Although only mentioned slightly, I could feel the almost sharp intake of breath when I wrote about cutting up MRJs. What is it about this particular magazine? For a start many of the authors also write similar pieces for RM etc. I'm thinking Messers Forster and Gravett in particular and yet slicing those up isn't viewed as a problem.
Possibly it;'s the numbering. Quite cleverly Gerry Beale went for a number rather than a date stamp. Some of this may have been realising how Rice's copy deadlines could wander, but more likely is that it creates a 'collection' feel. The rare (though I know plenty of people that have them) Number 0 proves this, going for silly money on trade stands. This collection angle is clever because it creates value as opposed to content. I found myself chucking whole magazines and not keeping anything. Why did I buy them? No idea. Why did I keep them? The 'value' angle. This is of course a bit of a con as value is in the eye of the beholder - I'll bet if I try to shift my early copies I'll be tapping my fingers for quite a while and probably get less than the cover price.
As you can see above, the handsome chap holding the classic Greg Dodsworth pose over the layout doesn't buy into the ethos. Sometimes I'll box things in, sometimes mount things high and at odd times I've drifted toward finescale track building. No more.
I do know what the finescale ethos is, but sorry, it feels like The Emperor's New Clothes at times - if you keep making finer and better models people will be impressed and there will be more accolades/interest etc. The old hands will know that this is bollocks and the only single reason for doing this is to satisfy yourself. If you have any other reason, then you are delusional as the vast majority don't care. Sure you may get some clucky noises from the glitterati, but we all know that you a singing into an empty water butt. I know this and almost build things in opposition... because I can.
I can't put up with this 'Fine Scale is the one true religion' nonsense either. I must admit I've only ever bought one copy of MRJ in my life. Sometimes I flick through them in WHS and usually find them boring. Or perhaps it's like the fox and the grapes - I know I can never achieve those standards, so I'm inclined to dis them.
ReplyDeleteIt seems a very 'narrow' way to make 'better' models and I can't see the point of applying finescale standards to a prototype that can be bought off the shelf and which looks reasonable at normal viewing distance. Adding finescale modelling to something that can't be bought off any shelf, as Peter Kazer does with his depictions of rarely modelled railways (Sand Hutton, Ravenglass & Eskdale, Corris, etc.) is another matter and the Gravetts combine finescale with genuine imagination and observation in Pempoul and especially in Arun Quay.
ReplyDeleteFinescale is an engineer's solution to a problem that requires the talents of an artist.
To me 'finescale' means striving for a (personal) high standard rather than accepting other standards. I've had a lifetime's exposure to MRJ since my Grandpa used to collect it and an aspiration to work myself to a higher standard. What I am aiming for is a standard high enough to maintain my interest over the longer term, but low enough to be achievable. I still have a few models from my late teens that would pass muster on a current project, if I chose to build another GWR branchline. I think the hobby is a broad enough church to allow all levels of model making, and I don't think that MRJ deserves to be singled out in a negative manner - but perhaps it doesn't deserve the 'holier than thou' status some heap on it. In the early days it was trying to achieve something that must have resonated with a lot of people, these days I still feel it has a place on the newsstand (although I do wish they'd allow more digital submission of material!).
ReplyDeleteI think you could draw parallels between MRJ and say Backtrack or similar. Mags like RM or Steam Railway generally have a lot more adverts, deal with more contemporary subjects eg layouts in RM using the latest RTR stock etc whereas I feel like an issue of MRJ or Backtrack, Bylines etc from 20 years ago would be just as helpful and informative as a contemporary issue. There is a bit more on "traditional" type techniques that can be quite timeless eg scratch building. I'm not saying there is a right or wrong, but recently I bought two years worth of 80s RMs for a quid as I thought if I got a handful of useful/inspirational articles it would be worth my money. I think I kept two layout articles, a couple of Plans Of the Month and an article on scenery by Gordon Gravett. Perhaps I was just unlucky or I have weird and specialised tastes but that is what happened. Of course that's just my experience, but that's partly what informed my view in my last comment.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, horses for courses and usually I buy one magazine a month which has the most interesting content, whether that be MRJ, RM, BRM or Model Rail which to be fair I think has become a very interesting and varied magazine since Richard Foster took over as editor.
MRJ is the only magazine that I buy these days, although I used to subscribe to the Review until the editor took umbrage with me. The MRJ is a read, the others (with the possible exception of the Muddler) have to my eyes taken on the appearance of those Hello! style magazines that litter doctors waiting rooms, all gloss and little content. Bright colours and bullet points are the fashion it seems when it comes to model railway magazines.
ReplyDeleteModelling Railways Illustrated got it right in my opinion, good achievable modelling, well written articles, and thought provoking editorials. Its a shame that every magazine Rice edited went to the wall.
As for 'finescale', what exactly is wrong with trying to improve your standards? I accept that just doing so to gain kudos is a bit odd, but as this is a very personal hobby surely most follow the finescale ethos for their own personal satisfaction and the challenges that it brings.
Having said all that, my favourite model loco is still a Saltford Peckett, hardly finescale really...
I have a complete set of MRJ's including many in original binders. That makes me a considerably better modeller than you...
ReplyDelete(Note, this is best read in a Brummie accent)
There used to be, and possibly still are, certain members of RMweb who thought that because they have bought the MRJ since issue 0 then they were more entitled to an opinion on the magazine than anyone else. MRJ threads were always good for a laugh!
DeleteAs Chris points out I have written for both RM and MRJ and consider myself to be a 'middle ground' modeller, rather than a 'finescaler'. Someone who is happy to mix quality RTR with scratch and kit built models in hope of creating a model of a railway to the best of my ability. MRJ provides me with the inspiration to do that, and like Paul B it is the only magazine that I buy today. I also agree with Paul about Modelling Railways Illustrated, how I wish we had something like that today.
ReplyDeleteI agree fully with the MORILL opinions. One day we may get a replacement.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe early MRJs were ground breaking in modelling terms but now have become very boring as one commented above. I can never aspire to the standards shown, I do modelling as a pastime to relax (!) As a form of escape from modern day living.Your comment Chris has given me the incentive to go through my own magazine collection and have a good cull!
ReplyDelete