When I met my first copy of FWW on a shelf at the local porn
purveyor's venue, I was astounded.
I was in there to by the most recent copy of Mechanics Lucubrated, no,
really.
Its black and white art house look and the articles contained within,
done by craftsmen already accepted as masters in their field, grabbed
hold of me because - these people were speaking my language.
Paul Roman had been downsized from General Electric and decided to
take a modest investment of personal capital, along with an immoderate
amount of personal chutzpah - and turn this into the best magazine for
woodworkers that had ever existed.
I was transfixed.
It ran great for a number of years.
If you look at the staff and consulting listings for the first ten
years - it described many of the names that have become famous in our
area of interest.
It was not a pure "How To" magazine, it explored theories and ideas
that related to woodworking.
My understanding is that, unlike most new magazines, FWW was
profitable upon its initial release.
And so it should have been. It filled a niche market of woodworkers
desperate for communication.
Sadly, FWW lost its way.
Over time it succumbed to the seduction of a market beyond that of its
initiation.
Its ad ratio became less favorable than before, it included more "How
To" articles at a simplistic level. It went to color.
I think that the move to color pissed me off the most.
Eventually Roman moved on, as his area of interest changed. He was
more interested in creating and maintaining the Taunton brand, and the
flagship of the company was left to lesser hands to man the tiller.
The magazine really hasn't interested me much for the last ten years.
I buy it reflexively, as I have done from the first issue.
But they have lost their way.
They have lost their initial animus to deliver articles produced by
masters of their craft and spent their time on dumbed down product,
which has too much picture weight vs. text, and skews itself to entry
level woodworkers at the expense of meaty material for mid level and
more accomplished artisans.
It is no longer the magazine for which that I marked my time, waiting
for the next issue.
Mr. Roman has gone on to create "Fine Homebuilding", "Threads", "Fine
Gardening", "Fine Cooking" and, his most recent concoction - "Inspired
Home".
Excepting FHB - Yawn...
Frankly, he has lost my interest, in direct proportion to his apparent
loss of interest in his initial progeny, "Fine Woodworking" - which,
also frankly, is open to parody, although I have not yet seen it done,
but which I may undertake myself - along with some help from my fellow
Wreckers.
"The Ultimate Blurfl", anyone?
Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
David wrote:
I've always been an avid magazine reader since childhood when I'd
> wait impatiently for my dad to finish reading HIS copy of Popular
> Science and Popular Mechanics so that I could be awed by the science of
> the day. What happened to moving sidewalks, promised to us in a
> pre-1960 issue of PS?? I don't think there's a magazine I've read
> faithfully over the years that has shrunk, while at the same time added
> more advertising space. Popular science went to a larger format around
> 1971, and years later it got thinner and thinner and...I stopped
> subscribing. Besides, we never got the moving sidewalks (well, yeah,
> there's the few in Vegas and at some airports--but none city-wide).
>
> Don't we tend to remember things were better when we were younger? The
> public has been lamenting the commercialization of Christmas since at
> LEAST 1955, when I was old enough to remember the complaints of my
> elders. Here it is 2005, and it's the same refrain--Christmas is
> "getting" too commercialized. HELLO! It's been that way...FOREVER!
>
Christmas is a relatively recent invention, at least as a commecial
holiday, extending back barely over a century, so it hasn't been around
in today's context forever, though I guess 125 or so years is a long
time. But the over-commercialization of Christmas in the last two or
three decades is a phenomenon that could only exist in today's
greed-based, and biased, world.
As for Pop. Science, I'm still trying to figure out why they quit
running Gus's Garage.
Yep! sadly we agree. This is true of Most of today's magazines 80 %
advertisement and less than 20 % actual info. I remember PC magazines
20 plus years ago and others that followed were mostly good technical
mags for hobyists and computer enthusiasts. Now they sold out to
yuppies who only want to know buzzwords so they can fake intelligence
on PC's info. Slowly cancelling my subscriptions.
BTW Here is a nifty way to stop receiving Junk mail especially Mag
subscriptions on weekly basis. If it has a return address write "return
to sender" and mail it back to them. It will cost them a whole lot more
for that junk mail and you don't have to worry as much on huge
recycling bins for paper (if your town requires you to recycle paper
like mine).
Tom Watson wrote:
> When I met my first copy of FWW on a shelf at the local porn
> purveyor's venue, I was astounded.
>
> I was in there to by the most recent copy of Mechanics Lucubrated, no,
> really.
>
> Its black and white art house look and the articles contained within,
> done by craftsmen already accepted as masters in their field, grabbed
> hold of me because - these people were speaking my language.
>
> Paul Roman had been downsized from General Electric and decided to
> take a modest investment of personal capital, along with an immoderate
> amount of personal chutzpah - and turn this into the best magazine for
> woodworkers that had ever existed.
>
> I was transfixed.
>
> It ran great for a number of years.
>
> If you look at the staff and consulting listings for the first ten
> years - it described many of the names that have become famous in our
> area of interest.
>
> It was not a pure "How To" magazine, it explored theories and ideas
> that related to woodworking.
>
> My understanding is that, unlike most new magazines, FWW was
> profitable upon its initial release.
>
> And so it should have been. It filled a niche market of woodworkers
> desperate for communication.
>
> Sadly, FWW lost its way.
>
> Over time it succumbed to the seduction of a market beyond that of its
> initiation.
>
> Its ad ratio became less favorable than before, it included more "How
> To" articles at a simplistic level. It went to color.
>
> I think that the move to color pissed me off the most.
>
> Eventually Roman moved on, as his area of interest changed. He was
> more interested in creating and maintaining the Taunton brand, and the
> flagship of the company was left to lesser hands to man the tiller.
>
> The magazine really hasn't interested me much for the last ten years.
>
> I buy it reflexively, as I have done from the first issue.
>
> But they have lost their way.
>
> They have lost their initial animus to deliver articles produced by
> masters of their craft and spent their time on dumbed down product,
> which has too much picture weight vs. text, and skews itself to entry
> level woodworkers at the expense of meaty material for mid level and
> more accomplished artisans.
>
> It is no longer the magazine for which that I marked my time, waiting
> for the next issue.
>
> Mr. Roman has gone on to create "Fine Homebuilding", "Threads", "Fine
> Gardening", "Fine Cooking" and, his most recent concoction - "Inspired
> Home".
>
> Excepting FHB - Yawn...
>
> Frankly, he has lost my interest, in direct proportion to his apparent
> loss of interest in his initial progeny, "Fine Woodworking" - which,
> also frankly, is open to parody, although I have not yet seen it done,
> but which I may undertake myself - along with some help from my fellow
> Wreckers.
>
> "The Ultimate Blurfl", anyone?
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
I understand what Tom is saying, but I also fully agree with you,
especially the Scientific American approach. FWW would be well advised
to read these posts.
Mutt
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [severe snippage of yet another astute observation]
>
> The growth of FWW has been 'sideways' over the years.
> Once in a blue moon, the magazine shows a glimmer of its past.
>
> It's like meeting up with an old girlfriend who has let herself go....
> still has that 'look' that was so appealing years ago...but now only
> shows itself between beers # 6 and # 10.
>
> But unlike that chance encounter with that old love, this one invades my
> house via a subscription. I read it when it shows up, but only because I
> paid for it.
> Seldom will I revisit an issue once I have scanned it for something that
> could have given me a woody.
>
> Rolling Stone has changed a lot too, but it had to in order to stay
> abreast of the talents it covers. The industry changed, so did their
> coverage. That's legit, IMHO.
>
> But FWW can't really attempt to follow that same path. It, instead, has
> followed trends it thinks will sell magazines. FWW tries to do the job
> of a Consumers Reports and in that capacity, I find it still very
> useful...'cept that I wish they'd get into more detail.
>
> I like the Scientific American format. They start an article describing
> a discovery/event/etc. in a language most people can understand... as
> you read on, they change gears and become more specific to the point
> where they lose a certain group of readers...just to switch gears again
> and then REALLY get technical..they throw equations around which look
> like they're multiplying verbs.
>
> I like that gradual in-depth-getting-deeper approach.
>
> I think FWW should do some of that... aside from a certain Poly being
> shiny.. tell us why. They could go in-depth till they lose us...
> It's just too frickin' shallow these days.
>
> But it's still a pretty nice production... and I will renew.
>
> FHB has no equal. Period. I find that mag very useful.
>
> But... let's face it... what has really spoiled me has been the LV
> catalogues...now THERE's a source for stimulation. Compared to that, FWW
> reminds me of a Gephardt speech.
Robatoy wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > American Pacer? :)
>
> That was supposed to be a knock-off from the Jensen Interceptor.
> They missed.
> A local shop let me use one for a couple of days while they worked on my
> car. It was a trade-in. I can see why. Not only was it plug-ugly, it was
> downright shoddy and dangerous. I mean.. brake fade in town???? After
> two stops from 30 KPH????
I just had an article turned down, on a '58 Impala hardtop restoration,
because the guy doing the restore used non-stock wheels and tires.
Reason: he replaced the front drums with front discs. I didn't realize
that immediately, but the editor did.
No article in that magazine, but that big Chevy will outstop 99.97% of
its contemporaries. No in town brake fade there.
Actually, Christmas as a commerical venue is
quite hold. In the book: "The battle for Christmas /
by Nissenbaum, Stephen.", it's laid out
that historically, Christmas as a gift giving season
was developed intentionally by several people
looking for a way to "control the rabble". Seems that
end of year celebrations often were filled with people
who partied quite loudly and caused minor riots, so
the gift giving thing developed out a need to direct
people's attention. This started early, about 1800's.
Oh, you can put a lot of this blame on the New Yorkers -
specifically the Knickerbockers (no, not the b-ball team! -
a group of upper class New Yorkers )
and that Christmas guy - Clement Moore. He helped
to get that whole Santa Claus thing going.
MJ Wallace
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Actually, Christmas as a commerical venue is
> > quite [old]..., about 1800's.
>
> Well in the scheme of things to which it is related, that's only roughly
> 10% of the total history...not <that> old... :)
Strongly related to pagan Saturnalia, a late year (no December back
then) festival that was very riotous. According to some reports,
therewas a movementin tghe 16th century to stop the celebration of
Christmas because it still heavily resembled the riotous partying of
Saturnalia.
So,just maybe, the commercialization of "Christmas" has gone on
forever, or at least all throughout human history, once language was
developed. Only it wasn't called Christmas and was probably cheaper and
a lot more fun.
I'm not a subscriber of FWW but I've been reading them from the local
libraries. I think you hit it on the spot when you mentioned the lack
of the "design theory" articles. Every issue, I have seen a number of
"fine" pieces in their projects showcase. Although most everyone will
agree that they are indeed beautiful, there is no telling of "why" they
are. Because of this, IMO, these showcase pieces are more than likely
to be only the sources for the "inspired copycats" instead of the seeds
for the next generation "masters."
I agree that it is not as it was when I started reading it some 30
years ago (and I am only 39). One of the things that I had heard is
that they sold out to Time Warner if that is true all that you have
said makes sense.
In any case - we should make a list of all the things - we as
woodworkers would change to make the magazine better. There is enough
woodworkers on here for them to want to read the email.
So I would ask - what can they change to make the magazine better?
Steve Huey
woodworkersedge.com
Tom Watson wrote:
> When I met my first copy of FWW on a shelf at the local porn
> purveyor's venue, I was astounded.
>
> I was in there to by the most recent copy of Mechanics Lucubrated, no,
> really.
>
> Its black and white art house look and the articles contained within,
> done by craftsmen already accepted as masters in their field, grabbed
> hold of me because - these people were speaking my language.
>
> Paul Roman had been downsized from General Electric and decided to
> take a modest investment of personal capital, along with an immoderate
> amount of personal chutzpah - and turn this into the best magazine for
> woodworkers that had ever existed.
>
> I was transfixed.
>
> It ran great for a number of years.
>
> If you look at the staff and consulting listings for the first ten
> years - it described many of the names that have become famous in our
> area of interest.
>
> It was not a pure "How To" magazine, it explored theories and ideas
> that related to woodworking.
>
> My understanding is that, unlike most new magazines, FWW was
> profitable upon its initial release.
>
> And so it should have been. It filled a niche market of woodworkers
> desperate for communication.
>
> Sadly, FWW lost its way.
>
> Over time it succumbed to the seduction of a market beyond that of its
> initiation.
>
> Its ad ratio became less favorable than before, it included more "How
> To" articles at a simplistic level. It went to color.
>
> I think that the move to color pissed me off the most.
>
> Eventually Roman moved on, as his area of interest changed. He was
> more interested in creating and maintaining the Taunton brand, and the
> flagship of the company was left to lesser hands to man the tiller.
>
> The magazine really hasn't interested me much for the last ten years.
>
> I buy it reflexively, as I have done from the first issue.
>
> But they have lost their way.
>
> They have lost their initial animus to deliver articles produced by
> masters of their craft and spent their time on dumbed down product,
> which has too much picture weight vs. text, and skews itself to entry
> level woodworkers at the expense of meaty material for mid level and
> more accomplished artisans.
>
> It is no longer the magazine for which that I marked my time, waiting
> for the next issue.
>
> Mr. Roman has gone on to create "Fine Homebuilding", "Threads", "Fine
> Gardening", "Fine Cooking" and, his most recent concoction - "Inspired
> Home".
>
> Excepting FHB - Yawn...
>
> Frankly, he has lost my interest, in direct proportion to his apparent
> loss of interest in his initial progeny, "Fine Woodworking" - which,
> also frankly, is open to parody, although I have not yet seen it done,
> but which I may undertake myself - along with some help from my fellow
> Wreckers.
>
> "The Ultimate Blurfl", anyone?
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> A car can have even less unsprung weight: The famous Citroen 2CV (is
> it known in America also as a "Duck"?) has the front disc brakes on
> the gearbox-side of the cardan shafts, so no brake at the wheel
> itself...
> --
Ah, the 2CV: still the most comfortable car I've ever driven.
Slow as a toad, but sooooo smooth!
IIRC, the Jaguar E-type rear brakes were like that as well.
This has been one of the most interesting and possibly the longest message
exchanges I have ever seen on this message group. I am a happy amateur who
got his first computer in the mid 80's and decided in 1987 to set up a data
base I could organize by subject, source, date, and page. I subscribe to
both FWW and Wood, which to my surprise has not been mentioned in this
exchange. My data base lists only articles I think will be of future use to
me. Here are the results:
FWW: Earliest listing: Nov 1987, #67. Nr. Articles: 179.
Wood: Earliest listing: Apr 1987, #16. Nr. Articles: 233 .
I realize this count applies only to me, but it does say something about the
FWW focus on artsy fartsy versus practical.
Bob Moody
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> It is no longer the magazine for which that I marked my time, waiting
> for the next issue.
>
> Mr. Roman has gone on to create "Fine Homebuilding", "Threads", "Fine
> Gardening", "Fine Cooking" and, his most recent concoction - "Inspired
> Home".
>
> Excepting FHB - Yawn...
>
> Frankly, he has lost my interest, in direct proportion to his apparent
> loss of interest in his initial progeny, "Fine Woodworking" - which,
> also frankly, is open to parody, although I have not yet seen it done,
> but which I may undertake myself - along with some help from my fellow
> Wreckers.
>
> "The Ultimate Blurfl", anyone?
I hadn't thought about it, Tom, but their renewal notice remains
unopened on my desk.
My subscription has currently lapsed, and I'm not certain I'll renew.
For a publisher, that's a problem, as we/they make little from single
copy sales compared to the subscription which typically pays the cost
of printing and mailing the piece.
I managed to obtain a number of those early B&W issues a couple of
years ago, and while I disagree with you that the move to color was a
problem I do lean t'ward agreeing with you about content.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
> But they have lost their way.
>
> They have lost their initial animus to deliver articles produced by
> masters of their craft and spent their time on dumbed down product,
> which has too much picture weight vs. text, and skews itself to entry
> level woodworkers at the expense of meaty material for mid level and
> more accomplished artisans.
>
Hi Tom,
I agree, but being one of the "unwashed" amongst us, I still
look for my next issue (to put things in context, I still like/look
forward to NYW each week).
FWW is still better than anything I subscribe to - and I
am subscribed to 3 others - my FWW subscription dates
back 12+ years.
When you are an accomplished woodworker (as yourself and
others with like ability who hang out on the wreck) it must
get a little "old" to hear the same stuff repeated over and over.
Some of can't have it repeated often enough, and actually learn
from the repitition.
Is there another better magazine out there?
Happy woodworking!
Lou
Rob wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
...
> ...It seems FWW repeats article
> themes every 14 months or so. For example, there must be a dozen
> articles on how to build a desk or bed or chair, how to route a tenon,
> how to finish with rubbed oil and varnish, how to build a table saw
> sled, and so on.
This, sadly is becoming more true, I agree...
> ...FWW will not touch on articles about carving for
> example. Or marquetry. Or design theory. Or intricate lathe work.
Here I have to disagree...I can recall several marquetry and carving
articles and some of Conover's turning in the not very distant past...
> Maybe there is a lack of modern high calibre authors to replace the
> earlier masters. To write for a magazine such as FWW requires of the
> author not only aptitude in their chosen field but also the ability to
> concisely and clearly communicate that knowledge to a large audience
> of varying skill and interest. Maybe master woodworkers spend most of
> their time creating art and little time passing on their hard earned
> knowledge.
I think this is the crux of the problem...particularly losing Tage Frid
and some of the other early contributors has hurt a lot. Quite possibly
it is true that Roman's going on has led to a loss in hard recruiting of
such masters, although that is pure speculation.
David wrote:
>
> I've read FWW for only a few years so I'm in no position to compare it's
> current worthiness vis-a-vis it's past issues. What I do know is that
> any time I stoop down in the entry to pick up the mail, if there's a
> shiny new FWW laying there amongst the bills, a broad smile paints my
> countenance. More often than not, I stop what I'm doing, sit in my
> favorite chair and absorb the articles and wisdom nestled between the
> ads. ...
It still has value, but I've been subscriber since early volume 2 so
I've seen essentially the whole run, too. I also think the depth has
lessened, particularly over the last several years.
> Don't we tend to remember things were better when we were younger? ...
To a certain extent, yes. Some of such remembrances are, in fact, based
on reality... :(
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Actually, Christmas as a commerical venue is
> quite [old]..., about 1800's.
Well in the scheme of things to which it is related, that's only roughly
10% of the total history...not <that> old... :)
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > Actually, Christmas as a commerical venue is
> > > quite [old]..., about 1800's.
> >
> > Well in the scheme of things to which it is related, that's only roughly
> > 10% of the total history...not <that> old... :)
>
> Strongly related to pagan Saturnalia, a late year (no December back
> then) festival that was very riotous. According to some reports,
> therewas a movementin tghe 16th century to stop the celebration of
> Christmas because it still heavily resembled the riotous partying of
> Saturnalia.
>
> So,just maybe, the commercialization of "Christmas" has gone on
> forever, or at least all throughout human history, once language was
> developed. Only it wasn't called Christmas and was probably cheaper and
> a lot more fun.
Oh, quite likely...only point was that to consider 1800 as "long ago" is
somewhat ludicrous even in the context only of the actual events for
which the celebration is now named...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
...
> I think you've hit on the main issue here Patriarch. You came at the
> original FWW's from the perspective of someone with a number of years of
> experience and probably got a good bit of your initial knowledge from the
> more recent magazines (I'm speculating here, but infer that from your
> comments above). Thus, you saw the information in those magazines as
> somewhat mundane relative to what you already knew. I would further
> speculate that people like Tom Watson and others were earlier in their
> careers and thus saw what was in FWW then as new material back then. As
> their skills grew, the material in FWW become repetitious or more mundane,
> because by that time, they had their own experience base and prior
> education from the earlier volumes from which to draw.
...
I don't disagree <entirely>, but I don't <agree> entirely,
either...how's that for equivocating? :)
I think there's perhaps some of that, but I also think there's been a
very conscious impetus (backed by some of the editorial content) to add
more "novice level" and "ordinary" (as exemplified by the tool reviews,
etc.) articles since the early years.
This isn't necessarily all bad as the audience/circulation may require
it to remain economically viable, but I personally think there's no
question that the "average" skill level of the articles has come
down...of course, they've also backed off of the more extreme era of
"form over function" and "green issues" some, too, which is the point in
time a number of years ago when I almost quit subscribing.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
...
> What amazes me is how similar the "new" models are. Looking at the
> straight lines of a Ford F-150 for example, then look how both GM and Dodge
> have similar straight lines, moving away from the curved lines of the last
> decade. Since these models have been in development for the last three
> years, how is it possible that they all come out with similar style changes
> at the same time?
...
1. Industrial espionage... :) They're all looking at the competition
(foreign and domestic) <very> carefully...
2. Much of current design is driven by fuel-driven aerodynamics and the
same physical forms have similar performance...
3. Competition--If a particular different body style resonates (think
the early Dodge Ram bulk), it will soon be copied...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
...
> The magazine changed. ... moving away from the hard
> sciences towards psychology, political science, meteorology, and other
> sciences for which one's conclusions could be supported by the appropriate
> application of the proper statistical techniques to a favored set of data.
> There were, of course, still a few articles geared to the earlier fare, but
> they were becoming too few to be worth subscribing. It's been 15 years or
> more since I've read it; it may have changed again, just haven't the time
> to find out.
...
Unfortunately, not in a direction except more of the above... :(
Rob wrote:
>
....
> Many articles in FWW of the past few years have been basic. Taunton
> Press seems to target a readership of beginner to intermediate amateur
> level rather than the intermediate to advanced amateur/professional
> level that articles in early FWW targetted. And maybe this reflects
> on FWW's change of philosophy, IMO.
Yes, I don't recall just when, but during the "makeover phase" there
were several editorials indicating their intent to try to appeal to a
"broader" audience. That of course, means precisely more routine and
mundane construction articles and the much higher concentration on
reviews...
> The title "Fine WoodWorking" implies a lot to me. ... Maybe FWW has dumbed down to attract a wider
> readership, the people who frequent these outlets, and greater
> circulation numbers.
...
Yep, they announced it as they were doing it--as noted, I recall the
editorials although I can't point to specific issues.
gregg wrote:
>
...
>
> WoodenBoat magazine dealt with this and they did it right, I think:
>
> They, too, had slowly migrated to the big, multiple tens of thousands of
> dollar rebuild articles, or build-from-scratch articles. Beginners were
> left way behind. Someone who just wanted to start out and maybe learn how
> to build a simple boat were out of luck.
>
> To fix that they started an Apprentice Corner where, each issue, they would
> tackle basic operations, like plank replacement. They also have multi-issue
> articles on building smaller boats.
>
> I think it's a good mix now. FWW can do the same thing.
OTOH, FWW didn't "migrate" <to> high-end work, that (almost exclusively)
was the initial focus--hence the name.
They've gone the artsy/environmental trend and now looking more to the
masses. While total circulation is probably up, it's likely coming at
least partly at the expense of former long-time readers. Of course,
that was a niche market and was self-limiting, so if corporate
objectives are revenue-enhancement-driven, they have no choice to meet
that objective in all likelihood.
How much longer I'll hang in there is becoming more and more an issue
each year for the same reason--too much of the low-level stuff, while
not bad in of itself, it is simply becoming a magazine for a target
audience of which I may no longer be a member to the extent it is not
worth the expenditure...
gregg wrote:
>
> >Duane Bozarth wrote:
> >
> > OTOH, FWW didn't "migrate" <to> high-end work, that (almost exclusively)
> > was the initial focus--hence the name.
>
> How FWW and WB got there is rather irrelevant to my point which was to say
> they got to, or started at, the high end and found it wasn't optimal for
> circulation.
But I think it quite relevant that the evolution in FWW at bequest of
circulation (apparently) is in essence changing the fundamental nature
of the magazine from its founding whereas (as I understood your example)
the WB seemed more to be returning closer to its roots. That is, the
fact that there appears to have been a concsious effort to change the
fundamental premise seems relevant to me. But not knowing WB at all, I
may have misinterpreted...
...
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:19:56 GMT, the opaque
> [email protected] (Lawrence Wasserman) spake:
>
> >My oh my, first the rec has gone downhill, now FWW. What will be next?
>
> Television? <bseg>
>
>
ROTFLMO! It won't be too long before the only way for TV will be up!
Grant
Tom Watson apparently said,on my timestamp of 21/06/2005 10:18 AM:
>
> Frankly, he has lost my interest, in direct proportion to his apparent
> loss of interest in his initial progeny, "Fine Woodworking" - which,
> also frankly, is open to parody, although I have not yet seen it done,
> but which I may undertake myself - along with some help from my fellow
> Wreckers.
Could it be that your expectations have changed over the years?
I've been getting FWW regularly (although not by subscription)
for around 6 years. Always felt it was a cut above anything else
on the same subject. With the possible exception of the UK's
very own Good Woodworking, which BTW I haven't seen here for
quite a while (you there, Jeff?).
But also of late I find FWW not as interesting. The techniques
once learned, stay. It's nice to have a refresh though, FWW
IMHO does it better than anything else.
What I find obnoxious with subscribing to it though is that
not only do I not save much, but also it ends up showing in
my front door two weeks AFTER it has been on sale in the
local porn purveyor! I ALWAYS thought one of the reasons
for subscribing to a mag is to get it before said merchants.
That is not the case with the little arrangement Taunton has
with the local media barons. As such, subscription is still
a no-go for me. But I still get the occasional one. Wish I
had more time to dedicate to this hobby, though.
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
[email protected]
"Roy Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I like the Scientific American format. They start an article describing
> > a discovery/event/etc. in a language most people can understand... as
> > you read on, they change gears and become more specific to the point
> > where they lose a certain group of readers...just to switch gears again
> > and then REALLY get technical..they throw equations around which look
> > like they're multiplying verbs.
>
> Interesting. I used to read SciAm 20 years ago and loved it. Now it's
> (IMHO) total junk. Did the magazine change or did I?
It's become more of a social "science" publication than I care to read.
Like any academic can't suggest ways to spend other peoples' money in some
other forum? Editorial staff changed ~5 years ago, and printed a statement
of purpose to present opinion and advocacy articles. Sawardee khrap.
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Glad I'm not the only one to think that the Element is just plain ugly.
> Aztek doesn't look like that much of a departure from other small
> rice-burners (kind of a Ford Fiesta with curves).
>
> What amazes me is how similar the "new" models are. Looking at the
> straight lines of a Ford F-150 for example, then look how both GM and
Dodge
> have similar straight lines, moving away from the curved lines of the last
> decade. Since these models have been in development for the last three
> years, how is it possible that they all come out with similar style
changes
> at the same time?
>
When I was growing up in Detroit, it was said that putting a Ford and a
Chevrolet in the same garage overnight would yield a Plymouth. In those
days the big three shared a lot. Ford and Chrysler shared trannies, Ford
sold metal to GM, and of course the suppliers kept pushing for greater and
greater standardization.
As to the Fiesta, I wish I had been able to get parts for mine beyond his
eighth year. Forty MPG, jump like a scalded cat when you punched it, and a
good snow runner. Definitely not a rice-burner, it was one of those cars
like the Focus that started in Europe, but a bit more successful than the
Opel.....
Interesting obseration, Bob.
For you, more practicle articles have a greater future value and
longevity than esoteric articles, detailing less of the "how".
In my experience, FWW articles do tend to gloss over the dimensions
and details of construction, tending to favour the description of the
process of building. I guess that you find that you can reproduce the
results of Wood projects faster and better than FWW projects because
of this detail.
Many articles in FWW of the past few years have been basic. Taunton
Press seems to target a readership of beginner to intermediate amateur
level rather than the intermediate to advanced amateur/professional
level that articles in early FWW targetted. And maybe this reflects
on FWW's change of philosophy, IMO.
The title "Fine WoodWorking" implies a lot to me. It says the content
of this publication is targetting an audience which considers itself
beyond the beginner stage. The reader fancies him/herself as having
learnt the basics of the trade and is now ready to hone their skills
to the next level, to move from apprentice level to master level. So,
what are beginner articles doing in this magazine, one may ask? If
you are an advanced woodworker, maybe step-by-step text and
dimensioned drawings found in other publications like Wood are
something you don't need because you can infer the dimensions and
construction process based on your expertiese. Time was you only
found FWW at niche woodworking places like Lee Valley Tools stores,
Garrett-Wade and by subscription; now they are available in Home Depot
and Chapters. Maybe FWW has dumbed down to attract a wider
readership, the people who frequent these outlets, and greater
circulation numbers.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 19:26:41 -0400, "B Moody" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>...My data base lists only articles I think will be of future use to
>me. Here are the results:
>
>FWW: Earliest listing: Nov 1987, #67. Nr. Articles: 179.
>
>Wood: Earliest listing: Apr 1987, #16. Nr. Articles: 233 .
>
>I realize this count applies only to me, but it does say something about the
>FWW focus on artsy fartsy versus practical.
>
>Bob Moody
>
Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>...
>>
>>>I agree with you about the Aztek. Never has an uglier vehicle been put on
>>>the road. ...
>>
>>American Pacer? :)
>
>
> Yeah, the Pacer was pretty ugly. But the Aztek's got it beat.
Aztek looks like the illegitimate offspring of a coupling between a
garbage truck and an 4 cyd dumpster.
John
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> I don't disagree <entirely>, but I don't <agree> entirely,
> either...how's that for equivocating? :)
Actually thsat accurately reflects the dilemma of the magazine editors.
....
> This isn't necessarily all bad as the audience/circulation may require
> it to remain economically viable, but I personally think there's no
> question that the "average" skill level of the articles has come
> down...of course, they've also backed off of the more extreme era of
> "form over function" and "green issues" some, too, which is the point in
> time a number of years ago when I almost quit subscribing.
They have to find a sweet spot where you can attract new woodworkers to
your magazine, and keep/attract experienced ones. it's not an easy thing.
--
Saville
Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
Steambending FAQ with photos:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>>
> ....
>> Many articles in FWW of the past few years have been basic. Taunton
>> Press seems to target a readership of beginner to intermediate amateur
>> level rather than the intermediate to advanced amateur/professional
>> level that articles in early FWW targetted. And maybe this reflects
>> on FWW's change of philosophy, IMO.
>
> Yes, I don't recall just when, but during the "makeover phase" there
> were several editorials indicating their intent to try to appeal to a
> "broader" audience. That of course, means precisely more routine and
> mundane construction articles and the much higher concentration on
> reviews...
WoodenBoat magazine dealt with this and they did it right, I think:
They, too, had slowly migrated to the big, multiple tens of thousands of
dollar rebuild articles, or build-from-scratch articles. Beginners were
left way behind. Someone who just wanted to start out and maybe learn how
to build a simple boat were out of luck.
To fix that they started an Apprentice Corner where, each issue, they would
tackle basic operations, like plank replacement. They also have multi-issue
articles on building smaller boats.
I think it's a good mix now. FWW can do the same thing.
--
Saville
Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
Steambending FAQ with photos:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> gregg wrote:
>>
> ...
>>
>> WoodenBoat magazine dealt with this and they did it right, I think:
>>
>> They, too, had slowly migrated to the big, multiple tens of thousands of
>> dollar rebuild articles, or build-from-scratch articles. Beginners were
>> left way behind. Someone who just wanted to start out and maybe learn
>> how to build a simple boat were out of luck.
>>
>> To fix that they started an Apprentice Corner where, each issue, they
>> would
>> tackle basic operations, like plank replacement. They also have
>> multi-issue articles on building smaller boats.
>>
>> I think it's a good mix now. FWW can do the same thing.
>
>
> OTOH, FWW didn't "migrate" <to> high-end work, that (almost exclusively)
> was the initial focus--hence the name.
How FWW and WB got there is rather irrelevant to my point which was to say
they got to, or started at, the high end and found it wasn't optimal for
circulation.
But your point about maybe it's simply no longer the mag for your level is
well taken.
--
Saville
Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
Steambending FAQ with photos:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
Moving sidewalks! I'm been waiting 40 years for the flying car they
promised would be in every garage.
--
Regards,
Mike
Flower Mound, Texas
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've read FWW for only a few years so I'm in no position to compare it's
> current worthiness vis-a-vis it's past issues. What I do know is that any
> time I stoop down in the entry to pick up the mail, if there's a shiny new
> FWW laying there amongst the bills, a broad smile paints my countenance.
> More often than not, I stop what I'm doing, sit in my favorite chair and
> absorb the articles and wisdom nestled between the ads. I've always been
> an avid magazine reader since childhood when I'd wait impatiently for my
> dad to finish reading HIS copy of Popular Science and Popular Mechanics so
> that I could be awed by the science of the day. What happened to moving
> sidewalks, promised to us in a pre-1960 issue of PS?? I don't think
> there's a magazine I've read faithfully over the years that has shrunk,
> while at the same time added more advertising space. Popular science went
> to a larger format around 1971, and years later it got thinner and thinner
> and...I stopped subscribing. Besides, we never got the moving sidewalks
> (well, yeah, there's the few in Vegas and at some airports--but none
> city-wide).
>
> Don't we tend to remember things were better when we were younger? The
> public has been lamenting the commercialization of Christmas since at
> LEAST 1955, when I was old enough to remember the complaints of my elders.
> Here it is 2005, and it's the same refrain--Christmas is "getting" too
> commercialized. HELLO! It's been that way...FOREVER!
>
> Twenty five years from now, I predict that FWW will still be cranking out
> issues, and somewhere, someone will be complaining that it just isn't as
> good as it used to be back at the turn of the century.
>
> Dave
>
> Tom Watson wrote:
>
>> When I met my first copy of FWW on a shelf at the local porn
>> purveyor's venue, I was astounded. I was in there to by the most recent
>> copy of Mechanics Lucubrated, no,
>> really.
>>
>> Its black and white art house look and the articles contained within,
>> done by craftsmen already accepted as masters in their field, grabbed
>> hold of me because - these people were speaking my language.
>>
>> Paul Roman had been downsized from General Electric and decided to
>> take a modest investment of personal capital, along with an immoderate
>> amount of personal chutzpah - and turn this into the best magazine for
>> woodworkers that had ever existed.
>>
>> I was transfixed.
>>
>> It ran great for a number of years.
>>
>> If you look at the staff and consulting listings for the first ten
>> years - it described many of the names that have become famous in our
>> area of interest.
>>
>> It was not a pure "How To" magazine, it explored theories and ideas
>> that related to woodworking.
>>
>> My understanding is that, unlike most new magazines, FWW was
>> profitable upon its initial release.
>>
>> And so it should have been. It filled a niche market of woodworkers
>> desperate for communication.
>>
>> Sadly, FWW lost its way.
>>
>> Over time it succumbed to the seduction of a market beyond that of its
>> initiation.
>>
>> Its ad ratio became less favorable than before, it included more "How
>> To" articles at a simplistic level. It went to color.
>>
>> I think that the move to color pissed me off the most.
>>
>> Eventually Roman moved on, as his area of interest changed. He was
>> more interested in creating and maintaining the Taunton brand, and the
>> flagship of the company was left to lesser hands to man the tiller.
>>
>> The magazine really hasn't interested me much for the last ten years.
>>
>> I buy it reflexively, as I have done from the first issue.
>>
>> But they have lost their way.
>>
>> They have lost their initial animus to deliver articles produced by
>> masters of their craft and spent their time on dumbed down product,
>> which has too much picture weight vs. text, and skews itself to entry
>> level woodworkers at the expense of meaty material for mid level and
>> more accomplished artisans.
>>
>> It is no longer the magazine for which that I marked my time, waiting
>> for the next issue.
>>
>> Mr. Roman has gone on to create "Fine Homebuilding", "Threads", "Fine
>> Gardening", "Fine Cooking" and, his most recent concoction - "Inspired
>> Home".
>>
>> Excepting FHB - Yawn...
>>
>> Frankly, he has lost my interest, in direct proportion to his apparent
>> loss of interest in his initial progeny, "Fine Woodworking" - which,
>> also frankly, is open to parody, although I have not yet seen it done,
>> but which I may undertake myself - along with some help from my fellow
>> Wreckers.
>>
>> "The Ultimate Blurfl", anyone?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
>> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
>> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
"Tom Watson" wrote in message
> It is no longer the magazine for which that I marked my time, waiting
> for the next issue.
As when two boats drift apart, the distance between the entities in any
relationship can open up pretty quickly. I subscribed for awhile, then paid
full over-the-counter price for years and most always looked forward to the
next issue.
Reading your post I realize that the only issue I've bought this year is the
"Power Tools" issue, and despite my similar feelings regarding the magazine
becoming ho-hum, the taper jig idea in that issue was worth the price of
admission.
My point is that I now check out FWW before buying, whereas before I bought
it sight unseen, and therein lies the crux of yours.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 5/14/05
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Tom,
>
> I agree with you whole heartedly. I began FWW at Issue 56 and have
> continued all these years to faithfully to renew my subscription.
>
Istarted with #59 and stopped at #161. Why? Well, it had gotten
somewhat repetitive, which is to be expected, and after retirement I had
to stay within a budget. I'd rather buy wood and/or tools than a
magazine :-).
I did buy a set of FWW Techniques just before they became unavailable,
which gave me tbe articles from issues 1-55. One of these days I'll
locate 56,57, and 58 at an estate sale :-).
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> gregg wrote:
>>
>> >Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> >
>> > OTOH, FWW didn't "migrate" <to> high-end work, that (almost
>> > exclusively) was the initial focus--hence the name.
>>
>> How FWW and WB got there is rather irrelevant to my point which was to
>> say they got to, or started at, the high end and found it wasn't optimal
>> for circulation.
>
> But I think it quite relevant that the evolution in FWW at bequest of
> circulation (apparently) is in essence changing the fundamental nature
> of the magazine from its founding whereas (as I understood your example)
> the WB seemed more to be returning closer to its roots.
I can't say how WB started out because I hadn't subscribed that far back.
I've been with them since the late 80's and for most of that their articles
were mid-to high level of complexity and cost.
> That is, the
> fact that there appears to have been a concsious effort to change the
> fundamental premise seems relevant to me. But not knowing WB at all, I
> may have misinterpreted...
Well I guess I don't have an expectation that most mags are going to adhere
to the beginning premise, though I'm sure there are some that have.
My experiences have been the opposite:
With WB, Photography mags, and now FWW, I've seen them all go to or return
to less complex/less costly project articles in an effort to increase
circulation.
ymmv
--
Saville
Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html
Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm
Steambending FAQ with photos:
http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm
George Max wrote:
> How much of your or anyone's loss of interest is due to your own
> personal increase in skill and focus on a specific aspect of
> woodworking?
Good point. When you're learning, everything about the subject
is/should be of interest. As you progress, yawns seem to come more readily.
> IMO, not every issue bowls me over immediately, but every issue does
> eventually become of interest as I search for some inspiration or some
> instruction/opinion on something.
While I admit to having absolutely no interest in marquetry, I will read
the articles. Sometimes, I find them of interest, sometimes not. I
will say that in all the years I've been reading FWW (I too have a
complete set in my library) I've yet to read an issue that was not 1)
enjoyable, 2) provided "something" new that I could use or drool over,
and 3) did not - at least to me - represent a fair trade for the money
spent.
> Yeah, FWW may drift from time to time. This thread is evidence of
> that. I seem to recall a similar litany of complaint a few years ago.
> FWW will publish more and better issues, they'll publish weak issues.
> Even so, how much is really going to be new to those well versed in
> the craft?
I enjoyed the older, B&W version (not unlike the old Scientific American
as someone else mentioned) with articles by THE masters, Maloof, Frid,
et al. Times change as does the layout and content. Still, we have a
choice. To buy or not to buy. I'll not revisit that question until
February of '08 when my current subscription expires.
I just breezed through the current issue. While the taper jig was
interesting and will be filed away for future need, I did really enjoy
the article on the coffee table. Nice mix of joinery and will likely
wind up a future project here.
I've read FWW for only a few years so I'm in no position to compare it's
current worthiness vis-a-vis it's past issues. What I do know is that
any time I stoop down in the entry to pick up the mail, if there's a
shiny new FWW laying there amongst the bills, a broad smile paints my
countenance. More often than not, I stop what I'm doing, sit in my
favorite chair and absorb the articles and wisdom nestled between the
ads. I've always been an avid magazine reader since childhood when I'd
wait impatiently for my dad to finish reading HIS copy of Popular
Science and Popular Mechanics so that I could be awed by the science of
the day. What happened to moving sidewalks, promised to us in a
pre-1960 issue of PS?? I don't think there's a magazine I've read
faithfully over the years that has shrunk, while at the same time added
more advertising space. Popular science went to a larger format around
1971, and years later it got thinner and thinner and...I stopped
subscribing. Besides, we never got the moving sidewalks (well, yeah,
there's the few in Vegas and at some airports--but none city-wide).
Don't we tend to remember things were better when we were younger? The
public has been lamenting the commercialization of Christmas since at
LEAST 1955, when I was old enough to remember the complaints of my
elders. Here it is 2005, and it's the same refrain--Christmas is
"getting" too commercialized. HELLO! It's been that way...FOREVER!
Twenty five years from now, I predict that FWW will still be cranking
out issues, and somewhere, someone will be complaining that it just
isn't as good as it used to be back at the turn of the century.
Dave
Tom Watson wrote:
> When I met my first copy of FWW on a shelf at the local porn
> purveyor's venue, I was astounded.
>
> I was in there to by the most recent copy of Mechanics Lucubrated, no,
> really.
>
> Its black and white art house look and the articles contained within,
> done by craftsmen already accepted as masters in their field, grabbed
> hold of me because - these people were speaking my language.
>
> Paul Roman had been downsized from General Electric and decided to
> take a modest investment of personal capital, along with an immoderate
> amount of personal chutzpah - and turn this into the best magazine for
> woodworkers that had ever existed.
>
> I was transfixed.
>
> It ran great for a number of years.
>
> If you look at the staff and consulting listings for the first ten
> years - it described many of the names that have become famous in our
> area of interest.
>
> It was not a pure "How To" magazine, it explored theories and ideas
> that related to woodworking.
>
> My understanding is that, unlike most new magazines, FWW was
> profitable upon its initial release.
>
> And so it should have been. It filled a niche market of woodworkers
> desperate for communication.
>
> Sadly, FWW lost its way.
>
> Over time it succumbed to the seduction of a market beyond that of its
> initiation.
>
> Its ad ratio became less favorable than before, it included more "How
> To" articles at a simplistic level. It went to color.
>
> I think that the move to color pissed me off the most.
>
> Eventually Roman moved on, as his area of interest changed. He was
> more interested in creating and maintaining the Taunton brand, and the
> flagship of the company was left to lesser hands to man the tiller.
>
> The magazine really hasn't interested me much for the last ten years.
>
> I buy it reflexively, as I have done from the first issue.
>
> But they have lost their way.
>
> They have lost their initial animus to deliver articles produced by
> masters of their craft and spent their time on dumbed down product,
> which has too much picture weight vs. text, and skews itself to entry
> level woodworkers at the expense of meaty material for mid level and
> more accomplished artisans.
>
> It is no longer the magazine for which that I marked my time, waiting
> for the next issue.
>
> Mr. Roman has gone on to create "Fine Homebuilding", "Threads", "Fine
> Gardening", "Fine Cooking" and, his most recent concoction - "Inspired
> Home".
>
> Excepting FHB - Yawn...
>
> Frankly, he has lost my interest, in direct proportion to his apparent
> loss of interest in his initial progeny, "Fine Woodworking" - which,
> also frankly, is open to parody, although I have not yet seen it done,
> but which I may undertake myself - along with some help from my fellow
> Wreckers.
>
> "The Ultimate Blurfl", anyone?
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> When I met my first copy of FWW on a shelf at the local porn
> purveyor's venue, I was astounded.
>
> I was in there to by the most recent copy of Mechanics Lucubrated, no,
> really.
>
> Its black and white art house look and the articles contained within,
> done by craftsmen already accepted as masters in their field, grabbed
> hold of me because - these people were speaking my language.
>
> Paul Roman had been downsized from General Electric and decided to
> take a modest investment of personal capital, along with an immoderate
> amount of personal chutzpah - and turn this into the best magazine for
> woodworkers that had ever existed.
>
> I was transfixed.
>
> It ran great for a number of years.
>
> If you look at the staff and consulting listings for the first ten
> years - it described many of the names that have become famous in our
> area of interest.
>
> It was not a pure "How To" magazine, it explored theories and ideas
> that related to woodworking.
>
> My understanding is that, unlike most new magazines, FWW was
> profitable upon its initial release.
>
> And so it should have been. It filled a niche market of woodworkers
> desperate for communication.
>
> Sadly, FWW lost its way.
>
> Over time it succumbed to the seduction of a market beyond that of its
> initiation.
>
> Its ad ratio became less favorable than before, it included more "How
> To" articles at a simplistic level. It went to color.
>
> I think that the move to color pissed me off the most.
>
> Eventually Roman moved on, as his area of interest changed. He was
> more interested in creating and maintaining the Taunton brand, and the
> flagship of the company was left to lesser hands to man the tiller.
>
> The magazine really hasn't interested me much for the last ten years.
>
> I buy it reflexively, as I have done from the first issue.
>
> But they have lost their way.
>
> They have lost their initial animus to deliver articles produced by
> masters of their craft and spent their time on dumbed down product,
> which has too much picture weight vs. text, and skews itself to entry
> level woodworkers at the expense of meaty material for mid level and
> more accomplished artisans.
>
> It is no longer the magazine for which that I marked my time, waiting
> for the next issue.
>
> Mr. Roman has gone on to create "Fine Homebuilding", "Threads", "Fine
> Gardening", "Fine Cooking" and, his most recent concoction - "Inspired
> Home".
>
> Excepting FHB - Yawn...
>
> Frankly, he has lost my interest, in direct proportion to his apparent
> loss of interest in his initial progeny, "Fine Woodworking" - which,
> also frankly, is open to parody, although I have not yet seen it done,
> but which I may undertake myself - along with some help from my fellow
> Wreckers.
>
> "The Ultimate Blurfl", anyone?
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Watson - WoodDorker
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
I tend to agree with you, but it is still the pick of the litter as far as I
can tell.
Krenov is not heard from much, Taj Frid has passed (RIP), and others I can't
remember at this time. When you lose giants like these guys, it hurts your
effort.
TV has shown so many scripts that the funny one's are getting out. It
apparently is difficult to remain fresh. I suspect FWW is suffering from the
same thing.
I really like Mike Dunbar's, Garret Hack's, and Lonnie Bird's articles.
Frank Klausz used to write some, and Jeff Millers articles are great.
Becksvort has some good stuff. And others I can't bring to mind at this time
(old age is hell!) :-)
I was privileged to attend the Willamsburg conference last January and FWW's
involvement added a great deal to the quality of the program. IMO, Mack
Headley and his brother were the stars of the conference. I will tell you
that my presence there was like a jack-ass running in the Kentucky Derby.
:-)
--
Lowell Holmes
With today's computerized vehicles is it even POSSIBLE for a shade tree
mechanic to repair the Queen Family Truckster? It takes a Computer
Science degree to work on current models.
The Glory Days of Detroit Iron is long past...so many sedans look alike
that I don't know the brand until I'm close enough to read the name
plate. Mediocrity of design is the current trend. The models that buck
the trend are just plain butt-ugly like the Element, Aztek...
Dave
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> As for Pop. Science, I'm still trying to figure out why they quit
> running Gus's Garage.
>
I'm a relative newbie in woodworking, so I don't know the history of FWW.
However, I will say that it is my choice, by far, of any of the publications
currently in print, regardless of whether it has slipped a notch.
I'm an aviation enthusiast and subscribe to a publication called "Sport
Aviation". 10 years ago, I thought every article was fascinating. However,
120 issues later, I don't see nearly as many interesting articles. Why?
The writing and focus have changed some, so that's part of it. However, the
biggest thing is that there are only so many articles that can be written
about the core of the subject without duplicating material. That leaves the
magazine to either publish redundant articles or publish articles that are
so out of the mainstream that they don't interest anyone.
Its a heck of a problem to have...
<snip>
<more snippage>
>
> When you are an accomplished woodworker (as yourself and
> others with like ability who hang out on the wreck) it must
> get a little "old" to hear the same stuff repeated over and over.
>
> Some of can't have it repeated often enough, and actually learn
> from the repitition.
>
> Is there another better magazine out there?
Yes, maybe. "Woodwork". Like FWW, it can be spotty - some issues
fascinating, others not, but it is at least as consistent as FWW and
features artists and craftspeople each issue. Much less "how-to" and
more visual inspiration.
Rick
"Roy Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> The Element, on the other hand, I kind of like.
There is nothing new about the Element. When I was in grade school
(1957ish). some of us kids built a push car from some sheets of plywood and
a box from a refrigerator. It was about as stylish as the Element. Come to
think of it, it had about the same performance downhill. Add the Scion to
the list of motorized boxes too. They may be practical, but you won't see
me sitting in one.
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
...
> Sadly, FWW lost its way.
...
Hi Tom,
I'm sure FWW could be better, and I'll accept your word that it's not as
good as it used to be. Still, FWW is still the only magazine I look
forward to finding in the mailbox. There's always a good inspiration
there; projects that are on the more unique and challenging side.
Of course I have yet to see a pukey duck plan in FWW. ;-P
Cheers,
Nate
Rick Stein <[email protected]> wrote in news:SvKte.283$Lj2.35
@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
> <snip>
>
> <more snippage>
>>
>> When you are an accomplished woodworker (as yourself and
>> others with like ability who hang out on the wreck) it must
>> get a little "old" to hear the same stuff repeated over and over.
>>
>> Some of can't have it repeated often enough, and actually learn
>> from the repitition.
>>
>> Is there another better magazine out there?
>
> Yes, maybe. "Woodwork". Like FWW, it can be spotty - some issues
> fascinating, others not, but it is at least as consistent as FWW and
> features artists and craftspeople each issue. Much less "how-to" and
> more visual inspiration.
>
> Rick
>
>
I agree with Rick. Woodwork is consistently better than FWW these days,
at least for my tastes.
Having been given the 'black & white' years of FWW by a good friend, I
read them all. There are nuggets there, and they were groundbreaking
for their time. But stacked up against the current fare, I think it
inaccurate to say that they are head and shoulders above the new
material.
George Frank's articles on finishing techniques were, for example, for
me, far less interesting than most of what Jeff Jewitt or Terri Masachi
have written.
The profiles on masters in our craft, however, have always been
excellent. That's one of the features I enjoy most about Woodwork.
Patriarch
[email protected] wrote in news:1119389974.073235.225370
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> I agree that it is not as it was when I started reading it some 30
> years ago (and I am only 39). One of the things that I had heard is
> that they sold out to Time Warner if that is true all that you have
> said makes sense.
http://www.taunton.com/thetauntonpress/our_culture.asp
I don't think they belong to Time Warner...
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
>>I agree with Rick. Woodwork is consistently better than FWW these
>>days, at least for my tastes.
>>
>>Having been given the 'black & white' years of FWW by a good friend, I
>>read them all. There are nuggets there, and they were groundbreaking
>>for their time. But stacked up against the current fare, I think it
>>inaccurate to say that they are head and shoulders above the new
>>material.
>>
>
> I think you've hit on the main issue here Patriarch. You came at
> the
> original FWW's from the perspective of someone with a number of years
> of experience and probably got a good bit of your initial knowledge
> from the more recent magazines (I'm speculating here, but infer that
> from your comments above). Thus, you saw the information in those
> magazines as somewhat mundane relative to what you already knew. I
> would further speculate that people like Tom Watson and others were
> earlier in their careers and thus saw what was in FWW then as new
> material back then. As their skills grew, the material in FWW become
> repetitious or more mundane, because by that time, they had their own
> experience base and prior education from the earlier volumes from
> which to draw.
>
Well, Tom has HAD a 30 year woodworking career. I have had but a 5 year
hobby, after banging on carpentry and home improvement project in my spare
time, from my electronics-based career. Tom learned and did, multiple
times over, as did many wReckers. I learned and did few, smaller, more
accessible projects.
When Tom was building beautiful homes, furniture and cabinetry, I was
trying to get networks to talk, and people to stop screwing them up. We
decided, my wife and I, at the beginning, to put the artistic pursuits on
hold until after the kids grew up. We both knew of far too many starving
artists, including a few Mendocino County woodworkers.
I appreciate those who teach, demonstrate, inspire and answer questions.
Here and elsewhere. I also enjoy getting out in the shop, and making
beautiful stuff. This week, however, seems to have been about making
'interesting firewood' at the lathe, as I try to pick up some skill at bowl
turning.
Patriarch
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
<snip>
>>
>>Well, Tom has HAD a 30 year woodworking career. I have had but a 5
>>year hobby, after banging on carpentry and home improvement project in
>>my spare time, from my electronics-based career. Tom learned and did,
>>multiple times over, as did many wReckers. I learned and did few,
>>smaller, more accessible projects.
>>
>>When Tom was building beautiful homes, furniture and cabinetry, I was
>>trying to get networks to talk, and people to stop screwing them up.
>>We decided, my wife and I, at the beginning, to put the artistic
>>pursuits on hold until after the kids grew up. We both knew of far
>>too many starving artists, including a few Mendocino County
>>woodworkers.
>>
>>I appreciate those who teach, demonstrate, inspire and answer
>>questions. Here and elsewhere. I also enjoy getting out in the shop,
>>and making beautiful stuff. This week, however, seems to have been
>>about making 'interesting firewood' at the lathe, as I try to pick up
>>some skill at bowl turning.
>>
>>Patriarch
>
> Don't misunderstand what I was saying; I meant absolutely no
> criticism of
> Tom or others of his skill level and experience. My only point was
> that, given his skill level, it is not surprising that current FWW
> seems mundane now; he has aquired many of the skills that FWW has to
> offer. As an analogous situation, think about your skill level in
> networking; think about the technical magazines you most likely poured
> through when you were first building your career and knowledge. Now,
> think about how much of those magazines are of value to you now --
> probably a few select articles that highlight either current trends or
> some new technology breakthroughs -- you've got the basics down, it's
> the new things that are going to make you take notice. It doesn't mean
> we stop learning, it just means we get a lot more selective.
>
I understood what you were saying, and agree(d) with you completely. I
simply took the opportunity to express gratitude that the information,
experience and knowledge is accessible to me, and others like me, who
didn't start this when we were 18 years old, under the direction of a
grizzled master.
We get the condensed versions, and get to learn from other folks'
experience. That wasn't the case in networking...
Patriarch
>>2. Much of current design is driven by fuel-driven aerodynamics and
>>the same physical forms have similar performance...
>>
>
> But whyizzit that when the "used bar of soap" style was introduced
> 10+
> odd years ago, the same argument was made for those shapes as you are
> now making regarding the straight lines?
>
Stealth?
Patriarch,
thinking of the F-117?
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> Sadly, FWW lost its way.
Really?
From what perspective are you standing when you look over at FWW on it's
journey and say "Hey you! You're going the wrong way!"
Maybe you're the one moving away?
Like Albert said: "It's all relative and depends on your frame of
reference!"
Is this in response to the latest issue, Tom? I found this last one to be
much better than some of the other recent ones. I don't ever expect 100% of
the content of these magazines to pique my interest, as there are too many
varying degrees of abilities/experience in the readership. Basically, I
hope to learn a few things and see some projects/tools that I find
interesting.
This almost always happens for me with FWW, and more so than most other
publications of late. Popular Woodworking is by far my favorite at present,
however, but FWW is still very good, IMO.
This last issue had a good hand tool primer for those of us like myself that
could use a few reminders on how to teach oneself the basics of these
methods, and hopefully train our muscles to do these tasks more accurately.
I liked the coffee table design, although haven't read the article yet - but
added it to my database of possible future projects. And I even found the
comparison of different wipe-on finishes to be interesting. And that taper
jig was a new design for me, and one that I feel could really improve the
safety and ease of that particular task for me.
The only article I thought was quite a bit unneccessary was the mortising
machine review - nothing new that I could see there that hasn't already been
written quite recently.
On the whole, though, for myself (being of extremely less skill than you and
your peers, and much less time under my belt in this craft) FWW is still
doing a great job.
Just my $0.25-0.23
Mike
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:18:39 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mr. Roman has gone on to create "Fine Homebuilding", "Threads", "Fine
>Gardening", "Fine Cooking" and, his most recent concoction - "Inspired
>Home".
Don't forget the short-lived "Fine Furniture" too. I miss that.
What does FWW cost to you locally ? How do you regard this as value?
I wince when I buy it (currently $12 local price), but at least my
toolshop always apologises for it!
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:09:51 -0400, "George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
... snip
>
>As to the Fiesta, I wish I had been able to get parts for mine beyond his
>eighth year. Forty MPG, jump like a scalded cat when you punched it, and a
>good snow runner. Definitely not a rice-burner, it was one of those cars
>like the Focus that started in Europe, but a bit more successful than the
>Opel.....
>
Oops, you're right, should have remembered that; before we got married,
my wife had a Fiesta. She liked it until stuff just kept breaking, IIRC,
it was a German vehicle.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:57:14 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:
>How about Furniture & Cabinetmaking, published in England? I subscribe
>(not cheap), and think it's an excellent mag.
>
> -- Andy Barss
A good magazine, and I do buy it occasionally. But I'm not much into
cabinetmaking since I retired through ill-health - a bit or
woodturning and scrollwork is usually my limit these days. I haven't
done any proper cabinet work in many years - just don't care to start
what I may not be able to finish - though I did manage a pretty nice
(if I do say so myself) pendulum cradle for my new grandson last year,
if that counts. And with a new face in the family, there'll probably
be some toys in the offing.
My late father was a cabinetmaker by trade - I inherited his
enthusiasm, if not all of his skill. But that doesn't stop me from
buying FW ... and occasionally Furniture & Cabinetmaking ... and The
Woodworker ... and Traditional Woodworking ... and a few others, if
only to dream about what I might make next! I sometimes feel as
though it's all dreaming, until the wife points out all the stuff
around the house I've made over the years.
I don't have a subscription to anything - I'd far rather inspect
magazines on the shelf and buy carefully - though shrink-wrapping is
making that increasingly difficult.
I claimed I rarely threw a copy of FW away. That was a bit of a
cheat. I never throw ANY woodworking magazine away - her indoors plays
hell about the growing mountain. Not to mention enough books to
beggar a public library.
I leaf through them all regularly - on the days I'm not fit for the
workshop I can at least fantasise about it! And - even with stuff
I've read 100 times - I nearly always come up with something 'new'.
Or perhaps just something my farty old brain had forgotten. But what
the hell - whatever works. Anything's better than daytime TV!
John
Rob wrote:
> The title "Fine WoodWorking" implies a lot to me. It says the content
> of this publication is targetting an audience which considers itself
> beyond the beginner stage. The reader fancies him/herself as having
> learnt the basics of the trade and is now ready to hone their skills
> to the next level, to move from apprentice level to master level. So,
> what are beginner articles doing in this magazine, one may ask?
To attract beginners, obviously. And those beginners enjoy the more
advanced articles at least as much as the pros do. In fact, we tend to
save the issues, with the hope of eventually getting up to the skill
level required for a really fine piece of work.
I would be interested in knowing how one might determine whether an
article is for a beginner or not. For example, a piece on hand planes
and scrapers is good for even the _pros_ who don't use these tools very
often.
John <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:18:39 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
: wrote:
:>When I met my first copy of FWW on a shelf at the local porn
:>purveyor's venue, I was astounded.
:>(snip)
: Count your blessings. Here in the UK (or at least in my part of it -
: Southern Scotland) FW is just never seen on newsagents' stands, and a
: subscription has always been beyond my pocket. But I pick up copies
: here and there and have never thrown one away. Like you, I prefer the
: older issues, but I have to admit I've never discarded an issue, old
: or new.
: The major woodworking magazine here is 'The Woodworker' which has been
: around for a century. It rather lost its way in the 70s, moving
: towards arty-farty craft/design rather than pure woodwork. It's
: recovered since, but still tends - like most UK woodwork magazines -
: towards 'what to buy' rather than 'what and how to make'. In fact,
: with most UK woodworking magazines over the last few years, the
: dumbing down has become noticeable. Many articles are little more
: than extended adverts.
How about Furniture & Cabinetmaking, published in England? I subscribe
(not cheap), and think it's an excellent mag.
-- Andy Barss
In article <[email protected]>,
"George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Roy Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > I like the Scientific American format. They start an article describing
> > > a discovery/event/etc. in a language most people can understand... as
> > > you read on, they change gears and become more specific to the point
> > > where they lose a certain group of readers...just to switch gears again
> > > and then REALLY get technical..they throw equations around which look
> > > like they're multiplying verbs.
> >
> > Interesting. I used to read SciAm 20 years ago and loved it. Now it's
> > (IMHO) total junk. Did the magazine change or did I?
>
> It's become more of a social "science" publication than I care to read.
> Like any academic can't suggest ways to spend other peoples' money in some
> other forum? Editorial staff changed ~5 years ago, and printed a statement
> of purpose to present opinion and advocacy articles. Sawardee khrap.
Tofu-sucking tree-huggers, I dare say...
In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
[severe snippage of yet another astute observation]
The growth of FWW has been 'sideways' over the years.
Once in a blue moon, the magazine shows a glimmer of its past.
It's like meeting up with an old girlfriend who has let herself go....
still has that 'look' that was so appealing years ago...but now only
shows itself between beers # 6 and # 10.
But unlike that chance encounter with that old love, this one invades my
house via a subscription. I read it when it shows up, but only because I
paid for it.
Seldom will I revisit an issue once I have scanned it for something that
could have given me a woody.
Rolling Stone has changed a lot too, but it had to in order to stay
abreast of the talents it covers. The industry changed, so did their
coverage. That's legit, IMHO.
But FWW can't really attempt to follow that same path. It, instead, has
followed trends it thinks will sell magazines. FWW tries to do the job
of a Consumers Reports and in that capacity, I find it still very
useful...'cept that I wish they'd get into more detail.
I like the Scientific American format. They start an article describing
a discovery/event/etc. in a language most people can understand... as
you read on, they change gears and become more specific to the point
where they lose a certain group of readers...just to switch gears again
and then REALLY get technical..they throw equations around which look
like they're multiplying verbs.
I like that gradual in-depth-getting-deeper approach.
I think FWW should do some of that... aside from a certain Poly being
shiny.. tell us why. They could go in-depth till they lose us...
It's just too frickin' shallow these days.
But it's still a pretty nice production... and I will renew.
FHB has no equal. Period. I find that mag very useful.
But... let's face it... what has really spoiled me has been the LV
catalogues...now THERE's a source for stimulation. Compared to that, FWW
reminds me of a Gephardt speech.
In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> American Pacer? :)
That was supposed to be a knock-off from the Jensen Interceptor.
They missed.
A local shop let me use one for a couple of days while they worked on my
car. It was a trade-in. I can see why. Not only was it plug-ugly, it was
downright shoddy and dangerous. I mean.. brake fade in town???? After
two stops from 30 KPH????
In article <[email protected]>,
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote:
> No article in that magazine, but that big Chevy will outstop 99.97% of
> its contemporaries. No in town brake fade there.
It still baffles me why it took as long as it did for the North American
cars to adopt disc-brakes.
The advantage in unsprung weight alone!!
BTW.. I did see a conversion from drum-to-disc where the entire disc
unit was hidden inside a phoney lightweight drum. Looked very
convincing.
In article <[email protected]>,
Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Frankly, he has lost my interest, in direct proportion to his apparent
> loss of interest in his initial progeny, "Fine Woodworking" - which,
> also frankly, is open to parody, although I have not yet seen it done,
> but which I may undertake myself - along with some help from my fellow
> Wreckers.
>
> "The Ultimate Blurfl", anyone?
The word Parody just made me sit up straight.
So did "The Ultimate Blurfl"
Please expand?
In article <[email protected]>,
Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
> The famous Citroen 2CV (is
> it known in America also as a "Duck"?)
Ugly duckling...
Did you know why the outside door handles were so small?
So they wouldn't scrape on the road while making a turn.
In article <[email protected]>,
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:19:56 GMT, the opaque
> [email protected] (Lawrence Wasserman) spake:
>
> >My oh my, first the rec has gone downhill, now FWW. What will be next?
>
> Television? <bseg>
>
The neighbourhood?
In article <[email protected]>,
Roy Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I like the Scientific American format. They start an article describing
> > a discovery/event/etc. in a language most people can understand... as
> > you read on, they change gears and become more specific to the point
> > where they lose a certain group of readers...just to switch gears again
> > and then REALLY get technical..they throw equations around which look
> > like they're multiplying verbs.
>
> Interesting. I used to read SciAm 20 years ago and loved it. Now it's
> (IMHO) total junk. Did the magazine change or did I?
I have no idea where they're at these days, Roy. I liked the format, but
the content is beyond me... stuff like nano-tubes. Unless I can make
those into a panel saw, I couldn't care less. *G*
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 10:28:38 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>...
>> What amazes me is how similar the "new" models are. Looking at the
>> straight lines of a Ford F-150 for example, then look how both GM and Dodge
>> have similar straight lines, moving away from the curved lines of the last
>> decade. Since these models have been in development for the last three
>> years, how is it possible that they all come out with similar style changes
>> at the same time?
>...
>
>1. Industrial espionage... :) They're all looking at the competition
>(foreign and domestic) <very> carefully...
>
... agree with this possibility
>2. Much of current design is driven by fuel-driven aerodynamics and the
>same physical forms have similar performance...
>
But whyizzit that when the "used bar of soap" style was introduced 10+
odd years ago, the same argument was made for those shapes as you are now
making regarding the straight lines?
>3. Competition--If a particular different body style resonates (think
>the early Dodge Ram bulk), it will soon be copied...
... agree with this also.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Grant P. Beagles" > wrote >
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:19:56 GMT, the opaque
>> [email protected] (Lawrence Wasserman) spake:
>>
>> >My oh my, first the rec has gone downhill, now FWW. What will be next?
>>
>> Television? <bseg>
>>
>
> ROTFLMO! It won't be too long before the only way for TV will be up!
>
You mean there will be life after "reality" television??
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 02:36:20 GMT, "Michael Gresham"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Moving sidewalks! I'm been waiting 40 years for the flying car they
>promised would be in every garage.
50 years ago, as a 10-year-old living in NE England, I thrilled to
promises in the 'Eagle' comic that by the turn of the century, we'd
all be flying around with wee helicopter back-packs.
Mine hasn't come yet. Think I ought to ask for my postal order back?
Actually - seeing how most of my neighbours drive a motor car,
possibly just as well they aren't airborne <G>.....
John
My oh my, first the rec has gone downhill, now FWW. What will be next?
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
"Fly-by-Night CC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <200620051900000027%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> I've mentioned this before: The article that I view as the "Jumping the
> Shark" moment was #144s "Tying Down Lumber." Not long after that issue I
> discovered Woodwork and have been happy with it since. (I had both
> subscriptions simultaneously for about 4 years - so I did give FWW a
> number of chances after they jumped the shark). In my note to FWW about
> my not renewing I commented on how Woodwork was addressing much more
> than the how-to and this vs. that of FWWs recent past. Never heard a
> word from them.
>
> (BTW, #160 carries evidence of the $35 I received from Taunton.)
> --
> Owen Lowe
> The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
> __________
>
> "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
> Corporate States of America and to the
> Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
> under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
> and justice for oil."
> - Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
I had both subscriptions for about the same length of time. I gave away the
Woodwork magazines and dropped their subscription. :-) Different strokes
for different folks.
I'm more interested in 18th century furniture than I am art'sy projects.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:19:56 GMT, the opaque
[email protected] (Lawrence Wasserman) spake:
>My oh my, first the rec has gone downhill, now FWW. What will be next?
Television? <bseg>
--------------------------------------------
-- I'm in touch with my Inner Curmudgeon. --
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
============================================================
"Kyle Boatright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
snip
> I'm an aviation enthusiast and subscribe to a publication called "Sport
> Aviation". 10 years ago, I thought every article was fascinating.
> However, 120 issues later, I don't see nearly as many interesting
> articles. Why?
snip
Agreed. I've been homebrewing for 10 years, making splinters & firewood for
5. Early in my homebrewing life I wore out copies and subscriptions to
"Brew Your Own". I thought it great to even be in existence, and then,
after reading them for years I got tired, and worse, resentful of them. The
articles and recipes on "how to clone your favorite store beer" or whatever
were unbelievable. The BYO magazine was particularly insipid in it's
publishing letters from readers about how great the magazine was; I can't
remember a single correction or "We messed up" type message from the editor.
I let my subscription lapse. Now when I pick one up on my rare jaunt to the
bookstore I think "Damn this magazine is still the same!..yawn".
To be honest, though, I haven't had a magazine I've felt like was worth the
$4.50/$5/$6/$7! in a long time. Al east we have the Internet, and these
forums where information is passed so much more readily, and subject to
criticism without all the inane advertising for the next geewhillickers
thingamajigee!
Cheers!
Duke
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:37:37 -0400, Roy Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I like the Scientific American format. They start an article describing
>> a discovery/event/etc. in a language most people can understand... as
>> you read on, they change gears and become more specific to the point
>> where they lose a certain group of readers...just to switch gears again
>> and then REALLY get technical..they throw equations around which look
>> like they're multiplying verbs.
>
>Interesting. I used to read SciAm 20 years ago and loved it. Now it's
>(IMHO) total junk. Did the magazine change or did I?
The magazine changed. I subscribed to it about the same time ago (and
read it even before then in high school and college on occasion), the
articles then were exactly as the title described, "scientific", most of
the articles (at least the ones that always caught my eye) were heavily
weighted to the hard sciences: physics and chemistry. I quit subscribing
as I noticed the "science" starting to decline and the articles becoming
more slanted toward particular agendas to the point that the magazine could
be more correctly described as "Politically Correct American". The content
of the articles started changing as well, moving away from the hard
sciences towards psychology, political science, meteorology, and other
sciences for which one's conclusions could be supported by the appropriate
application of the proper statistical techniques to a favored set of data.
There were, of course, still a few articles geared to the earlier fare, but
they were becoming too few to be worth subscribing. It's been 15 years or
more since I've read it; it may have changed again, just haven't the time
to find out.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:18:39 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>When I met my first copy of FWW on a shelf at the local porn
>purveyor's venue, I was astounded.
>(snip)
Count your blessings. Here in the UK (or at least in my part of it -
Southern Scotland) FW is just never seen on newsagents' stands, and a
subscription has always been beyond my pocket. But I pick up copies
here and there and have never thrown one away. Like you, I prefer the
older issues, but I have to admit I've never discarded an issue, old
or new.
The major woodworking magazine here is 'The Woodworker' which has been
around for a century. It rather lost its way in the 70s, moving
towards arty-farty craft/design rather than pure woodwork. It's
recovered since, but still tends - like most UK woodwork magazines -
towards 'what to buy' rather than 'what and how to make'. In fact,
with most UK woodworking magazines over the last few years, the
dumbing down has become noticeable. Many articles are little more
than extended adverts.
US magazines have always been available here to a varying extent,
depending on where you lived. It has to be said that before FW, they
were largely regarded as a joke, and by reflection US woodworking in
general. For decades, designs seemed stuck in a 1950 timewarp, where
your average American (is there such a thing?) automatically enjoyed a
basement full of machine tools that would have beggared many
commercial workshops in the UK. If that perception was untrue, it was
certainly the impression given.
Then came FW - and it transpired that not only did Americans do some
seriously fine woodwork - they has as great and as long a tradition as
anyone else, even in design. Of course it had always been thus - but
it took FW to show it to others. Even the readers' letters were a cut
above. No more prizes for handy household hints like how to hold a
nail while hammering. Now we had serious discussion of serious
woodworking techniques and problems.
Though I've never been able to afford a FW magazine subscription, over
the years I've have bought as many of the Fine Woodworking Techniques
volumes as I could afford, and a few of the Design Books, and IMHO no
finer general woodworking books exist. I've just about read the print
off them. And, whether buying in a bookshop or these days from
Amazon, etc - the FW stamp on a book is often enough for me - I've
rarely been disappointed.
Just a few years ago, I was asked to take part in a UK survey of
woodworkers and the books and magazines they read. I pointed out to
the publisher of a whole range of woodworking magazines that I bought
his publications for the same reason (IMHO) that many 1000s of others
did - because we couldn't afford FW! I wasn't asked to contribute
again.
Whatever its current problems, FW still stands head and shoulders
above the rest. Just IMHO of course.
John
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:37:37 -0400, Roy Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>Interesting. I used to read SciAm 20 years ago and loved it. Now it's
>(IMHO) total junk. Did the magazine change or did I?
It changed twice in recent years. First one was a visual makeover and
they managed to preserve the quality. Second time definitely dumbed it
down. Some real muppets as celebrity columnists didn't help either.
After a sub for about 25 years, I no longer read it. I've switched to
American Scientist, which is everything SciAm ought to and used to be.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 00:40:55 -0500, Patriarch
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
><snip>
>>>I agree with Rick. Woodwork is consistently better than FWW these
>>>days, at least for my tastes.
>>>
>>>Having been given the 'black & white' years of FWW by a good friend, I
>>>read them all. There are nuggets there, and they were groundbreaking
>>>for their time. But stacked up against the current fare, I think it
>>>inaccurate to say that they are head and shoulders above the new
>>>material.
>>>
>>
>> I think you've hit on the main issue here Patriarch. You came at
>> the
>> original FWW's from the perspective of someone with a number of years
>> of experience and probably got a good bit of your initial knowledge
>> from the more recent magazines (I'm speculating here, but infer that
>> from your comments above). Thus, you saw the information in those
>> magazines as somewhat mundane relative to what you already knew. I
>> would further speculate that people like Tom Watson and others were
>> earlier in their careers and thus saw what was in FWW then as new
>> material back then. As their skills grew, the material in FWW become
>> repetitious or more mundane, because by that time, they had their own
>> experience base and prior education from the earlier volumes from
>> which to draw.
>>
>
>Well, Tom has HAD a 30 year woodworking career. I have had but a 5 year
>hobby, after banging on carpentry and home improvement project in my spare
>time, from my electronics-based career. Tom learned and did, multiple
>times over, as did many wReckers. I learned and did few, smaller, more
>accessible projects.
>
>When Tom was building beautiful homes, furniture and cabinetry, I was
>trying to get networks to talk, and people to stop screwing them up. We
>decided, my wife and I, at the beginning, to put the artistic pursuits on
>hold until after the kids grew up. We both knew of far too many starving
>artists, including a few Mendocino County woodworkers.
>
>I appreciate those who teach, demonstrate, inspire and answer questions.
>Here and elsewhere. I also enjoy getting out in the shop, and making
>beautiful stuff. This week, however, seems to have been about making
>'interesting firewood' at the lathe, as I try to pick up some skill at bowl
>turning.
>
>Patriarch
Don't misunderstand what I was saying; I meant absolutely no criticism of
Tom or others of his skill level and experience. My only point was that,
given his skill level, it is not surprising that current FWW seems mundane
now; he has aquired many of the skills that FWW has to offer. As an
analogous situation, think about your skill level in networking; think
about the technical magazines you most likely poured through when you were
first building your career and knowledge. Now, think about how much of
those magazines are of value to you now -- probably a few select articles
that highlight either current trends or some new technology breakthroughs
-- you've got the basics down, it's the new things that are going to make
you take notice. It doesn't mean we stop learning, it just means we get a
lot more selective.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:37:24 +0100, Andy Dingley <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:18:39 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Mr. Roman has gone on to create "Fine Homebuilding", "Threads", "Fine
>>Gardening", "Fine Cooking" and, his most recent concoction - "Inspired
>>Home".
>
>Don't forget the short-lived "Fine Furniture" too. I miss that.
>
Have every issue of that published. That was a fine magazine and
contained many inspirational articles.
>What does FWW cost to you locally ? How do you regard this as value?
>I wince when I buy it (currently $12 local price), but at least my
>toolshop always apologises for it!
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:18:39 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>When I met my first copy of FWW on a shelf at the local porn
>purveyor's venue, I was astounded.
>
>Its black and white art house look and the articles contained within,
>done by craftsmen already accepted as masters in their field, grabbed
>hold of me because - these people were speaking my language.
>
>I was transfixed.
>
>If you look at the staff and consulting listings for the first ten
>years - it described many of the names that have become famous in our
>area of interest.
>
>It was not a pure "How To" magazine, it explored theories and ideas
>that related to woodworking.
>
>
>Sadly, FWW lost its way.
>
>Over time it succumbed to the seduction of a market beyond that of its
>initiation.
>
>Its ad ratio became less favorable than before, it included more "How
>To" articles at a simplistic level. It went to color.
>
>The magazine really hasn't interested me much for the last ten years.
>
>I buy it reflexively, as I have done from the first issue.
>
>But they have lost their way.
>Frankly, he has lost my interest, in direct proportion to his apparent
>loss of interest in his initial progeny, "Fine Woodworking" - which,
>also frankly, is open to parody, although I have not yet seen it done,
>but which I may undertake myself - along with some help from my fellow
>Wreckers.
>
>"The Ultimate Blurfl", anyone?
>
>
>Tom Watson - WoodDorker
>tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
>http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)
How much of your or anyone's loss of interest is due to your own
personal increase in skill and focus on a specific aspect of
woodworking?
How many articles on any particular thing can you read before you say
"I've seen and done this before" There seems to be only so much that
can be done on a particular project before one experienced in the
craft becomes bored.
IMO, not every issue bowls me over immediately, but every issue does
eventually become of interest as I search for some inspiration or some
instruction/opinion on something.
Yeah, FWW may drift from time to time. This thread is evidence of
that. I seem to recall a similar litany of complaint a few years ago.
FWW will publish more and better issues, they'll publish weak issues.
Even so, how much is really going to be new to those well versed in
the craft?
Still, FWW could try harder. There's plenty of advanced work going
on. If its a matter of communicating that work, perhaps a ghost
writer could handle the prose after looking over the shoulder of the
master.
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:32:25 -0500, Patriarch
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Rick Stein <[email protected]> wrote in news:SvKte.283$Lj2.35
>@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> <more snippage>
>>>
>>> When you are an accomplished woodworker (as yourself and
>>> others with like ability who hang out on the wreck) it must
>>> get a little "old" to hear the same stuff repeated over and over.
>>>
>>> Some of can't have it repeated often enough, and actually learn
>>> from the repitition.
>>>
>>> Is there another better magazine out there?
>>
>> Yes, maybe. "Woodwork". Like FWW, it can be spotty - some issues
>> fascinating, others not, but it is at least as consistent as FWW and
>> features artists and craftspeople each issue. Much less "how-to" and
>> more visual inspiration.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>>
>
>I agree with Rick. Woodwork is consistently better than FWW these days,
>at least for my tastes.
>
>Having been given the 'black & white' years of FWW by a good friend, I
>read them all. There are nuggets there, and they were groundbreaking
>for their time. But stacked up against the current fare, I think it
>inaccurate to say that they are head and shoulders above the new
>material.
>
I think you've hit on the main issue here Patriarch. You came at the
original FWW's from the perspective of someone with a number of years of
experience and probably got a good bit of your initial knowledge from the
more recent magazines (I'm speculating here, but infer that from your
comments above). Thus, you saw the information in those magazines as
somewhat mundane relative to what you already knew. I would further
speculate that people like Tom Watson and others were earlier in their
careers and thus saw what was in FWW then as new material back then. As
their skills grew, the material in FWW become repetitious or more mundane,
because by that time, they had their own experience base and prior
education from the earlier volumes from which to draw.
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Tom,
I agree with you whole heartedly. I began FWW at Issue 56 and have
continued all these years to faithfully to renew my subscription. I
delved into Fine Gardening, Fine Home Building and Inspired Home for a
few issues but quickly lost interest in the calibre of articles being
accepted by these magazines.
FWW does have a gem per issue IMO but, in the past five years, those
gems are getting harder to find amongst the plethora of ads and
second-rate articles. FWW tends to dwell on certain woodworking
subjects and rarely looks at other aspects of a
hobby-for-some/career-choice-for-others. It seems FWW repeats article
themes every 14 months or so. For example, there must be a dozen
articles on how to build a desk or bed or chair, how to route a tenon,
how to finish with rubbed oil and varnish, how to build a table saw
sled, and so on. FWW will not touch on articles about carving for
example. Or marquetry. Or design theory. Or intricate lathe work.
Maybe there is a lack of modern high calibre authors to replace the
earlier masters. To write for a magazine such as FWW requires of the
author not only aptitude in their chosen field but also the ability to
concisely and clearly communicate that knowledge to a large audience
of varying skill and interest. Maybe master woodworkers spend most of
their time creating art and little time passing on their hard earned
knowledge.
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:18:39 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Sadly, FWW lost its way.
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Don't forget the short-lived "Fine Furniture" too. I miss that.
It was actually called "Home Furniture" and I subscribed from #8 through
#14 when they transferred the remainder of my subscription to FWW. It
was a fine magazine for its short run.
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
In article <200620051900000027%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> I hadn't thought about it, Tom, but their renewal notice remains
> unopened on my desk.
>
> My subscription has currently lapsed, and I'm not certain I'll renew.
> For a publisher, that's a problem, as we/they make little from single
> copy sales compared to the subscription which typically pays the cost
> of printing and mailing the piece.
>
> I managed to obtain a number of those early B&W issues a couple of
> years ago, and while I disagree with you that the move to color was a
> problem I do lean t'ward agreeing with you about content.
I allowed my subscription to lapse last fall after subscribing from #117
to #172 - and even sent a note as to why I wasn't renewing. In my
opinion they've become too Borg-ish with ho-hum tool comparisons that
are riddled with inaccurate testing methods as well as losing the
artistic slant and the variety of woodworking interests they covered in
the B&W days. I covet my B&Ws - many of the articles are still
inspirational.
I've mentioned this before: The article that I view as the "Jumping the
Shark" moment was #144s "Tying Down Lumber." Not long after that issue I
discovered Woodwork and have been happy with it since. (I had both
subscriptions simultaneously for about 4 years - so I did give FWW a
number of chances after they jumped the shark). In my note to FWW about
my not renewing I commented on how Woodwork was addressing much more
than the how-to and this vs. that of FWWs recent past. Never heard a
word from them.
(BTW, #160 carries evidence of the $35 I received from Taunton.)
--
Owen Lowe
The Fly-by-Night Copper Company
__________
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
Corporate States of America and to the
Republicans for which it stands, one nation,
under debt, easily divisible, with liberty
and justice for oil."
- Wiley Miller, Non Sequitur, 1/24/05
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:18:39 -0400, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snippage]
Finally something I can be proud of, even if it isn't any kind of
accomplishment.
I first subscribed to FWW somewhere around 1976 or '77; I don't recall
precisely. I do remember getting a solicitation for the premiere issue
before they started publication and passed on it. Don't ask me why.
Probably because I just generally do ignore offers like that.
I didn't see a copy until a couple of years later when someone at work
had all the issues to date on the midnight shift. I fairly gorged
myself on them, copied down the pertinent address and the next day
wrote a letter and a check to start my subscription. I've been a
faithful subscriber since. I even bought all the back issues, so I
have every single one of them (I just pulled out my Winter, 1975
issue--Checkered Bowls--to leaf through when I finish posting this)
I remember all the names, all the articles (not "remember" to the
extent of recall, but experienced them). I got my router table
philosophy from Tage Frid. I figured out that James Krenov makes nice
cabinets but they're not my style. Sam Maloof makes nice chairs, but
they're really not my style. Regardless of taste, however, I've never
not enjoyed looking through a Fine Woodworking. Even fine work with
nails pounded in.
I've been pissed at them a couple of times. Their review of chisels
was the worst article I have seen to date (I haven't seen the
finishing one yet). The router bit review was another fiasco, in my
view, although interestingly, Carlo Vendetti, owner of Jesada, which
took a real beating in the review, got out of the business within a
couple of years after that and the company quickly went in the tank.
Makes me wonder if the review wasn't more accurate than I thought.
But I'm not a subscription canceller (there's a whole type of person
that the name describes). If I like a magazine, I'm pretty much "in
for a penny, in for a pound." I have life subscriptions to at least
four that I can think of, and if FWW had had an option in the '70s I'd
have been all over it.
I don't really think about "now vs then." I just like going through
the magazine. So long as it doesn't start printing on recycled paper,
I'm going to stick it out. As someone said, it's still the best
around.
--
LRod
Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite
Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999
http://www.woodbutcher.net
Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:28:37 -0500, Patriarch
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>2. Much of current design is driven by fuel-driven aerodynamics and
>>>the same physical forms have similar performance...
>>>
>>
>> But whyizzit that when the "used bar of soap" style was introduced
>> 10+
>> odd years ago, the same argument was made for those shapes as you are
>> now making regarding the straight lines?
>>
>
>Stealth?
>
:-)
>Patriarch,
>thinking of the F-117?
Except that technology went the other way. Straight lines of the 117
were driven by limits in predictive modeling capability when it was
designed (as well as compute horsepower available). The more rounded (and
thus aerodynamic designs of the B-2 and subsequent stealth technology was
able to leverage the advances in computer capability as well as modeling
capability to achieve the rounded designs.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
> >
> ...
> > I agree with you about the Aztek. Never has an uglier vehicle been put on
> > the road. ...
>
> American Pacer? :)
Yeah, the Pacer was pretty ugly. But the Aztek's got it beat.
David <[email protected]> wrote:
> The Glory Days of Detroit Iron is long past...so many sedans look alike
> that I don't know the brand until I'm close enough to read the name
> plate. Mediocrity of design is the current trend. The models that buck
> the trend are just plain butt-ugly like the Element, Aztek...
I agree with you about the Aztek. Never has an uglier vehicle been put on
the road. There oughta be a law against driving something that ugly. The
Matrix tries hard, but the Aztek's got it beat by a mile.
The Element, on the other hand, I kind of like.
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I like the Scientific American format. They start an article describing
> a discovery/event/etc. in a language most people can understand... as
> you read on, they change gears and become more specific to the point
> where they lose a certain group of readers...just to switch gears again
> and then REALLY get technical..they throw equations around which look
> like they're multiplying verbs.
Interesting. I used to read SciAm 20 years ago and loved it. Now it's
(IMHO) total junk. Did the magazine change or did I?
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:55:09 -0700, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>With today's computerized vehicles is it even POSSIBLE for a shade tree
>mechanic to repair the Queen Family Truckster? It takes a Computer
>Science degree to work on current models.
>
>The Glory Days of Detroit Iron is long past...so many sedans look alike
>that I don't know the brand until I'm close enough to read the name
>plate. Mediocrity of design is the current trend. The models that buck
>the trend are just plain butt-ugly like the Element, Aztek...
>
>Dave
>
Glad I'm not the only one to think that the Element is just plain ugly.
Aztek doesn't look like that much of a departure from other small
rice-burners (kind of a Ford Fiesta with curves).
What amazes me is how similar the "new" models are. Looking at the
straight lines of a Ford F-150 for example, then look how both GM and Dodge
have similar straight lines, moving away from the curved lines of the last
decade. Since these models have been in development for the last three
years, how is it possible that they all come out with similar style changes
at the same time?
>Charlie Self wrote:
>
>
>>
>> As for Pop. Science, I'm still trying to figure out why they quit
>> running Gus's Garage.
>>
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Robatoy <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> It still baffles me why it took as long as it did for the North American
> cars to adopt disc-brakes.
> The advantage in unsprung weight alone!!
A car can have even less unsprung weight: The famous Citroen 2CV (is
it known in America also as a "Duck"?) has the front disc brakes on
the gearbox-side of the cardan shafts, so no brake at the wheel
itself...
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23