Good Woodworking Restoring Morgans, and a Karl Holtey No 98

[Mike.C]

In this months Good Woodworking there is a fascinating article on restoring Morgan motor cars.

Nick Gibbs and Andy King also had me drooling over one of the tools they had on test, a Karl Holtey No98 smoothing plane. "What a work of art" Lucky buggers.

If your workshop isn't heated and you are not looking forward to feeling the cold this winter (especially up here in the north of Scotland) you maybe interested in the heated clothing they also tested, which included a body warmer, scarf, gloves and socks.
apparently they all have battery operated heating elements build into them, which will keep you cosy whether you are in the workshop or out walking the dog.

I don't know if they are any good, but what I would say is that you better get rechargeable batteries, or have shares in Duracell.

I remember when I was at school, the old lollypop man had a small heater which he put inside his gloves, but this was run on paraffin. Now, I bet the Health and safety people would have something to say about that.

While on the subject of Health and Safety, there is also a article about this.

IMHO Good Woodworking have once again come up with the goods and are gradually getting better each month. Keep up the good work Nick, Andy and everyone else who either puts the magazine together each month, or writes the articles for them.

Cheers

Mike

 

[Newbie_Neil]

Hi Mike

IMHO Good Woodworking have once again come up with the goods and are gradually getting better each month.

Oh that it were true. IMHO, they have a long, long way to go to get anywhere near the way it used to be.

Why are there such basic errors in every issue?

Cheers
Neil

 

[Losos]

Neil,
You raise an interesting point but I do think GWW is getting better, the contents seem to be more 'focused' on real woodies.

I think one of the problems with 'On Line' editing (if I may use that phrase) is that errors such as words repeated, spelling mistakes that are not picked up by spell checker, and dubious grammer are easier to miss.

So I have come round to the view that one must be a little sympathetic to people who have to do everything 'on screen' Speaking personally I will admit that I used to miss things 'on screen' which I would instantly spot when the page was printed out.

However, in another mag. (NOT GWW) I once saw a picture printed upside down!! That really did make me groan.

 

[Newbie_Neil]

Hi Losos

I think one of the problems with 'On Line' editing (if I may use that phrase) is that errors such as words repeated, spelling mistakes that are not picked up by spell checker, and dubious grammer are easier to miss.

It's not as simple as that. I'm talking about missing and incorrect diagrams, and also missing and incorrect text.

It appears to me that whoever is proof-reading is not a woody!

Cheers
Neil

 

[Woodythepecker]

How ever small or big the improvement is I personally think that the magazine is better then it was 6 months ago, and surely if this is the case then it is going in the right direction.

Of course you can never please everyone

Regards

Woody

 

[AndyG]

Would have to agree, I've noticed the articles have got more interesting recently, but there are still a few editing issues.

The article on the Hotley is certainly along the right lines. I'm guessing there are VERY few people in the forum who could ever afford such a plane, so it was interesting to at least be able to read about it. Still can't believe anyone would spend over £2000 on a plane though...

Andy

 

[Ian Dalziel]

Still can't believe anyone would spend over £2000 on a plane though...

Oh...some of us do :shock: and yes they work as good as they look. some of us even have more than one :wink:


I

 

[AndyG]

Ian,
I'm sure if I had the cash it would be a different matter.
I guess as the article says. If it's your profession, that extra bit of performance can help to save time. Think I'll stick to the LNs though (which I can just about justify the cost )

Andy (actually, probably just a bit jealous)

 

[Newbie_Neil]

Of course you can never please everyone

You're right. Why should I accept such sloppiness, in terms of proof-reading, from any magazine?

Neil

 

[DaveL]

Oh...some of us do :shock: and yes they work as good as they look. some of us even have more than one :wink:

And of course someone we know just happened to made his own one. 8)

 

[Mike.C]

Newbie Neil,

Hi Mike

Mike.C wrote:
IMHO Good Woodworking have once again come up with the goods and are gradually getting better each month.


Oh that it were true. IMHO, they have a long, long way to go to get anywhere near the way it used to be.

Why are there such basic errors in every issue?

Neil I did say gradually getting better. Whether they have a long, long way to go to get anyway near the way it used to be is your opinion, and it would be a dull world if we all had the same opinion. My point is, if they are improving that is all that matters. They may not be doing it fast enough for some people, but with a circulation of something like 18,000 or 20,000 they must be pleasing others.

Let's just hope that GW take your comments on board and take care of the errors.

Cheers

Mike

 

[Anonymous]

When it first changed, I thought there were several improvements on the older format (which I was never very keen on), however, when the subscription lapsed 3-4 months later, I had seen my last copy and didn't renew.

I too found the proof reading and editing errors quite unaceptable in a published magazine.

(did buy one or two when Philly or Steve were on the front)

 

[Ian Dalziel]

Good woodworking.....Neil...Tony...i wrote for them when it was Phil, Pete etc, they had just as many silly editing mistakes if not probably more than they have now. It just seems a bit nitpicking.
I still get my copy every month. Things change and move on nothing ever stays static. from a personal level i think the mag format changed for the better...other opinions will disagree but thats life. I think the articles cover the broad range they are intended for.
What might have happened is you have grown up with your woodworking, you have also moved on....the more you do the more experiences you have the better you get. You dont do this profesionally and you look to mags etc for advice which the GW has done so very well over the years. It has stayed focused on its buyers whereby most of us here get better and our expectations have got better but the mag cant move on as its buyers haven't, most subscribers do move on so but there are always going to be beginners and some more advanced looking for that little bit of knowledge

I for one didn't like the way Nick started out with the changes but that wasn't Nicks fault it was mine.
I now realise i've moved on with reading and learning and doing projects for the mag. Like everyone here we all seek advice. Not everyone has access to the www mags are there in the workshop to guide you through their step by steps.
I once was told they do too many toilet roll holders etc and agreed, but what was the first thing i ever turned...yes a toilet roll holder. because i started 10 years ago doesn't mean i should be selfish and not want beginners projects published.
I would like to get back to doing projects for them but i'm tied up with Karl at present.

I notice that Andy King doesn't come on anymore....i take it someone managed to offend him. He is very good at what he does and is the only person to try every make of tool. most of us rely on him for at least one purchase and yet managed to offend him somehow.

just my tuppence worth

I

 

[Alf]

What might have happened is you have grown up with your woodworking

Nothing personal Ian, but cripes, I'm sick of this argument. It's used by supporters of FWW too. If it's true how come I can still get useful stuff out of back issues of both publications, but there's zero desire to buy the new ones? :?

Andy King <snip> is very good at what he does

Totally agree. What a shame the review section was turned into such a mickey mouse outfit with re-hashed old reviews, manufacturers' blurb and, yes, basic typos that left reviews without ratings and so forth. The old GWW wasn't perfect and did have errors, but the important stuff was right.

Perhaps it's changed since the last issue I tried, when folks were saying how good an issue it was? But somehow I don't feel inclined to risk the lettuce to be disappointed again. Four or five times bitten, forever shy.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Ian Dalziel]

It's used by supporters of FWW too.

It maybe youve moved on as well.

the review section was turned into such a mickey mouse outfit with re-hashed old reviews,

now i know why Andy doesnt post anymore...

I

 

[Alf]

It's used by supporters of FWW too.

It maybe youve moved on as well.

Read the whole comment, Ian.

the review section was turned into such a mickey mouse outfit with re-hashed old reviews,

now i know why Andy doesnt post anymore...

Doubt that. Unless Andy's an idiot (which he isn't) he knows darn well my gripe with GWW isn't with him.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Ian Dalziel]

i'm curious to how you know so much about GWW current affairs when you admit to not having read it for 5 months.

It may not be Andy you have a gripe with directly...but it still affects him as he is part of a Team.

I

 

[Alf]

i'm curious to how you know so much about GWW current affairs when you admit to not having read it for 5 months.

Huh? Talk about coming out of left field... Where have I've claimed to know anything about GWW current affairs? I finally gave up caring round about the time the editor said this foum would get mentioned if we only said nice things about the magazine. I might as well ask why you're so keen to leap to their defence all of a sudden? Oh, I have the cynic's answer to that one, but I'd sooner not make work for the mods.

Cheers, Alf