those looking for inspiration, provocation or a 'good read' are perhaps somewhat in the minority.

Another thought - when I was a beginner I bought many magazines, but the two I bought on a regular basis were GW and F&C. GW for the how-tos and the attainable projects (I used to enjoy Pete Martin's project articles very much because they seemed achievable to me as a beginner). F&C I bought simply because it was way out of reach - seemingly unattainable. But it was thought provoking and aspirational.

I stopped my GW sub a couple of years ago and didn't buy any mags for a while. I picked up a couple of F&C recently, but it doesn't seem to have what it used to have. More and more I find myself drawn to the FWW site and having bought the odd copy in the past, it is the one I would be most likely to subscribe to now.

Dave


----------



## MikeG. (8 Oct 2008)

marcus":3s66mydm said:


> When I was at boat-building college one of the instructors was a guy who was close to retirement ..............and without question the best woodworker technically that I have ever seen............... But if you looked at his tools they were a ragbag lot. Not a lie nielsen in sight! Basic workaday tools, almost all made, or bought second hand and fettled. ........... But the work he did with them couldn't be faulted. To him a tool was not a fetish object, but what he used to do the job. It had to work efficiently and that was it.



He sounds like my sort of woodworker, Marcus, and his workshop sounds like mine. I don't treat myself to new tools.........I treat myself to new projects, or some new wood.

It is only since joining a couple of forums (fora, I'm told!) that I have discovered that the main thread binding contributers together is tools, not projects. I still don't really understand why. I do know that if you want to have a really long-running and popular thread you say something controversial about a plane..........the equivalent of lighting the blue touchpaper and standing back!!!

Maybe the magazines should split themselves up into 3 categories: tool and machine magazines, introductory projects magazines, and advanced project mags. I'm looking forward to reading Nick's magazine..........and I take the opportunity here of publicly thanking him for the free offer..............because he sounds like a guy passionate about woodworking first, and interested in sales/ circulation second.

Mike


----------



## Tim Nott (8 Oct 2008)

stef":3s1n6yta said:


> Tim Nott":3s1n6yta said:
> 
> 
> > I've had a sub to Taunton's Fine Woodworking for a while but am thinking of cancelling as it seems to be less and less interesting "Tune up your tablesaw - Again!"
> ...



Thanks - I wasn't aware of that but have signed up for a free copy!


----------



## Tim Nott (8 Oct 2008)

p111dom":1gbyijuu said:


> kenf":1gbyijuu said:
> 
> 
> > A magazine cannot be all things to all people, as Churchill said " you can please some of the people all of the time............."
> ...



And it was fool some of the people.....

But then George W Bush has a good version
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on"


----------



## p111dom (8 Oct 2008)

big soft moose":1i7pkbcy said:


> I'm not sure thats true - i would rather see a magazine that has both beginer, intermediate and advanced projects (though i appreciate that you can have them all every issue) because people who are starting out can then grow with the magazine as their skills improve.



I can't think why any one would want to buy a magazine where two thrids of it is either too advanced or too simplistic for them. On a 90 page mag that's only 30 pages and at £3 that's 10p per page and a large portion of that is advertisments. Surely better to have three publications aimed at each three, beginner, intermediate and advanced woodworker.


----------



## Nick Gibbs (8 Oct 2008)

Now there's an idea, Dom! Bags I the intermediates. Good Woodworking can have the beginners and F&C the advanced. I'll have a word with the appropriate editors/publishers, and we should have it fixed by Monday. 

And Ratwood, a free mag's on its way!!! Thanks for your email.

Nick


----------



## RATWOOD (8 Oct 2008)

thank you nick


----------



## big soft moose (8 Oct 2008)

p111dom":12k9u49a said:


> I can't think why any one would want to buy a magazine where two thrids of it is either too advanced or too simplistic for them. On a 90 page mag that's only 30 pages and at £3 that's 10p per page and a large portion of that is advertisments. Surely better to have three publications aimed at each three, beginner, intermediate and advanced woodworker.



fair enough if you are an expert - but then you should be writing for the magazine rather than reading it

if you are a beginer the beginer projects are their to teach you basic techniques and to reassure you that you can actually make something, the intermediate to stretch you a bit , and the advanced to inspire you that you could make something like that oneday.

to get that from a three publication system you would have to spend three times as much.

also by splitting your mag in three you would have a lower readership per mag , thus less economy of scale meaning you would need more adverts to make a profit and thus less content and less autonomy to give frank and honest reviews - no that way madness (and bankruptcy) lies


----------



## Nick Gibbs (8 Oct 2008)

Ah, Moose, I couldn't have put it better. Thanks. You should be Chancellor!

Nick


----------



## big soft moose (8 Oct 2008)

Nick Gibbs":8zn4bdxq said:


> Ah, Moose, I couldn't have put it better. Thanks. You should be Chancellor!
> 
> Nick



cheers nick - but i can't be chancellor, because I understand basic economics


----------



## p111dom (9 Oct 2008)

Nick Gibbs":3eil4c7r said:


> Now there's an idea, Dom! Bags I the intermediates. Good Woodworking can have the beginners and F&C the advanced. I'll have a word with the appropriate editors/publishers, and we should have it fixed by Monday.
> 
> Nick



Look all I'm saying is that the mags sometimes try to be a Jack of all trades and end up being master of none. Of course there are economic factors which will prevent a single publisher from creating all three but it's all a matter of market research (or lack of it). Reading through this and other threads it seems that main reason people have for either not buying or cancelling subscriptions to a particular magazine is that they find it of no relevance to their particular level of ability or interest. BW has had a good start and has largely avoided the critisism that the other mags have had over repetition but it is only a few issues old. I hear the agrument that you would want a spread of project complexity which is fine if you are a beginner espiring to get better but as your experience grows you never look back. This means more and more of a single magazine aimed at the whole market has less and less relevance as time goes buy resulting in the inevitable situation where the readed feels it's just not good value for money and cancels. You're right I'm not an ecconomist or the chancellor but to use words one might use, it sounds like a policy of short term gain but long term pain to me.

Personally if I were starting again I would have gladly bought a publication which wasn't afraid to assume you know nothing and start right at the beginning explaining in detail every technical term or acronym refered to. How often have newish people been left scratching their heads over what PAR or a RAS were on this forum. Once the mag starts getting repetative you're probably ready for the next step. All the mags are competing for every level of reader which just seems like madness to me especially as there seems to be an underlying message that bugdets are critical. You don't go into a restaurant and only get one choise of meal. Imagine it, a serving of honey glazed melon mixed with sorbet topped off with hot fish soup garnished with pork, tomato sauce and ice cream mixed all together on the same plate. Who's going to eat that? Granted it would be cheaper to produce in bulk and I bet the accountants would love the financial figures but like my magazines when it comes down to it I would prefer a choise.


----------



## p111dom (9 Oct 2008)

big soft moose":3vwauai9 said:


> also by splitting your mag in three you would have a lower readership per mag , thus less economy of scale meaning you would need more adverts to make a profit and thus less content and less autonomy to give frank and honest reviews - no that way madness (and bankruptcy) lies



Again I think the logic here over simplifies the situation. I'm not sure readership would be that much lower. Again I refer to the droves of people who stay away through lack of relevance. The beginners because of intimidation and the advanced through over simplicity. If you targeted them directly in seperate publications I think the draw of new readers who could find relevance in 100% of the publication significant. As for adverts there are hundreds of manufacturers who in my opinion must be put off by the broadness of the brush in the current mags. For instance Rojek are targeted at a very different market than say Clarke. I can imagine that both manufacturers would have to think very carefully about spending money on advertising aimed not wholey at it's target market. These manufacturers engage in vigerous and costly market research to define their customer base. Why they want to advertise in magazines that don't do the same is a mystery to me. Perpaps it's because they have no choise? If I were the MD of say Draper and a magazine approched me for advertiding revenue I would be more likely to pay a slight premium for advertising space in a mag that targets 100% of my products hobbyist target audience than a mag catering for only 33% of it. That just makes financial sense. Therefore while Ryobi and Festool both make tools they are not in direct competition with eath other and neither would the three ability defined mags. You would also maintain your readership over a much greater period of time and while three publications would be costly there would be a significant savings on things like premises, staff, utility bills etc if all three were produces under one roof. Three mags wouldn't be trebble the cost but could potentially treble the income. Big risk granted but big payout possible. He who has the greatest number of happy reads wins.


----------



## big soft moose (9 Oct 2008)

i'm not say your are defintely wrong P11dom but it strikes me that the fact that numerous publishers don't do as you suggest, indicates that there is something wrong with your logic.

There probably is some market for an "expert or proffesional" publication (looking at the photography magazine market by way of parrallel there are numerous magazines aimed at the whole "beginer/intermediate and expert amateur" market (they dont divide between them for the reasons outlined above)

However there is also "professional photographer" which does what it says on the tin combining high end technique advice with buisness advice and interviews with succesful pros. - this is bough by proffesionals and experienced amateurs who no longer get satisfaction from the other mags

Likewise while it is a virtual certainty that dividing BWW in three would lead to the bankruptcy of all three (and we cant really blame nick for not wanting to commit economic and career suicide), there could be a market for nick (Or someone else) to start a "proffesional woodworker" publication .

However now is not the time , with the economy tanking (thankyou mr brown) pros will be cutting non essential costs and mag subscriptions will be among the first to go. (particularly as they can get much of the advice on sites like this for free)


----------



## big soft moose (10 Oct 2008)

I received my free copy of BWW today (thanks nick - top service).

having looked through it it looks like a good mag , but there is a disapointing lack of turning - is this just this issue or a general thing because if its the latter although i might buy it occasionally i probably wont subscribe.

also you need to work on your proof reading - Top line of the contents page " 20 Respirators on test , find out which is better: the new airshield pro *of* the dimunitive power cap" Presumably this is supposed to be "or" Its only a little thing but not picking up the typopos detracts from projecting a proffesional image.


----------



## Paul Chapman (10 Oct 2008)

big soft moose":35g6rm7b said:


> not picking up the typopos detracts from projecting a proffesional image.



:? :? :lol:


----------



## ByronBlack (10 Oct 2008)

One other small thing to consider in terms of advertisers; is that just because the audience might be beginners doesn't mean they don't have the wealth and inclination to buy 'pro' gear, so you can't draw a direct correlation between a users experience and spending habits. 

One could argue, that festool and rojeck etc.. are happy to advertise in a magazine of mixed abilities as they cover their main audience in the trade/pro's but also offering the beginner the option of considering one of the more aspirational brands.

After all, many beginners/intermediate woodworkers naturally want the best tools and jigs and not just the draper/clarke range.


----------



## big soft moose (10 Oct 2008)

Paul Chapman":2zmqedtd said:


> big soft moose":2zmqedtd said:
> 
> 
> > not picking up the typopos detracts from projecting a proffesional image.
> ...



the typopos was deliberate as a joke 

I hold my hand up to the mis spelling of professionalq though - after all everyone knows it should have a silent q


----------



## Paul Chapman (10 Oct 2008)




----------



## bugbear (10 Oct 2008)

Tim Nott":1m9edgmd said:


> I've had a sub to Taunton's Fine Woodworking for a while but am thinking of cancelling as it seems to be less and less interesting "Tune up your tablesaw - Again!"
> What's good in UK mags? I live in France so visiting a UK newsagent is un peu difficile
> 
> Tim



At the risk of answering a different question,I find books preferable for reference, and internet forums and peoples' sites/blogs best for up to date stuff.

Which leaves mags in no man's land for me, I'm afraid.

BugBear


----------



## Doug B (10 Oct 2008)

Free copy of British Woodworking landed on my door mat yesterday, (thanks Nick) & i`m well impressed.
I was suprised how little advertising there was compared with other mags, & also liked the fact that it wasn`t just filled with photos, but had plenty of content.
Hope to meet Nick & a few forum members tomorrow at the midlands show, that is if i can find Worksop & Seanybaby & then find Stoneleigh.
James.
PS. Bugbear, when sitting on the most comfortable seat in the house, if i didn`t have a woodwork magazine, i`d just have to stare at the wall tiles.This then is the no mans land that magazines fill, at least it`s no mans land for 25-30 minutes after i`ve been in there. :lol:


----------



## MikeG. (10 Oct 2008)

A big public thanks to Nick for sending me a free copy of his latest magazine......and a couple of old favourites really got my pulse going. Makepiece chairs..........to die for!!! Just gorgeous, lovely, wonderful, brilliant. 

I reckon the magazine is really excellent. I didn't feel patronised by anything, I was inspired by the Makepiece chairs in the thoroughly good article by David Savage, and I was impressed by the amount of woodwork compared with the amount of tool-talk. It isn't over-run with advertising either. 

But the big thing..........what to do about this damn offer of a free workshop in the Cotswolds? Damn, Damn, Damn.....what to do? I would love to apply for this......damn!

Mike


----------



## marcus (10 Oct 2008)

Just got my free copy of BW too. Thanks Nick - it's a great read - I will be subscribing in the next few days 

Cheers,

Marcus


----------



## filsgreen (11 Oct 2008)

Got mine today Nick, thanks a lot much appreciated. I can't really compare as this is the first WW mag I've read. but i've enjoyed reading it and I do recognise some of the contributors from here  . I'll give you a call on Monday pm to subscribe.

Cheers

Phil


----------



## misterfish (12 Oct 2008)

Am I the only one that finds browsing magazines becoming more and more difficult? 

The only place local to me that stocks and woodworking magazines is Smiths and they seem to change the location in the racks everytime I venture in to the shop; the only consistent feature is that they are buried deeply at the back of the floor level shelf and usually randomly mixed in with various other publications. I would guess that these magazines have the lowest priority.

The the other annoyance is that most seem to be sealed in poly bags so you can't actually look at the contents. I used to browse through a fair number and most months ended up buying at least one or two, but the inability to see the contents is a real disincentive to purchase.

Misterfish


----------



## 9fingers (12 Oct 2008)

Can I also add my thanks to Nick for a sample copy of the magazine.

Quite inspiring although the items described are a bit above the standard I'm currently achieving.
I'll have to start a campaign with the domestic authorities for a subscription.
Birthday and Xmas coming up so I might be in luck! Be like getting a pressie each month.

Thanks Again Nick

Bob


----------



## OPJ (12 Oct 2008)

Bob, please note, that should be _every other month_ - British Woodworking is only bi-monthly (every other month). :wink:


----------



## Racers (12 Oct 2008)

Hi,

I was thinking about the whole beginner/expert article problem and I had an idea, how about a magazine with 3 different levels of project beginner intermediate and advanced, nothing new there I can hear you think, but you could have say 4 articles of your choice included in the magazine. You could logon the the magazine web site and choose the articles you required and it would be printed for you (including the address on the back). You would need a stock of articles to start with, and I don't know it the printing side is workable but it can't be impossible.


Pete


----------

