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.