Why is my new FWW so thin?

[george wilson]

I hope it's o.k. to ask this here,but my Sept.-Oct. FWW magazine is about 1/8" thick. It is usually at least twice that thick. Anyone know what's going on with them?

[Sean Hughto]

August had about 100 pages. How many in the Sept./Oct?

[Matt Meiser]

I don't get it anymore so I can't compare, but are you sure you got all the pages? I've gotten all sorts of errors in the past. One publisher even sent all their Mustang magazine subscribers their Corvette magazine and vise-versa.

[Andrew Gibson]

Not a clue, I have not bought a FWW in quite a while, I usually page through it at the news stand and find that there is not much to peek my interest so I put it back. I have enjoyed PWW lately.

[David Weaver]

Maybe they turned too many people off with their notices that tell you that you'll get a great deal for resubscribing at..
..
...
....wait for it...

...
..
regular price.
...

.. that and the obnoxious post card that they send you declaring that your skills are diminishing vs. what they'd be if you'd not allowed the subscription to lapse. Pretty presumptuous!

I had let the magazine lapse and went to the website, but even that became unnecessarily complicated when my CC tied to the account expired, no way to go in and update info without calling someone, so that can lapse, too.

[george wilson]

The new Fww has 98 pages. Maybe I haven't looked at the last one. I let Pop W. run out. Not satisfied with some of the articles.

[Zach England]

There was an article about building a guitar, which I was excited to see since I am planning a first classical guitar project soon, but you turn to it and it is about building a guitar from a KIT. Dumb.

[Shaun Mahood]

Zach, I saw the headline and got really excited too. A while ago I saw an episode of a woodworking show where they were going to "Make a Guitar", then they spent 30 minutes talking about how difficult it was to put the kit together.

What a waste.

[Greg Wease]

Maybe they're spending too much time/money on the on-line stuff and are neglecting the print version. I was especially turned off by the article on benchtop sanders in this issue with their comment "who needs a handplane?"! I don't believe Pop Woodworking would make such an assinine comment.

[george wilson]

Greg: That were none too swooft!!:) (A little North Carolina talk.) Lived there 6 years. But,Greg,can't you see how much BETTER a surface the sander leaves than the plane???:):):)

[Jim Koepke]

I let my subscription lapse so no help on that.

If the page count is the same they may have switched to lighter sheets of paper to lower publication costs.

jtk

[Jerome Hanby]

FWIW, I just went though the online version of the issue. Think this is the first time I didn't save even one of the articles (most of them are PDFs).

[Zach England]

Greg: That were none too swooft!!:) (A little North Carolina talk.) Lived there 6 years. But,Greg,can't you see how much BETTER a surface the sander leaves than the plane???:):):)

The only reason I have a benchtop sander is to flatten the soles of planes.

[Jerome Hanby]

The only reason I have a benchtop sander is to flatten the soles of planes.

That remark about hand plane kind of irked me too, but to be fair the article pointed out some operations I haven't been doing with a sander that would make my life easier. I never thought about using the end like a spindle sander. I bought the belt sander for my Shop-smith and have never mounted it and given it a spin, think I will.

[Zach England]

That remark about hand plane kind of irked me too, but to be fair the article pointed out some operations I haven't been doing with a sander that would make my life easier. I never thought about using the end like a spindle sander. I bought the belt sander for my Shop-smith and have never mounted it and given it a spin, think I will.

OK, I'll come clean. I love my oscillating spindle sander.

But the belt sander really only gets used on planes.

[george wilson]

Can you really get your planes flat enough on a belt sander ? I plane my longer planes with my jointer,and plane the short planes with the longer planes.

[Tony Shea]

I've also been very dissapointed with FWW lately. Very few decent projects and 95% of the tool stuff is power tools that get the least (or would get the least) amount of use in my shop. The newish hand tool portion of the magazine is always something very simple and designed for someone just starting with hand tools. It just all seems very biased towards who spent the most money in advertising that month/year. And the cost for a subscription certainly is not worth it, well maybe with the $5 LN card scraper it is...yeah right.

[Sean Hughto]

I don't hate it, but it's got very little "soul."

The early issues of FWW were full of soul. Woodwork was always full of passionand soul (still is once a year I guess). Popular Woodworking had its soulful tones under Mr. Schwarz, though I wonder whether that will last as he departs.

I suppose some woodworkers don't care about soul, and just want the plans the power tool specs, but others like a little sincere passion for working wood and some depth to the articles, not just two columns of text and 16 pictures.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Articles like this (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ID9jfVJ0HJUJ:www.finewoodworking.com/FWNPDF/011217048.pdf+beveling+curved+tabletop+fine+woodwo rking&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShf1lfVKS-W9zUa0aD-B6IinhduChnn4_veq0enZxehXvNcNpMmu8NAG2vlXcwB6vdoum zPnpzSDnzYdtCfbGfc4_waGu-L5WULwx2dDwB8Ee7MIZ-XLMDev4XslhHDatgvT0iB&sig=AHIEtbQvDDoYdp8VDky3tAhMgZj6gUQPbw) are why I wonder about FWW sometimes. Something about the photo on the second page just looks sketchy. Granted, I probably have more fear of tablesaws than is warranted, but it just seems like the kind of thing that hand tools would work really well at.

[Sean Hughto]

Laugh out loud! Check out the caption on the bottom right of the first page:

"Wide bevels are attractive on curved adges, However they haven't been easy to cut, until now. Router bits are too small and most woodworkers don't have a shaper with a tilting head."

Yup, and one could never achieve such a bevel in short order with drawknife, spokeshave, rasp, or plane either I guess? That is a crazy article and jig. Poster child for power tool blinders.

[James Taglienti]

I got sick of the recycled topics. Theyve had 4 cover stories on how to burnish and use a scraper card in the last two years. Good riddance

[Chris Fournier]

Honestly, if you had the first 50 issues of any wood working magazine (and I'm being generous here) you'd have all you need. I really enjoyed FWW for quite sometime, then I began to see the same topic re-hashed by another author ad nauseum. Now it seems that topics are re-hashed on an 18 month cycle. It is no coincidence that I found the magazines to be tedious as I developed my own skill set and gained hours in my shop. At a certain point I think that you simply aren't going to gain much from magazines if you are at your bench a lot. This is not the fault of the medium I'd think.

The magazines really have it tough - they have to sell copies.

Veneering is a very exciting and important process in my shop (I know that was gushing - sorry). How many on this forum use commercial or shop sawn veneer? Not many. This is likely why the magazines don't spend a lot of time on the subject. Pity. Small market - small coverage of the subject matter. Hey, you don't have much money but you want to plane rough lumber? Of course you do! Let's do a bench top planer article for the budget constrained. There are plenty of those articles because there is plenty of market.

Covering the building of a guitar in a magazine? What a waste of time. It takes at least a 100 hours to build an acoustic - this says nothing about the fact that to build it you really should understand how and why a guitar works and now we're well beyond the scope of a magazine. Do you really think that a magazine can handle that kind of topic to your satisfaction? Of course not. Now FWW did try this out and William Laskin wrote the article over a few issues many years ago. This was merely a teaser but you couldn't ask for a more competent authority on the subject. Keep your expectations of what you can glean from a magazine realistic!

I haven't bought a woodworking mag in years. For that matter I haven't bought fly-fishing or motorcycling magazines in years either. I don't buy them now because they are not geared to folks that are "lifers" and well into it.

I think that we all pick up magazines looking for an inspirational kick in the pants when the fact is that once we have developed a solid knowledge and skill base we are like baby birds that are ejected from the nest - time to grow up and do it for yourself!

Now this is where some publications have stepped in and they have understood this and the new(ish) journalistic gig is rehashing the "bibles" of our craft. They dazzle the reader with insights into the distant past and revive old techniques that are referred to by woodworking inductees and sycophants as the (fill in the 21 century author's) technique. I find this practice to be distasteful but to be fair it is actually above and beyond the mainstream magazine offerings I suppose.

If you find current publications to be lacking, then dig deeply into the past for yourself. Buy the books that the journalists make reference to. Do a bit of due diligence and research your subject matter. Go to a museum near you or travel and see the works that are referred to in modern literature. Inspiration will have you contemplating quiting your desk job! You'll spend some money and that's what all enthusiats do. If as an experienced woodworker you are waiting for the real deal to be delivered to your door in a glossy magazine bi-monthly then you are missing the boat.

[Bill Geyer]

I have subscribed to FWW since issue #2. I keep it up for some reason...
The articles repeat and the truths(?) they speak are increasingly self-evident.
(i.e. 6 pages to tell me if I want an accurate combination square, buy a Starrett)
I still mourn the demise of Woodwork magazine.

[Dave Lehnert]

I like magazines alot and love to pick up a copy that interests me. But $7.99 for a news stand copy of FW is just crazy in my book.

[Dave Ring]

You've hit it there, Dave, Eight bucks for--what--fifty or sixty pages of actual content? I'd rather put the money toward a book.

[george wilson]

My wife emailed a bunch of pictures of my work to them about 5 years ago. They couldn't take the trouble to download them! Maybe if they did,they'd have a little more subject matter. Not bragging,but it is the truth.

[Ben Johnson WI]

Maybe they're spending too much time/money on the on-line stuff and are neglecting the print version. I was especially turned off by the article on benchtop sanders in this issue with their comment "who needs a handplane?"! I don't believe Pop Woodworking would make such an assinine comment.

I like to imagine the Schwarz as sort of a Chuck Norris type. Even after he's left, PWW writers who value their health won't speak ill of quality hand tools for fear of harsh retribution. :)

[Chris Fournier]

I like to imagine the Schwarz as sort of a Chuck Norris type. Even after he's left, PWW writers who value their health won't speak ill of quality hand tools for fear of harsh retribution. :)

This is the problem with the subject matter of much of our current woodworking journalism today - quality handtools are more available now than ever before in history. Ever. And as much as we piss and moan about it, quality tools have never been more affordable. We need to get this into our heads - you can do great work with crap tools and conversely you can do crap work with great tools. This is not the subject matter we should be self-flaggelating over. Pick your camp and do great work with a sharpened slot screwdriver or knock out garbage with a full set of Ashley Isles. Let's see the work, I really don't care about your tool brand or investment. (How you sharpen, tweak or customize? Yeah let's hear about it.)

Our craft has got to concentrate on encouraging quality work. This quality tool mantra is a red herring that encourages "tool offs" and not much else. Clifton vs LN vs Holtey spills ink but none of us are further ahead for it. Write articles about quality woodworking and the rest will fall into place.

[Andrae Covington]

Chris has said most of what I was going to say. But I won't let that stop me from blathering on.:rolleyes:

I used to subscribe to several woodworking magazines. One by one I let them expire as I felt like I had moved beyond the basics they presented or, even more, as I moved towards hand tools. The renewed and wider interest in hand tools in the past few years has caused nearly all the (remaining) magazines to pay lip service, but there is only one in my opinion that really takes them seriously and periodically publishes meaningful hand-tool techniques. I recently decided to let my FWW subscription expire, so now I am down to just PW after the last few FWW filter in. PW is the only one I still feel like I get something out of it, but even there it is hit and miss. I don't blame the magazine for that. In the first place, there's no way that every article in every issue will be of interest to every subscriber. Beyond that, while I still have a great deal to learn about hand tools and building furniture, the more skills I develop the less benefit I get out of the magazines. Eventually I will probably drop PW as well. Another point to consider: like the rest of print media, woodworking magazines are struggling to compete with the internet. I have learned so much from the community on Sawmill Creek, including many many things that would never be published in a magazine. My modest contribution to SMC is a bargain compared to an annual subscription to any of the woodworking magazines.

[Zach England]

I will say that I really like their section where they showcase student work from some of the schools.

[Steve Branam]

In defense of the underdog here, my last 5 issues of FWW since I re-subscribed have all been the same: 98 pages. My previous issues from 2005-2007 were 102-120 pages. I also have a hit-and-miss collection of issues from the 80's and 90's that a fellow bequeathed to me when he moved to Florida, and they range from 100-130 pages, most of them between 110 and 120. So the most recent ones are a bit thin, but are still in the range of most of their history.

Also, for the one article on benchtop sanders (who needs a handplane? those of us who don't want to mess with sanders!), there are three articles on doing similar operations by hand: Phil Lowe on using chisels, Jeff Miller on curved joinery (where he shows cleaning up inside curves with rasp and scraper, not spindle sander), and Garrett Hack on chamfering with block planes and chisels. There will always be a tension between power-tool and hand-tool articles in a general interest woodworking magazine, with statements about how one is better than the other (like Hack calling machine-sanded edges "overcooked").

Here's the call to action. At the bottom of the "Contributors" page, they say they are a reader-written magazine, and list this link: http://www.finewoodworking.com/submissions, which takes you to a page with various information on contributing, including this link for author's guidelines: http://www.finewoodworking.com/pages/fw_authorguideline.asp.

So take them up on that and contribute! I would love to see articles by many of the people here. You don't have to be a skilled writer, you just have to be a skilled woodworker. George, while they may not have responded well in the past, try again! That was eons ago in the publishing world, especially given the rapid rise and competition from online sources. The guidelines state that they send a professional photographer out once they've decided on an article, so you need to make a convincing pitch with your initial proposal and photos. Show them that it's more than just a few photos for the online reader's gallery.

Also remember that magazine publishing has fairly long lead times, measured in months as they plan article layout and placement. Online we can blog or post about stuff the day we do it, but magazines are working multiple issues in advance. For a bimonthly magazine, that can easily be 4-6 months.

When someone here does get something published, we should all write in to let them know we enjoyed the article! They need that feedback to know that readers are looking for that content. Otherwise the only feedback they'll get is from advertisers. In fact, we can start now with the current issue. Find something that you liked and send an email to fw@taunton.com. Gripes and complaints they probably get by the boatload, try a little positive reinforcement.

That's how we can go about influencing the direction.

[Dave Anderson NH]

You are probably right about the thickness (and weight) of the magazine decreasing. One of the major costs for a magazine is that of mailing it out. Even with bulk rate psotage and presort by ZIP code we al speaking about a significant amount of money each issue. Postal rates have risen steadily as the profitable first class mail volume decreases due to email and cheap phone rates. Bulk mail is at best a break even proposition for the post office and often loses money. I would almost guarantee the decrease was thinner and lighter paper to save weight and add the smaller side benefit of lower printing costs. I see merit in the comments by Chris F, Andre C, and Steve B. I myself dropped my FWW subscription about 3-4 years ago, my Am WW subscription after it was bought by Reader's Digest, and and currently recive only PWW. Needs change as skill levels change.

[Steve Branam]

I just watched Mark Spagnuolo's video about behind-the-scenes at FWW that's linked from their submissions page: http://www.finewoodworking.com/SkillsAndTechniques/SkillsAndTechniquesArticle.aspx?id=30223. It's worth watching, very educational. You can see there's a lot of staff behind what goes on. They also talk a bit about repeated material, and the submission process (keep trying!).

Also, having met Garrett Hack, Christian Becksvoort, Matt Kenney, and Mike Pekovich at various LN events and other shows, I feel they are genuinely interested in good hand tool work (Hack is just mesmerizing to watch!). As with many enterprises, these are good people who want to produce a good product, and they have to find their way around the economic issues. That's why we need to give them the support of positive feedback, so they'll keep it up and ramp it up.

[Casey Gooding]

I think they are just running out of articles to re-run. Is it just me or do they seem to keep re-writing the same articles over and over. Which wouldn't be so bad, if they didn't do it in back to back issues. I may be mistaken, but didn't they just do and article on building guitars from kits??

[Jeff Bartley]

Well said Steve! Thanks, it's nice to see a positive attitude, what's that phrase about catching more bees with honey than vinegar?

[Mike Brady]

Not directed at you in particular, Dave, but FWW seems to be the publication that everyone loves to hate. The simple fact is that those of us who enjoy FWW have to literally pay the price when support from the woodworking community dwindles. Continued lack of support ultimately means the magazine will just go away, as Woodworking magazine did; and that will be a loss for the entire community.

I'm a bit puzzled by the support that continues for PWW, which is the equal of neither of its parents, Woodworking, or the original PWW. I can only justify that by the loyalty that is being paid to Christopher Schwarz for his major role in the revival of hand tools and the associated skills. The magazine itself, from a production quality standpoint, doesn't come close to FWW. Their future direction might be revealed in this quote from publisher Steve Shanesy on the WIA website: "What is the appropriate joinery for non-period furniture? This seminar will challenge the accepted ideas about what is “best” and what is “quality” by looking at the engineering of case goods and box building (including drawers). It will also touch on the question of why woodworkers are so chained to the past when it comes to styles and methods of work. Does it not strike anyone as contradictory that woodworkers are eager to learn SketchUp so they can head to the shop and build 18th-century furniture using a lot of hand work?" With Chris having moved on to ...who knows what?...it will be interesting to see what lies ahead for Popular Woodworking and even their spinoffs such as Woodworking in America. Those of us who are hungry for hand tool editorial content may find the pickings pretty slim.

I think it is safe to say that periodical publication, like all printed media, is in a state of flux right now. Are we the last generation to anxiously watch the mail box for delivery of our favorite magazine? Could be.

[Dave Anderson NH]

I know it wasn't directed to me in particular, Mike and I don't take offense. All I was saying from my personal viewpoint is that my needs have changed and I dropped 2 subsciptions because they no longer met my needs. I didn't "hate" either publication and each January in Willimsburg at the 18th Century furniture conference I enjoy speaking and interacting positively with FWWs editorial staff. I have also dropped subscriptions to other non-woodworking publications as my interests evolved. You raise an interesting question about our generation(s) being possibly the last to see a viable and vibrant periodical print media. The whole landscape has been changed by the instant communication of the web and email and its integration into everyday life. In addition to magazines and printed newsletters, newspapers are also struggling to develop a "publishing" and profit model that works for them. The book printing-publishing industry faces the same issues when faced with downloadable books for devices such as Kindle. These are huge challenges when you consider the resistance that exists by the majority of web users to paying for content. Even Sawmill Creek faces this issue and had to change to an advertiser based model since the few who contribute financially were insufficient to pay for equipment and bandwidth. Who has their crystal ball out and is willing to predict the future.....and will they be right?

[Steve Southwood]

Going to agree with Dave. Ideas change just as methods of work. When I started, I was power tool all the way. Now, I am not afraid to pick up a hand tool and use it. So just as our tool usage progresses so do our interest. What magazine used to fit that bill, no longer does. What tool used to fit the bill, no longer does. I get more from online areas than mags anymore. Instant answers to questions and I sometimes get to meet the people I am talking to.

I do however keep Shopnotes and Woodsmith subscriptions. My wife like most of the projects that come out of those, so it's a no brainer for me.

[Mike Brady]

Hi, Casey. One of the criticisms that I most frequently hear about FWW magazine is their repetition of prior content. For those that have been long-time subscribers, that may be disappointing, but I find that different takes on familiar topics can be very stimulating...even game-changing. You have to keep in mind that we hand-tool woodworkers are involved in an arcane and archaic craft. The research into old masters like Andre Roubo that is going on right now is evidence that we are having to go even further back in history to find new information.

My biggest disappointment is that more contemporary furniture, made with hand tools, is not featured in any of the magazines. Quite honestly, how much period furniture do you want in your home today? I would never expend the energy or materials to build a tilt-top pie-crust table, no matter how gratifying the result might be. Stylistically, period furniture is taking a long, much needed rest from popularity today. The same applies to anything "colonial". Shaker and Craftsman styles still offer opportunity; but work from likes of Brian Boggs, Thom. Moser, Christian Becksvoort show more direction to the hand tool craftsman of today who wants to be able to make pieces that function today.

[David Keller NC]

These are huge challenges when you consider the resistance that exists by the majority of web users to paying for content. Even Sawmill Creek faces this issue and had to change to an advertiser based model since the few who contribute financially were insufficient to pay for equipment and bandwidth.

Ah yes - the irony of it all. I notice in reviewing the 3 pages of this thread that there are many folks that have many posts to their name, and have been on the board quite some time, so they clearly value the content. But those same folks have "member" under their name instead of "contributor". One might could understand that if SMC asked for $50 a year (and it would still be a massive bargain), but the last time I re-upped the asking price was $6/yr. Pretty hard to argue that that asking price is a financial burden in any sense of the word.

And yes - this post was meant to publicly embarrass those that are longtime "members". :D:D:D

[Ben Johnson WI]

This is the problem with the subject matter of much of our current woodworking journalism today - quality handtools are more available now than ever before in history. Ever. And as much as we piss and moan about it, quality tools have never been more affordable. We need to get this into our heads - you can do great work with crap tools and conversely you can do crap work with great tools. This is not the subject matter we should be self-flaggelating over. Pick your camp and do great work with a sharpened slot screwdriver or knock out garbage with a full set of Ashley Isles. Let's see the work, I really don't care about your tool brand or investment. (How you sharpen, tweak or customize? Yeah let's hear about it.)

Our craft has got to concentrate on encouraging quality work. This quality tool mantra is a red herring that encourages "tool offs" and not much else. Clifton vs LN vs Holtey spills ink but none of us are further ahead for it. Write articles about quality woodworking and the rest will fall into place.

I think you misinterpret. Quality hand tools != expensive hand tools or new hand tools. Obviously, without good technique, you can't get good results out of good or bad tools. I'm referring to quality of workmanship in the tool themselves regardless of cost, and then balancing the cost of a tool versus the time it takes to tune it to its fullest potential. I don't mind tool articles in a magazine - if I'm going to buy a new hand tool, I want to know the details of the experience using it, warts and all, so I can get the tool best suited to my needs.

Suppose LN and LV's BU planes are priced exactly the same, and perform exactly the same. LV uses a Norris adjuster and set screws. LN uses a depth only adjuster, and lateral moves are made via hammer taps. I want to know that kind of stuff in a review / comparison, because I like a single adjustment point and my hammer-tap skills at setting lateral position aren't that great. You might like hammer taps and hate Norris adjusters. In either case, a tool comparison is useful, as long as it focuses on features and capability fairly.

In other words, if a magazine is doing a comprehensive review of 12" swing lathes and doesn't include the Harbor Freight 12x36, but does include Jet, Rikon, Grizzly, and Nova, then they're just pimping brands, as opposed to showing their readers what options exist.

[Chris Fournier]

Ah yes - the irony of it all. I notice in reviewing the 3 pages of this thread that there are many folks that have many posts to their name, and have been on the board quite some time, so they clearly value the content. But those same folks have "member" under their name instead of "contributor". One might could understand that if SMC asked for $50 a year (and it would still be a massive bargain), but the last time I re-upped the asking price was $6/yr. Pretty hard to argue that that asking price is a financial burden in any sense of the word.

And yes - this post was meant to publicly embarrass those that are longtime "members". :D:D:D

Why not just phase out membership status? Bandwidth and hardware requirements will drop. Oh yeah, as the bandwidth drops so too do the interests of advertisers so they'll drop out to some extent too. Then you may well get to pay $50 a years David. SMC is a chatroom, I have yet to pay for or be asked for payment from any chatroom on the web but here at SMC. That's not true actually SMC has asked nothing of me and I respect and appreciate that. But every now and then someone who has decided for their own reasons to become a contributor makes the same call out that you have here. Perhaps you can become a "Gold Contributor" and pay $12.00 and I will feel even more shame, continue not to be a contributor but SMC will benefit as though I had. Win win for all parties!

[David Keller NC]

SMC isn't a chat room, at least in the sense that that word was originally coined, or that true chat rooms on the net have evolved into. And nothing on the net is actually free - you do pay for it in one way or another, either by giving up personal information that companies can sell, being captured so that companies can pitch to you, membership fees, or taxes.

And yes, I've contributed more than I was asked to in the past, but more importantly, getting something for free just because you can, especially when others actually carry one's load, is not something I would boast about (nor feel good about).

[Ron Conlon]

Honestly, the only thing I really look at in FWW is the Reader's Gallery. I miss the magazine Woodwork that, as Sean mentioned above, is only published once a year now.

[Mike Brady]

Sounds like contributor=sending $ and contributor= posting something of value are being confused here. If money is need to keep the board open then make use of the board contingent upon paying a fee. That's a pretty simple concept. Let me know how that works out. You might just want to take a gander over at FWW's Knots board first. A cautionary tale, for sure.

[george wilson]

FWW made videos of us making planes on their web site. They also sell plans of a saw horse I made "A Williamsburg sawhorse".but I STILL have to pay to go there!!!! They gave me a free year to it,plus,I subscribe to FWW!!

$6.00 isn't the price of 1 magazine to join here. You know you get more use from this site than a magazine. Please contribute!!

[ken seale]

FWW Knots forums are free

[Sean Hughto]

FWW Knots forums are free

And Knots completely sucks. Or is that your point?

If it is, I don't think Knots sucks because it's free. I think it sucks because FWW decided to kill it.

[Joel Goodman]

$6.00 isn't the price of 1 magazine to join here. You know you get more use from this site than a magazine. Please contribute!!

+1 on that! I finally joined after too many years of freeloading -- feels much better.

[Tony Zaffuto]

And Knots completely sucks. Or is that your point?

If it is, I don't think Knots sucks because it's free. I think it sucks because FWW decided to kill it.

I frequented the old Knots quite frequently and the format, content & members added up to an excellent forum. I would have rather FWW just closed it entirely instead of what was done.

[Harry Hagan]

Originally Posted by Greg Wease:

"Maybe they're spending too much time/money on the on-line stuff . . "

As a recently former on-line subscriber I can tell you that ain't so. Updates were as infrequent as once-a-week.

There's a wealth of how-to information for on-line subscribers new to the publication willing to search the archives but as others have stated, don't hold your breath for new content. That said, I got my money's worth with the initial subscription.

[Steve Branam]

Well said Steve! Thanks, it's nice to see a positive attitude, what's that phrase about catching more bees with honey than vinegar?

Just received the December issue today. They published my letter about enjoying the hand tool articles in the last issue. That's the positive feedback they need. It's simple marketing that over time they will gravitate to the material their readers express interest in. Advertising will always be an influence, but it's not the only one.

[Charlton Wang]

Yeah, same thing happened to me. I got excited and figured "this series is going to be 40 or 50 episodes long" :) Building from a kit is disappointing but I guess if they didn't build from a kit, they'd spend a bunch of episodes just showing all the jigs involved. Oh well...

[David Keller NC]

Yeah, I just got my December issue. I was overall unimpressed, but at least they actually ran some design articles (Doug Stowe's article on box details, Jonathan Binzen's article on asymmetry in design) and a decently complex project (Steve Latta's sideboard).

[David Keller NC]

To continue, though (dang, that "post quick reply button" is easy to hit by accident...), this latest issue is also a textbook example of what is badly missing at FWW: analysis and leadership. This is what Popular Woodworking got right under Chris Schwarz - it doesn't matter whether your readership is interested in a particular subject from an online poll - your job as a magazine editor is to lead them to be interested in a subject. It's also disastrous to take an attitude at a magazine like FWW that if significant numbers of readership think a particular technique or construction method is OK, then it must be so.

The best example in the current issue is the cover story. I cannot count the number of times I've seen a router sled in a ww magazine, but it must be in the dozens, and many of them would be in FWW. It certainly didn't need to be repeated, but the bigger problem is the FWW editors not recognizing that it is just about the slowest way possible to accomplish the task at hand - jointing a large slab for a table top. Those of us that have used this technique will also recognize that it's a great way to fill your shop (and your lungs) with dust. The way to do this most efficiently, rapidly, and with the best result is a handplane - end of story. Yet, because many of their readers are ignorant enough to think that a handplane is an outmoded tool that has few uses in the machine age, FWW chooses to publish what is an implicit endorsement of the technique instead of noting that "this is how one author does it, but there's a better way".

This attitude has a dark side to it, as well. Doug Stowe's article shows many pictures of the use of a table saw to trim many very small parts, which is very, very dangerous. There's little doubt that someone like Doug has the skills and experience to do this without amputating digits, but many of the FWW readers don't. And as is probably depressingly obvious to members that post on the Neander forum, the idiotically simple and accurate alternative is a cross-cut backsaw and bench hook, possibly followed by a shooting board for end-grain cuts that will show. It was frankly irresponsible for FWW not to note that what was shown in the photos was very dangerous for all but the most experienced machine tool users. And frankly, even they shouldn't be doing it by holding down the parts with a pencil eraser.:eek:

[george wilson]

Not real impressed with some of the box details. I don't think putting LARGE,chunky wooden hinges and latch on a box looks nice. It just isn't good design. Sorry,it's true. No offense intended.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Don't know and don't care. I quit subscribing to FWW several years ago and quit PWW this year. Both repeat way too many articles and both should quit the obnoxious mailings they send out trying to get you to re-up. I've found both to be all sizzle and no steak.

[Paul Incognito]

"this is how one author does it, but there's a better way".
You know, I read that article and thought the same thing. What he's doing with the table saw and router could be done with a plane, carving knife and backsaw just as efficiently and much safer.
As far as the router sled, you could flatten 3 or 4 slabs in the time it would take to build and set up the sled.
I'm not renewng my FWW subscription when it runs out.

Paul

[george wilson]

I quit PWW because of lack of response to inquiries about screwed up articles. I don't need any of those magazines,any way. My FWW arrived yesterday. I only flipped through it and looked at a few pictures,mostly the reader's gallery. I wish that these magazines would not be mostly dedicated to those who are just cutting their first dovetail joint,or trying to learn to sharpen their tools. BTW,I would NEVER use white glue to veneer with. Only use hide glue. The glue will go through the veneer,and hide glue is SO MUCH EASIER to clean off. I only looked at the picture of veneering the sideboard,admittedly. But,it looked like white glue to me.

End of grump!:)

When I made the large,veneered harpsichord I have posted pictures of here,I used crotch figured,dark mahogany 1/28"(try to get that now!) veneer in the panels. Borders were also very dark mahogany cross grain. All this from my personal stash of veneer from the 1950's. The hide glue came clear through the veneer,as I knew it would(had placed wax paper over everything before laying it down). It was easily dissolved with warm water and subsequently scraped. The glue did not affect the color of the wood when varnished.

[Jeff Rivas]

I don't even look at FWW on the newstand anymore. Its a sad flicker of the lightning bolt is was when it began. If they put as much effort into providing real content as they do in trying to separate you from your wallet and recycling articles it would be an improvement.Like so many businesses,when the kids took over they ran it into the ground.