"Woodworking", the no-ad, newsstand only, no-BS, very well written
magazine, by some of the Popular Woodworking editors has gone
subscription! This has become my favorite magazine, when I can
actually find it.

$20 gets 4 issues.

More he
http://www.woodworking-magazine.com/

** No connection other than a satisfied reader **


---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

B A R R Y wrote:
"Woodworking", the no-ad, newsstand only, no-BS, very well written
magazine, by some of the Popular Woodworking editors has gone
subscription! This has become my favorite magazine, when I can
actually find it.

$20 gets 4 issues.

More he
http://www.woodworking-magazine.com/



Thank you. I looked at the one issue they make available for free
online and I liked what I saw enough to subscribe.

I found the free issue he

http://www.woodworking-magazine.com/...EPT2004_WM.pdf

Good stuff!

John

"John Horner" wrote in message

Thank you. I looked at the one issue they make available for free
online and I liked what I saw enough to subscribe.
I found the free issue he

http://www.woodworking-magazine.com/...EPT2004_WM.pdf

I noticed right at the top of the .pdf it states "a new magazine" with "no
ads". It's going to have to be an exceptional magazine if it's going to
survive without advertising of some sort.

"Upscale" wrote:

I noticed right at the top of the .pdf it states "a new magazine" with "no
ads". It's going to have to be an exceptional magazine if it's going to
survive without advertising of some sort.


Consumer Reports and Practical Sailor are a couple of rags that survive
without paid advertising.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Upscale" wrote:

I noticed right at the top of the .pdf it states "a new magazine" with "no
ads". It's going to have to be an exceptional magazine if it's going to
survive without advertising of some sort.


Consumer Reports and Practical Sailor are a couple of rags that survive
without paid advertising.

Don't know about the latter, the former is essentially useless imo--at
least they and I almost never agree in their assessments...

--

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 19:38:52 GMT, John Horner
wrote:

Good stuff!

I love it, so I thought I'd share it.

Chris Schwartz, and the staff has a real "no BS", real world, attitude
that's worth a look.

It's "Popular Woodworking" on steroids.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:29:16 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

I noticed right at the top of the .pdf it states "a new magazine" with "no
ads". It's going to have to be an exceptional magazine if it's going to
survive without advertising of some sort.


Try the free issue.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"Upscale" wrote:

I noticed right at the top of the .pdf it states "a new magazine" with
"no
ads". It's going to have to be an exceptional magazine if it's going to
survive without advertising of some sort.


Consumer Reports and Practical Sailor are a couple of rags that survive
without paid advertising.

Lew


Shopnotes and Woodsmith really don't have much advertising. I like
Woodworking magazine and will probably subscribe to it.

"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote in message
Try the free issue.

I did. It's fine, but that's not the point. Most new magazines come out with
interesting stuff. It's maintaining that level of quality and getting in
enough cash flow to keep the magazine going that will determine it's
longevity.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:16:40 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:


"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" wrote in message
Try the free issue.

I did. It's fine, but that's not the point. Most new magazines come out with
interesting stuff. It's maintaining that level of quality and getting in
enough cash flow to keep the magazine going that will determine it's
longevity.


I agree. "Woodworking" has been around since 2004.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:29:16 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

I noticed right at the top of the .pdf it states "a new magazine" with "no
ads". It's going to have to be an exceptional magazine if it's going to
survive without advertising of some sort.

No, it's going to be an EXPENSIVE magazine. They have to make their
money somewhere and if it doesn't come from advertisers, it's going to
come from consumers.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:00:37 -0500, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)"
wrote:

I agree. "Woodworking" has been around since 2004.

That's not much longevity, sorry. Further, if they're going to give a
"free" issue, why give one from 2004, not one from 2007?

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:29:16 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

I noticed right at the top of the .pdf it states "a new magazine" with "no
ads". It's going to have to be an exceptional magazine if it's going to
survive without advertising of some sort.

No, it's going to be an EXPENSIVE magazine. They have to make their
money somewhere and if it doesn't come from advertisers, it's going to
come from consumers.

Not going to be, "IS" 4 issues for $20 is pretty high. Having said that
most all the WW magazines I subscribe to are pretty expensive. You
generally get what you pay for.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:28:39 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:


Not going to be, "IS" 4 issues for $20 is pretty high.

Has anyone seen the cover price of most magazines?

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:29:16 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

I noticed right at the top of the .pdf it states "a new magazine" with "no
ads". It's going to have to be an exceptional magazine if it's going to
survive without advertising of some sort.

No, it's going to be an EXPENSIVE magazine. They have to make their
money somewhere and if it doesn't come from advertisers, it's going to
come from consumers.

I've purchased three already and I don't consider them over priced. The
cover price on Woodworking is the same as the popular magazines that are
mostly advertising.

Woodsmith has been around for a long time and they don't have advertisers.

Not going to be, "IS" 4 issues for $20 is pretty high.

Depends on what you compare it to. Many mags are cheaper, some even
down to about $1/issue on eBay or with multi-year specials. And they
may be worth it at that price. However, per-issue, Woodworking comes
out about the same as Fine Woodworking, right? IMO, Woodworking is a
far nicer publication (especially compared to recent FWWs), and the
lack of ads is a nice bonus. I have all 8 issues published so far,
and would happily give away the rest of my WW mag collection (and many
of my WW books) before I gave up these 8 issues.
I subscribed as soon as I got the email.
Andy

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:28:39 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Not going to be, "IS" 4 issues for $20 is pretty high. Having said that
most all the WW magazines I subscribe to are pretty expensive. You
generally get what you pay for.

Content has nothing to do with ads and honestly, I'd much rather see
the ads because I often find out about new products that way. No ads
isn't a selling point for me at all.

"Brian Henderson" wrote in message
Content has nothing to do with ads and honestly, I'd much rather see
the ads because I often find out about new products that way. No ads
isn't a selling point for me at all.

I have to agree with that up to a point too. I think that after I reached a
certain knowledge level, I became increasingly interested in new products
that come out on the market. I do admit to being a Normite much more than a
Neander so I'm sure that accounts for a good part of what I'm interested in
seeing.

The two latest additions to woodworking that have really caught my interest
is Festool's Domino and the line of lowered woodworking machinery that
General Tools is in the process of manufacturing. Those who know me will
know why the General Tools machinery has my attention.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:37:51 GMT, Brian Henderson
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:28:39 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Not going to be, "IS" 4 issues for $20 is pretty high. Having said that
most all the WW magazines I subscribe to are pretty expensive. You
generally get what you pay for.

Content has nothing to do with ads and honestly, I'd much rather see
the ads because I often find out about new products that way. No ads
isn't a selling point for me at all.


Here too. I no longer attend shows to see the latest, so I appreciate
the ads. Anything over $5 for a magazine is overpriced.

"Leon" wrote in
. net:


"Brian Henderson" wrote in
message ...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:29:16 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

I noticed right at the top of the .pdf it states "a new magazine"
with "no ads". It's going to have to be an exceptional magazine if
it's going to survive without advertising of some sort.

No, it's going to be an EXPENSIVE magazine. They have to make their
money somewhere and if it doesn't come from advertisers, it's going
to come from consumers.

Not going to be, "IS" 4 issues for $20 is pretty high. Having said
that most all the WW magazines I subscribe to are pretty expensive.
You generally get what you pay for.



That's $5/issue. Not horrible. Compare this to other magazines (there's
one dedicated to Linux I'm thinking of) that want almost $10 an issue.
It is, however, ultimately up to you whether or not it's worth the money.
You may enjoy $5 worth of screws more this month. *shrug*

Puckdropper
--
Marching to the beat of a different drum is great... unless you're in
marching band.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

Sat, Jan 12, 2008, 5:26pm (EST+5)
(B*A*R*R*Y) doty sayeth:
"Woodworking", the no-ad, newsstand only, no-BS, very well written
magazine, by some of the Popular Woodworking editors has gone
subscription! This has become my favorite magazine, when I can actually
find it.

I check out all the woodworking magazis when I'm in the store.
Even a few of the craft magazines. But I think it's been over a year
since I bought ANY woodworking magazines. Quit subscribing to all but
one many years ago.
The one woodworking magazine I subscribe to is WoodenBoat. Lovely
woodworking, and excellent dream material. I used to get National
Fisherman, many, many years back, and they always had some fascinating
wooden boat plans, ranging from rowboats, up to large boats. I think
I'll try checking that out again.

By the way, WoodenBoat recently had a very interesting article on
shellac, and it's use in batbuilding - quite a bit of which could be
applied to 'conventional' woodworking.



JOAT
10 Out Of 10 Terrorists Prefer Hillary For President
- Bumper Sticker
I quite agree.

Wow - so people actually like ads? I'd rather find out about new
products via catalogs, blogs, forums, or magazine article writeups.
But if there's a market for a WW magazine with more ads and less
content, I'd want to be a paid member of their staff! Maybe I'll
start that magazine - charge people for something that I'm already
getting paid to publish. Sounds like a deal to me.

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:34:06 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:

I have to agree with that up to a point too. I think that after I reached a
certain knowledge level, I became increasingly interested in new products
that come out on the market. I do admit to being a Normite much more than a
Neander so I'm sure that accounts for a good part of what I'm interested in
seeing.

I'm just as interested in seeing the newest hand planes as I am the
newest power tools, but I know what you mean. A lot of my tool
purchases come because I find out things are available through the
ads.

Andy wrote in news:36ab6fea-fd8f-4209-a1ef-
:

Wow - so people actually like ads? I'd rather find out about new
products via catalogs, blogs, forums, or magazine article writeups.
But if there's a market for a WW magazine with more ads and less
content, I'd want to be a paid member of their staff! Maybe I'll
start that magazine - charge people for something that I'm already
getting paid to publish. Sounds like a deal to me.

It really depends on the ads and how they're done. I don't mind ads in
print, they're easy to ignore if I want to. Look at all those "free auto
trader" magazines or "free classified" papers.

If the number of ads is reasonable, and they're on-topic for the
magazine, I might just pay close attention to them.

Puckdropper
--
Marching to the beat of a different drum is great... unless you're in
marching band.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

Don't care much for ads but I could live with or without them. This
is one of the best woodworking mags left (especially with FWW articals
saying you need 42 bar clamps to do a 3 foot glue up). It was tough
to find locally and I purchased it on site when I came across it at
significantly more than $5. There are more than enough $2 per issues
subscriptions out there rehashing plans for yet another patio chair.
If those are to your taste more power to you. Twenty bucks for a
subscription to Woodworking is a bargin off of cover price and well
worth it. If that is what quality costs I am willing to support it.
I hope as readership increases they are able to do more issues in a
year.

Daryl

wrote:
This
is one of the best woodworking mags left (especially with FWW articals
saying you need 42 bar clamps to do a 3 foot glue up).

Actually, they said you need a lot of pressure to do an "optimal" glue
joint. This is true (if you doubt them, take a look at the titebond
website, they suggest a minimum of 100psi for softwoods, and up to
250psi for hardwoods).

They didn't cover how much pressure is necessary for an "acceptable"
joint, which is closer to what most home woodworkers are looking for.

Chris

On Jan 17, 9:52*am, Chris Friesen wrote:
wrote:
This
is one of the best woodworking mags left (especially with FWW articals
saying you need 42 bar clamps to do a 3 foot glue up).

Actually, they said you need a lot of pressure to do an "optimal" glue
joint. *This is true (if you doubt them, take a look at the titebond
website, they suggest a minimum of 100psi for softwoods, and up to
250psi for hardwoods).

They didn't cover how much pressure is necessary for an "acceptable"
joint, which is closer to what most home woodworkers are looking for.

Chris

That is kind of like saying the optimum weld is when both peices of
metal are completely melted into one molten mass. IIRC the "optimum"
glue joint pressure for cherry was 1200 PSI and a bar clamp was rated
under 1100. With no cleats or pads my bar clamps faces are about one
inch wide which means at best putting clamps dead nuts against each
other I still fall short of the "optimum" joint. Maybe it was
scientifically true it is literally unattainable short of a very large
hydraulic press and like melting part A and B into a single gelatenous
mass it lacked any reasonable level of common sense and should have
never made it into print of what is often otherwise one of the best 2
or 3 mags out there. IMHO they knocked themselves down one notch for
printing it and another for the lame defense this past month.

Ah but back on course with this thread. "Woodworking" has not always
been easy to find in my area but I do consider it one of the best.

wrote:
: On Jan 17, 9:52?am, Chris Friesen wrote:
: wrote:
: This
: is one of the best woodworking mags left (especially with FWW articals
: saying you need 42 bar clamps to do a 3 foot glue up).
:
: Actually, they said you need a lot of pressure to do an "optimal" glue
: joint. ?This is true (if you doubt them, take a look at the titebond
: website, they suggest a minimum of 100psi for softwoods, and up to
: 250psi for hardwoods).
:
: They didn't cover how much pressure is necessary for an "acceptable"
: joint, which is closer to what most home woodworkers are looking for.
:
: Chris

: That is kind of like saying the optimum weld is when both peices of
: metal are completely melted into one molten mass.


I think the editors of FWW don't understand the word "optimal".
It means, basically, the best solution to whatever (possibly multiple)
contraints and goals there are in a given problem. So, by my standards anyway,
an optimal glue joint is one that is strong enough to hold the piece
together under normal conditions without failure; that does not use excess
materials; that does not compromise the look of the piece (so e.g., wrapping the
whole thing in epoxy-soaked fiberglass cloth isn't gonna work for a jewelry box);
and that minimizes glueup time, including use of clamps; and is easy to do.
The optimal solution finds a way to achieve all of this (maximizing/minimizing) without
compromising any individual goal.


The FWW article, and the editor's defense, failed pretty miserably
in finding an optimal solution to any problem other than "how can I
justify buying an extraordinary number of clamps?". The fact that
the author was a scientist makes the article even more appalling since
he should have understood what optimization is from the outset.


-- Andy Barss, considering dropping his subscription

"Andrew Barss" wrote in message
the author was a scientist makes the article even more appalling since
he should have understood what optimization is from the outset.

Possibly, English is not that scientist's first language and that person is
not as fluent in it as they could be. Your mentioning this makes me think of
some of the arguments I've had (mostly online) with some really smart people
who seem to think that even though they're working in an English
environment, they don't need to be completely fluent in the English language
as long as they have all their scientific knowledge down pat. I'm pretty
sure most won't admit their language difficulties because they feel it
diminishes them in the eyes of others despite all they scientific smarts and
credentials they may have.