MRJ - Looking back at the early ones (for the first time)

[Bernard Lamb]

https://rhug.co.uk/product/organic-pork-cumberland-sausages

 

You need to try a bit harder.

Bernard

[Re6/6]

Another thought, I do really like MRJ, and I do think that it's the leading magazine out there for the serious UK modeller, but I also find that I hardly ever look back at my old copies (I also have the full collection from the very beginning).

 

There have been articles too numerous to mention, where I've thought, 'Yes, that could be very helpful when I come to build 'x' or 'y' model', yet in truth, I've hardly ever used any of it's articles as a 'manual' or set of modelling instructions.

 

 

Same here. I've just been sorting out all mine to find the numbers of the odd missing ones (3 of them!) and spent more time glancing through some lovely stuff rather than sorting!

Some of it is now 'old hat' but is still very readable. 

 

I'll probably be getting rid of all my other mags to the DVR or somewhere similar. I have just about all the early Model Rails including the first 'leaflet' style ones that came with 'Rail'. Also the likes of the short-lived 'MRM' none of which have l ever looked at in many years.

 

As for MRJ I just couldn't ever get rid of them.... keeping them for future reference.......well.....just in case!

Edited September 14, 2017 by Re6/6

[Talltim]

I was distracted, thinking of sausages from the Dee Valley.

 

No criticism of Geoff Kent, but I drifted off to sleep whilst reading about the herrings. Unfortunately I was in the bath at the time, so my shoal of herrings went for a swim... (and I had to buy another copy. Doh!)

Sounds like a good sales tactic

[John_Hughes]

I dig through my collection of old MRJs from time to time just for inspiration; some of the techniques are a little dated now but can still be useful - heck, I still find John Ahern's books useful! - and even the ones that I didn't rate so highly the first time round now seem well worth going back to.

 

<rant>

BUT MRJ was born into a completely different world - not just in terms of modelling but of magazine production in general - and now it lags seriously behind the times. One golden rule of business is: never behave in a way that is bound to upset your customers. Why does MRJ have to break that rule almost deliberately, and with a snarky smile as if to say We know this bugs people but we're different so we don't give a tinker's damn.

 

Example: I can't pay my sub by card, and I don't have a cheque account. Not to accept cards (or at least Paypal) in this day and age is just deliberate awkwardness. Do they want my money or not? Or is this a rather impolite way of telling me to b*gger off?

 

Example: They muck up the pictures, have misprints on the cover, and then excuse it next time round by blaming the printer. Perhaps if they gave the printer materials that are accurate and print-ready this wouldn't happen. And it's a good idea not to have more misprints in the apology as they've done this time round!

 

Example: It's constantly late, and is regularly on sale elsewhere before I get my sub copy. Worse, exhibition adverts have been known to appear long after the show has ended and everyone involved has packed up and gone home. I have close family connections with a well-known fashion mag (no names, no pack-drill) whose printer charges £800.00 per hour when materials arrive late. People who know what they're doing get stuff to the printer on time, or they literally pay the consequences. MRJ's time-keeping makes the worst days of British Rail look like a paragon of care and attention to detail.

</rant>

Edited September 15, 2017 by John_Hughes

[Compound2632]

I dig through my collection of old MRJs from time to time just for inspiration; some of the techniques are a little dated now but can still be useful - heck, I still find John Ahern's books useful! - and even the ones that I didn't rate so highly the first time round now seem well worth going back to.

 

<rant>

BUT MRJ was born into a completely different world - not just in terms of modelling but of magazine production in general - and now it lags seriously behind the times. One golden rule of business is: never behave in a way that is bound to upset your customers. Why does MRJ have to break that rule almost deliberately, and with a snarky smile as if to say We know this bugs people but we're different so we don't give a tinker's damn.

 

Example: I can't pay my sub by card, and I don't have a cheque account. Not to accept cards (or at least Paypal) in this day and age is just deliberate awkwardness. Do they want my money or not? Or is this a rather impolite way of telling me to b*gger off?

 

Example: They muck up the pictures, have misprints on the cover, and then excuse it next time round by blaming the printer. Perhaps if they gave the printer materials that are accurate and print-ready this wouldn't happen. And it's a good idea not to have more misprints in the apology as they've done this time round!

 

Example: It's constantly late, and is regularly on sale elsewhere before I get my sub copy. Worse, exhibition adverts have been known to appear long after the show has ended and everyone involved has packed up and gone home. I have close family connections with a well-known fashion mag (no names, no pack-drill) whose printer charges £800.00 per hour when materials arrive late. People who know what they're doing get stuff to the printer on time, or they literally pay the consequences. MRJ's time-keeping makes the worst days of British Rail look like a paragon of care and attention to detail.

</rant>

 

But you're still buying it...

[John_Hughes]

But you're still buying it...

 

Yup, that's true. The content is good, and at times excellent. I faff about with Postal Orders, I put up with the regular editorial incompetence, the lack of any sort of commercial nous, the mis-labelled pictures, the persistent failure to meet schedules, the nasty passing of the buck to the printer and the rest of it because of the quality of the content.

 

Biut how much better it could be with just a tad more care; which, I seem to remember, is what it's all about in the first place. Or does that only refer to models, and not to magazines?

[queensquare]

Yup, that's true. The content is good, and at times excellent. I faff about with Postal Orders, I put up with the regular editorial incompetence, the lack of any sort of commercial nous, the mis-labelled pictures, the persistent failure to meet schedules, the nasty passing of the buck to the printer and the rest of it because of the quality of the content.

 

Biut how much better it could be with just a tad more care; which, I seem to remember, is what it's all about in the first place. Or does that only refer to models, and not to magazines?

......and those involved with putting MRJ together have to put up with I'll informed, ignorant dribble like this.

I had every intention of ignoring these crass rants but when we are called 'incompetent' and 'nasty'' then enough is enough. Mistakes and errors sometimes happen, in the case of the last issue it was the printers who changed a couple of things without checking. It was no big deal. As for late deadlines, the publication dates have always been a rough guide, it's part of the charm. It's nothing to do with getting copy to the printers late. Is it really that important - it's a train comic!

You are just the latest in a long line of load mouths who could do it so much better. Funny thing is, none of you has ever done so. Odd that isn't it.

MRJ, warts and all, is still lovingly put together the same way it's always been. That is not going to change and if it ever does it will no longer be MRJ

 

Jerry

[kandc_au]

......and those involved with putting MRJ together have to put up with I'll informed, ignorant dribble like this.

I had every intention of ignoring these crass rants but when we are called 'incompetent' and 'nasty'' then enough is enough. Mistakes and errors sometimes happen, in the case of the last issue it was the printers who changed a couple of things without checking. It was no big deal. As for late deadlines, the publication dates have always been a rough guide, it's part of the charm. It's nothing to do with getting copy to the printers late. Is it really that important - it's a train comic!

You are just the latest in a long line of load mouths who could do it so much better. Funny thing is, none of you has ever done so. Odd that isn't it.

MRJ, warts and all, is still lovingly put together the same way it's always been. That is not going to change and if it ever does it will no longer be MRJ

 

Jerry

It doesn't help your argument reading this response and the error!

I would have thought people had a right to express their opinion whether you like it or not.

 

Khris

[chris p bacon]

It doesn't help your argument reading this response and the error!

I would have thought people had a right to express their opinion whether you like it or not.

 

Khris

 

It depends on whether the 'opinion' is informed or not.

 

There's also no such thing as a "Right" to free speech, someone somewhere pays a price for 'free'

[Arun Sharma]

Further to post #110 - Having just seen Issue 111 of "Narrow gauge & Industrial Railway Modelling Review" which is described as their "Locomotive [scratch] Building Special", I would say that this journal is very much in the same mould as MRJ- Both editorially and in terms of print/publication quality. It is also unequivocally aimed at  kit/scratch builders and pattern makers. This is the first time I have ever really noticed this journal and I'd be surprised if a builder of any type of rolling stock couldn't learn loads from it. 

 

It comes from the same stable as the lamented Finescale Modelling Review.

 

I think I might investigate a few back numbers [issue 107 is reported to be a Locomotive Kit Building Special].

 

I should declare that I have no connection with this Journal other than am intrigued by its quality.

Edited September 15, 2017 by ted675

[kandc_au]

It depends on whether the 'opinion' is informed or not.

 

There's also no such thing as a "Right" to free speech, someone somewhere pays a price for 'free'

Don't recall saying anything about "FREE" speech...I said express an opinion.

Just think Jerry was a bit over the top with his reply, and like I said one of the issues was mistakes and his response had a mistake. Read into that what you will!

 

Khris

[queensquare]

It doesn't help your argument reading this response and the error!

I would have thought people had a right to express their opinion whether you like it or not.

 

Khris

People have every right and I have no problem whatsoever with constructive criticism, it's welcomed. This thread has many posts and comments that are extremely constructive and useful.

But when someone who is completely ill informed accuses us of being , incompetent, nasty and not caring then I feel I have every right to object.

 

Jerry

[kandc_au]

Jerry,

It is "HIS" opinion. Like it or not he expressed it.

He felt it was constructive...you don't.

 

 

Khris

[chris p bacon]

Don't recall saying anything about "FREE" speech...I said express an opinion.

Just think Jerry was a bit over the top with his reply, and like I said one of the issues was mistakes and his response had a mistake. Read into that what you will!

 

Khris

 

Good grief, a poster makes a spelling mistake on a forum and from that you can read into it.

 

Sheesh, What a complete load of bullocks.

[kandc_au]

Well Chris P Bacon,

Correct me if I am wrong, but was it not one of the issues that there are mistakes through the mag.

Don't get your knickers in a knot.
I said it didn't help Jerry's argument.

Get over it or are you feeling so maligned by the complaints.

 

Khris

Edited September 15, 2017 by kandc_au

[chris p bacon]

Well Chris P Bacon,

Correct me if I am wrong, but was it not one of the issues that there are mistakes through the mag.

Don't get your knickers in a knot.

I said it didn't help Jerry's argument.

Get oevr it or are you feeling so maligned by the complaints.

 

Khris

 

Ok I was going to ignore this but I'll bite, while you criticise Jerry for a spelling mistake you're unable to spell the simple word OVER. 

 

I'm not getting my knickers in a knot at all, While John made some reasonable comments about MRJ,  to say that those involved are 'Incompetent' and 'nasty' is a step too far. He has no knowledge of the workings of the publication but felt he could comment in a personal way.

You see it as giving an 'opinion' I see it as an opinion he should keep to himself. 

[queensquare]

Well Chris P Bacon,

Correct me if I am wrong, but was it not one of the issues that there are mistakes through the mag.

Don't get your knickers in a knot.

I said it didn't help Jerry's argument.

Get oevr it or are you feeling so maligned by the complaints.

 

Khris

Khris you seem to be completely missing the point. I have no problem with being pulled up over errors, I welcome constructive criticism and suggestions. It's accusations of being 'nasty, incompetent and not caring' that I object to.

And if there are errors in something I have hastily typed on a machine I don't particularly like, well I apologise for that too but I'm not sure what you can read into it.

 

Jerry

[flubrush]

One thing I do note on current MRJs is the lack of legibility - certainly compared with previous output.  The very early editions used about the same size of font,  but used a serif font and black letters.   Over the years,  the captions changed to a sans serif font which lost a bit of legibility,  but were still quite good since the letters stayed black.  But the current editions have changed to a fainter font in both the general text and the captions and the text of the captions is getting close to unreadable for older eyes.  For me,  reading the MRJ is now becoming a bit difficult and it's almost easier just to look at the pictures.

 

Jim.

Edited September 15, 2017 by flubrush

[kandc_au]

Dave...see edit

 

As for the rest we will go around in circles.

And not for the first time.

 

Khris

[cp409067]

One thing I do note on current MRJs is the lack of legibility - certainly compared with previous output.  The very early editions used about the same size of font,  but used a serif font and black letters.   Over the years,  the captions changed to a sans serif font which lost a bit of legibility,  but were still quite good since the letters stayed black.  But the current editions have changed to a fainter font in both the general text and the captions and the text of the captions is getting close to unreadable for older eyes.  For me,  reading the MRJ is now becoming a bit difficult and it's almost easier just to look at the pictures.

 

Jim.

 

*

 

I entirely agree. I find the same problem with recent books published by Wild Swan. In this matter the work of Roy Link (NG&IRMR and books) as referenced in post No 135 to be the superior.

 

 

CP

[John_Hughes]

Oh dear! Let me say at once that I certainly didn't intend to have anyone mistaking my moan for something 'unconstructive' and 'ignorant' and I truly apologise for anyone's hurt feelings. I've already said that I like the mag and will go on buying it, which doesn't seem too unkind when you come down to it.

 

Having seen a number of books through press, and having proof-read many articles for publication elsewhere, and as a member of a family which has deep roots in both the newspaper and book industries, I don't tend to think of myself as 'ignorant' about publishing but I suppose that everyone's entitled to their opinion.

 

But isn't it constructive to suggest that it would be a good idea to realise that not everyone has easy access to a UK-based cheque account and make suitable arrangements? Isn't it constructive to suggest that better proof-reading would be a good idea? I'll do it, if you want - that's a serious offer - first issue free, the rest at normal commercial rates. What have you got to lose?

Edited September 15, 2017 by John_Hughes

[Andy Y]

I really cannot understand why Journal topics bring out the worst in some; I'm closing this off before it gets any more combative.