SkyKing

I think Dragon/DML kits come from Hong Kong, as do High Planes kits and many 3D printed items. Shipments from China are also in limbo. This was posted on the Steel Navy forum: ”I’ve noticed that some but not all vendors of 3D-printed ship model kits out of China are quoting shipping from $200 to $1,000. An example is some (at least) SSModel kits in 1/700 or 1/350.” And, “I e-mailed one of the sellers, and received a very prompt and nice reply, including, "Due to the increase in tariffs by the US government, we are unable to do business with our American friends. After the tariff issue is resolved, we will return to our previous state."

HONG KONG (AP) — Hong Kong’s post office will stop shipping small parcels to the United States after Washington announced plans to charge tariffs on small-value parcels from the southern Chinese city, the government said Wednesday. The U.S. government earlier announced that it would end a customs exception allowing small-value parcels from Hong Kong to enter the U.S. without tax, slapping a 120% tariff on them starting from May 2. The “de minimis” exemption currently allows shipments that are worth less than $800 to go tax-free. A government statement said Hongkong Post would not collect tariffs on behalf of Washington, and will suspend accepting non-airmail parcels containing goods destined for the U.S. on Wednesday, since items shipped by sea take more time. It will accept airmail parcels until Apr. 27. “For sending items to the US, the public in Hong Kong should be prepared to pay exorbitant and unreasonable fees due to the U.S.’s unreasonable and bullying acts,” the government wrote. Source: https://apnews.com/article/hong-kong-post-us-suspend-shipping-goods-tariff-0a52db6fc32e559cb6c5e42b8c9824d7

There was nothing wrong with the former title.

I’m a 50-year+ member and I endorse this message!

The real issue is a lack of transparency from the Eboard.

It’s “going nowhere” because the membership has yet to hear a clear explanation of WHY changes in the Journal and its production were thought to be so necessary that they caused an editor with years of experience to resign.

Thank you, Gold Three, for the update. However, what NO ONE on either the Eboard or the Journal staff has been willing to reveal are the reasons for the extensive format change that caused Chris Bucholtz’s resignation. We members are entitled to know. So, I pose these questions to you directly and clearly so that there is no misunderstanding: 1. What were the SPECIFIC reasons for the extensive changes in format of the IPMS Journal? Why were these felt to be necessary? 2. What were the SPECIFIC changes in Journal production that caused Chris to resign? Why were they felt to be necessary? I await your reply.

If I were paranoid, I’d suspect censorship.

Only the Eboard knows the reasons for the changes in the editorial process which were forced on Chris, and they have not been forthcoming in spite of numerous requests of them. I fully support Chris’s election to the board, and further urge the current board to be completely replaced!

Nice work!

Apparently not. There is already another “IUJ”: the International Urogynecology Journal!

That is indeed an inspiring model. My criticism was not directed at any of the models.

I really still HATE the title. And what is that thing on the cover?? It’s impossible to determine. If it’s a model, shouldn’t it be obvious? We’re an organization of modelers, after all. Like the previous issue, this will probably go in the trash cans of many members, as it will go in mine. And that’s where my membership will probably go when it’s up for renewal, even after 57 years.

The point, gentlemen, is that our official publication could have and SHOULD have a much better name.

There’s already an “IUJ;” as reported elsewhere, it’s the International Urogynecology Journal.

And that model article could have benefited from larger photos WITH CAPTIONS instead of a bunch of uncaptioned small photos. Enlarging the photos in this one article would undoubtedly have lessened the jarring amount of white space in the magazine.

I did not realize that the Wild Apricot came with an ongoing monthly “consulting” fee and don’t recall ever seeing any mention that one was necessary. In the wake of recent events, perhaps we should find a volunteer to oversee Wild Apricot for free and put the money saved toward hiring a consultant to produce the Journal.

Absolutely!

It is undoubtedly digital already: Produced on computer(s) using desktop publishing software (Adobe InDesign, QuarkXPress, etc.), saved as a press-ready digital file (PDF), and emailed to printer for printing directly from the file on a digital color press or printed to film for making litho plates for 4-color ink (CMYK) printing. That’s been the normal method since at least the early 2000s when I was editor at Squadron-Signal.

I would like the answer to this as well.

Hi, Rick. It seems apparent to me that whoever put the Journal together is a graphic designer for web publishing, not print, and that no page proofs were printed. As I’m sure you know, what works well for a computer monitor doesn’t always translate to print.

It certainly looks like it was put together by a committee. And that reminds me of a comment made by a former mentor and board chairman of a non-profit agency I once worked for: “For God so loved the world, he DIDN’T send a committee!”

Got my copy of the ”International Urogynecology Journal” (plastic modeling edition) today, and I am thoroughly underwhelmed: light gray type that’s extremely difficult for my 78-year-old eyes to read; a typeface for the main text that has too thin a stroke, making legibility even worse (but “pull quotes” are black and easy to read?!!); inconsistent page layouts; large blocks of empty space. Some articles have photos that are too large, some have photos that are too small. Some photos have rounded corners, some do not. A variety of “artsy-fartsy”typefaces are used for article titles. And that awful, ugly, enormous “IUJ” logo on the cover, with ”IPMS USA JOURNAL” relegated to smaller print underneath, is nothing but confusing. This entire issue suggests it was put together by a novice desktop publishing student who just acquired the latest software and tried to use as many different features as possible in an attempt to show “mastery” of it. It’s a mess. In case it’s not already obvious, I’m greatly disappointed. I’ve been a member of IPMS-USA since 1967 (#1746), and have seen our publications evolve from a mimeographed attachment to the IPMS-UK magazine to a professionally designed and printed printed publication, but this issue of the “Journal” is in my opinion an embarrassment to the organization. I also have over twenty years’ experience in editing and publishing as a book and journal editor for a small publisher, publications manager and production editor for two large fraternal organizations, a newspaper copy editor and page layout designer, and copy/page layout/production editor for Squadron-Signal Publications, and I can tell you that the purpose of any publication is to convey information in an attractive, useful format. But first of all it should be LEGIBLE with a CONSISTENT, UNCOMPLICATED STYLE to be effective, and this issue fails on most counts. The best portions of it are the ads and notices of forthcoming local contests which have doubtless been designed and submitted by outside sources. Past issues of the Journal have met the test of attractiveness, usefulness, and LEGIBILITY. So why was it decided to change a format that works apparently only for the sake of change?

Chris quit (and I’m reading between the lines of his post concerning the matter) because the Board wanted to exercise oversight and force him to make changes to things that rightly fell under his purview as editor and that in his opinion were not necessary or would adversely affect the quality and timeliness of the publication, leaving him as “editor” in name only. Under such circumstances he felt he had no option but to quit, and I don’t blame him. Had I been editor, I’d have quit, too.

Why was Mr. Annis not aware that the light gray text would be so hard to read? Were page proofs not printed? They would have made the problem obvious, because what looks fine on a computer monitor doesn’t always work well in print. To not have printed page proofs is inexcusable! And I speak with over ten years’ experience in desktop publishing as Publications Manager for two large fraternal organizations, as a newspaper copy/page layout editor, and production/copy/layout editor for Squadron/Signal.