NEW LOOK – Model Engineer & Workshop

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Here’s a ‘reality-check’ photo of my Printed magazine for comparison.

[ iPad camera using natural daylight ]

MichaelG.

.

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

Just got my copy of the combined magazine this morning. Obviously a lot of thought has gone into the magazine and I congratulate those responsible’

I gave up on ME many years ago as it seemed to contain interminable model builds over many issues. It outweighed the odd gems (mainly tooling), which interested me. I note with a shudder that the Tandem compound Mill Engine article is now in its 13th part!. Having said that the expanded magazine contains about the number of articles as one would expect in MEW.

I shall see how it goes, not forgetting this is now the only magazine that covers my interests. I am sure that ME and MEW readers will be wondering how the mix will finally settle.

Andrew.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Visually, it’s a little brighter than that ^^^
… but I din”t want to start tweaking the image.

MichaelG.

[JohnFParticipant @johnf59703]

Well my three penn’orth — first glance over lunch it looks good, there seems to be a good mix content, can’t see any problems with the print its fine for me. I’ll have a more in-depth read later — well done team !

John

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Neil. some of the printing looks a bit washed-out, and some more than others, and there are quite a few pages like it. in the two scans below, the MEW 348 page is on the right hand side.

Regards Nick.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

It’s well-packed with interesting articles … Long may it prosper in this new incarnation !

 

At first I was a little surprised to see ‘continuation’ articles … but I suppose that’s entirely reasonable … and their content is of wider interest.

MichaelG.

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

Not got mine yet so please dont spoil the surprise for a few days.

[Stuart Smith 5Participant @stuartsmith5]

I have just got my copy.

My first impression is that the photos are of poor quality.

The cover is good, bright and sharp , but not the inside pages.

Is it just my copy, or do others think the same?

 

Stuart

[Graham TitmanParticipant @grahamtitman81812]

This is a page from Model Engineer may 5-18 1923 and a page from the new issue the printing looks washed out compared to M/E

[Colin HeseltineParticipant @colinheseltine48622]

I find it difficult to read the print compared to Model Engineers Workshop Issue 348.  It appears to be nowhere near as dense and seems to fade into the white.  It also appears to be a fractionally smaller font.  The photos also look a little washed out.  Is It a lightly different quality paper?

Colin

[Graham Titman]

On Graham Titman Said:

This is a page from Model Engineer may 5-18 1923 […]

Really ?

… in colour ??

MichaelG.

[WearyParticipant @weary]

Neill,

Re: Print ‘washed-out’.

Some of the print in my issue appears ‘washed-out’ too.  ‘Nicholas Farr’s’ photo comparison (timed 15:28) above shows the effect well.  I note that he illustrates the effect on the ‘Club News’ pages (70-72 inc.) where the effect is very noticeable in my copy too.  But, the strangest thing is that if one goes to the ‘counter-pages’ 13 – 15 inclusive the print there is fine. So, is this a production issue related to Geoff Theasby’s text perhaps?

Phil

[Chris GunnParticipant @chrisgunn36534]

Plus 1 for washed out print or a very fine print font, the print height seems OK, but the line thickness very fine. The old font did not seem to get any complaints, so why change?

Chris Gunn

[Graham Waterworth 1Participant @grahamwaterworth1]

You have got 16 extra pages free said the Mortons telephone receptionist, how do you come to that I said you have removed 34 pages of MEW and put in 34 pages of ME a magazine I never subscribed to so to my reckoning I have lost 34 – (16/2) = 26 pages for the same price.

I tried to cancel the last 4 issues of my subscription but that is not possible, I have to take the forced change and reduced MEW content.  If I had wanted ME content I would have subscribed to ME.  Not only that its like tying to read tissue paper, its so thin now you can read both sides in one go and don’t get me going on the spelling and grammar mistakes.  The quality has gone.

Mortons have lost a subscriber.

 

[DiogenesParticipant @diogenes]

Notwithstanding the ‘Club News’ line-weight issue, production essentially looks okay to me, the odd typo and the Editor’s regular ‘brain exercise puzzle’ (spot which photographs have had their caption’s swapped around) are old favourites in any case..

– thrilled with the content..

..as far as I’m concerned it’s a win..👍

[Graham TitmanParticipant @grahamtitman81812]

Going by some of the recent articles in MEW it could have been in 1923

[David George 1Participant @davidgeorge1]

Perhaps a bit biased but I like the addition of articles which I wouldn’t have seen as they give another view into how to make tooling for making things and how other things are made with the problems overcome.

PS hope you like my article.

David George

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Sorry to report it’s not working for me.  Or is it?

A print problem causing the font to lose density on many pages is temporary and I can ignore it.

Much more problematic is the content.  My initial reaction was “Model Engineering & Workshop” differs very little from “Model Engineering” magazine as it has been for decades.   Good news for existing customers who want that, but a worry in my opinion.  Nothing to attract new readers on the cover or inside, and workshop goodies are hard to find, over-dominated in my view by traditional ME subjects.   That the new look doesn’t highlight workshop advice annoyed me , but – much worse –  surely lights blazing workshop guidance is needed to appeal to makers.   Went to bed thinking my reaction was flawed, possibly because the last issue of MEW was so good.   Never wise to compare the best old technology can do with it’s brand new replacement.   New is always buggy, taking time to bed in before it outperforms it’s predecessor.

Read it again this morning, and changed my mind!   There is a marked shift toward workshop practice.  Spring Parting Tool, Polyurethane Traction Tyres, Gear Depthing, Drilling and Boring on the lathe, Comsol with a Steam Boiler, Mill Drive Belt Upgrade, superglue, Geometer and Lathe Cross-slide all tick my workshop interest box.    And BR 2-6-0, Hot not to build a locomotive and Tandem Compound Engine have enough practical info to keep me happy.    Turns out I like the rest as well:  I have a soft spot for Club News because Geoff’s dreadful jokes amuse me.   Stationary Steam Engines fits my historic interests, so more of that the merrier, and Harold Hall read well too.

Doesn’t leave much to object too, this is a good issue.  Yet something isn’t right.    What’s missing, I think, is bringing the quality of the content out to potential newcomers.   A maker dipping into the mag could easily miss how valuable the content is.  Picking Tony Bird’s “A Gear Depthing Tool” article as a random example:

• Most people have no idea what gear depthing is.
• I know of Gear Depthing as a Clockmaking tool, and nearly skipped the article, thinking “not new to me and don’t need one”.   Silly me!
• The article addresses a rather different application, mixing Meccano with metalwork as I’ve done in the past, so I read it with considerable interest.  And I like the idea of the Cracker locomotive too.
• Also got me thinking about alternative approaches.  Could this be done better with 2D or 3D CAD, or by writing a computer program?   (The answer is maybe!)

Never mind newcomers, I nearly missed it.  Tony’s type of article is why I subscribed to both MEW and ME:  although MEW was first choice because it clearly focussed on “Workshop”, ME often delivers from another point of view.

Glad I’m not Neil/Diane because although I think I’ve spotted a presentational problem,  I’ve no idea how to fix it other than suggesting splitting into two mags, one called “Model Engineering” and the other “Model Engineering Workshop”.  Not going to happen!

Early days yet.   Can’t wait to see how ME&W develops over the next few years,

Dave

PS Anyone know more about John Steel, he of the wooden leg and death by boiler explosion?

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

Just got mine and. looks good cant see whats wrong with with photo quality they can only print what’s supplied. Nice mix of articles, well done Neil

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I have just made the bold leap from Quarterly Direct Debit ‘MEW Print only’ to Annual Direct Debit ‘ME&W Digital only’

A very helpful young lady at Mortons kindly assisted me in navigating this apparently uncharted path !

Ref. https://www.model-engineer.co.uk/subscribe/

.

Only time, and my Bank Statement will tell …

MichaelG.

[Andrew CrowParticipant @andrewcrow91475]

Got the first copy of my new subscription yesterday,  not quite read it cover to cover yet but seems to have a good mix of articles.

The only thing I’ve noticed is that the paper seems to be a bit lighter weight, (might be an illusion) not a criticism by the way, might keep a bit of the weight down on my shelves.

A good start Neil & Diane, already looking forward to the next one.

Andy.

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

I suppose having gone through the process of registering it all a digital copy may appear in my Pocketmags APP eventually.

I am a digital only subscriber so look forward to seeing the new mag.

[Stuart Smith 5Participant @stuartsmith5]

Having looked again this morning, I think it is only some of the photos that are poor quality. I wonder if these have been cropped from a larger photo and so are a lower resolution. Possibly to show a close up from an overall view.

I am happy with the content so far.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I note, with some mild concern, that the eMail address for the Editor of the ‘New Look’ magazine currently remains: meweditor@mortons.co.uk

Will this be changing … and if so, to what ?

Ampersands are not legitimate in eMail addresses

… Mmm

MichaelG.

.

Edit: __ a little more research shows me it’s more troublesome than I thought !!

https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/16788#:~:text=Also%2C%20an%20ampersand%20is%20a,completely%20different%20e%2Dmail%20address.

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Following MG’s comments a few posts back I checked the paper+digital sub and as I get normally paper the extra is very small especially as I have a saving from losing one mag. Phoned up and helpful lady explained direct debit makes upgrade awkward so I will need to remember to cancel in April before next DD and reapply for the joint offer. I suppose it is reassuring to know DDs can’t be changed and extended too easily. Still got the opportunity to correct my email and found out when my DD actually is – no wonder I couldn’t find it in my statements.

[Author]

Posts