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 ****ed 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
...
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 ****ed 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

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

In article , Tom Watson
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 linkshttp://www.woodenwabbits.com

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...

"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

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

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
wrote:
Sadly, FWW lost its way.

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 ****ed 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)

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" wrote in message
...
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 ****ed 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)

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...

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message
...
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

In article ,
Tom Watson 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.

Tom Watson wrote in
:

....
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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:18:39 -0400, Tom Watson
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 ****ed 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

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

Rick Stein 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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:18:39 -0400, Tom Watson
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 02:36:20 GMT, "Michael Gresham"
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

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.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:18:39 -0400, Tom Watson
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!

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 ****ed 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)

Robatoy 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?

In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:

Robatoy 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*

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 ,
Tom Watson 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.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:18:39 -0400, Tom Watson
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.

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.

My oh my, first the rec has gone downhill, now FWW. What will be next?


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

Lawrence Wasserman wrote:

My oh my, first the rec has gone downhill, now FWW. What will be next?


Youth???

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
am

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.

David 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.

Roy Smith wrote:

....
I agree with you about the Aztek. Never has an uglier vehicle been put on
the road. ...

American Pacer?

"Roy Smith" 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.

In article ,
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

Tom Watson wrote in
:



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!"

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
Robatoy 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.

In article ,
Duane Bozarth 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 ,
Tom Watson 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?