Cross and Cockade/ Over the Front

[Aviatik]

The price might seem high... but they are larger format and have also larger photographs and better detail than Osprey Aces series which are smaller and as expensive but more specialized with color artwork. OTF has color outside covers, but inside none at present. I think that it is a good value.

Aviatik

[wolfenbill]

As an issue editor and some time contributor to Over the Front I heartily recommend both. In fact if you could add World War I Aero, you'd really have a nice combination. I realize that having all three would cost more than $100 a year but you would have a tremendous range of information at your disposal. Over the Front is a descendant of Cross and Cockade, first published in the US in 1960. A long range project of mine is to put the old issues of C & C (US) onto CD's so that they will be readable by Adobe Acrobat. With this available you would have a gold mine of information about this fascinating period of history. As was mentioned before, all labor in these publications are labors of love. No editors and no contributors are paid for their efforts at all. They are offering free, save the printing cost of the publication, the result of hundreds and sometimes thousands of hours of research and editing. Try getting that kind of service from your friendly physician or lawyer ! And ads, if any, are very minimal.

[stephen]

For the technically challenged like myself, WWI Aero is not the best publication. For modelers and a/c builders its a dream come true.

For those more into the historical aspect, definately go with OTF. If you have a British background or leaning, stick with C&C which is heavily biased in that direction (that's not an accusation; its actually wonderful if that is your interest).

[john_g]

Cross and Cockade and OTF both aquire thier articles in the same manner, that is they are submitted by the membership, so they reflect the the members research interest, sure C&CI has a lot of British, and therfore Commonwealth input, but also have articles on French, German and all manner of other subjects, as does OTF, and I would suggest that the research sumbmitted to both Journals is of an excellent standard. But also check out the cost per column inch and C&CI is a clear winner. I am a member of both, but OTF has a lot of white space, and the continual reptition of the mini biogs of authors is a waste of space. But at the end of the day if you want a broad reading of the subject you really do need to subscribe to both, they are both good value for money, you cannot put a price on knowledge.

[Andrew_Smith]

G'day all,

The Australian Society of World War 1 Aero Historians is also an option. They are not as big as the other two, so they only put out a large annual journal, 'THE '14 -'18 JOURNAL', that is not as glossy as the other two journals. It is the equal as far as content goes. They do send out a bi-monthly newsletter which keeps you up to date with the societies happenings.

The cost of joining for UK/US/Europe & Canada is Au$40. On current exchange rates that works out roughly;

US $21.20
UK £14.87
Can $33.45
Euro 24.04

Take advantage of the weak Aussie dollar.

A sample of the articles can be found at;

http://asww1ah.topcities.com/article.htm

You will be suprised at the range of topics.

Andrew.

[Aviatik]

John G

"Cost per column inch?" You must be an accountant.

We print what is submitted. It is required that each article is submitted with a bio. There are many newcomers to OTF and this is for them, and no apologies are made for including them. Their effect on space is minimal, they don't take up that much space, maybe 1/8th of a page at the most. It assigns a face to a name and gives you some personal information about them, their careers, families, etc. Something that we feel is important, because it is, after all, them who are volunteering their time and research efforts. Why not give them a little bit of the limelight, eh?

Now, about the publication. Although similar in layout to our cousin across the water in the UK, there are some approaches in OTF that, yes differ, but, for good reason. As a graphic design principle it is important to use white space in order to not fatigue the eye and also give the reader some visual breathing space, and a nice experience. White space, (I assume you mean leading? or the breaks between body text and quotations?) is very important. A few years ago in OTF there was a big problem with readibility. The person doing the layout at that time used a very dense typeface, and just as dense leading. They also used a justified alignment column style, or "the block" as we refer to it. The combination of the two had the effect that you would often lose your place while reading. Not a good thing.

We use ragged right now, because it aids the reader and they won't lose their place. Again, a design/typographic consideration, not a whim. If we were a newspaper or some textbook where space was an issue and we didn't use photographs, then we'd use the "block." We aren't, so we do not!

The layout artist for OTF a few years ago for example, layed out an article on the Combat Log of Hermann Göring. A fascinating piece of research by Frank Olynk, I believe. But, it was so dense, and also full of heavy horizontal lines that it was very difficult to read. A shame. Why, because they had a rudimentary knowledge of desktop publishing, but no design skills. I'd like to see it republished in the new OTF house style with also better photographic reproduction technology.

Also, another emphasis at OTF is the best photo quality possible. Also, when necessary we will print photos larger than the two column or one column width. For example, a recent issue, (Spring 2000) had supplied two photographic prints of a Jasta 28 lineup. Upon studying the photographs closely it became apparent that they had once been part of a wide panoramic view of the airfield with at least 9 Albatros D.III and D.V aircraft lined up, but had been torn in half to fit in the original album. What did we do? The photo was restored and ran full 17 inch width. No where else does that photo exist, except right there. Also, at OTF photos are run at a larger size when important details are inherent in the photo and can aid a researcher or a modeller. That is what we are about. We also use paper with a higher clay content for better photographic reproduction.

continued...

[Aviatik]

...I used to work at NASA in Houston, TX and it always amazed me how the government/military engineer types seemed bent on cramming as much text on a page, smaller point size, etc. breaking all graphic design principles, and therefore making a document impossible or undesireable to read and gather dust on the shelf. They had tons of those documents that would get shipped off to deep storage each year unread.

OTFs design philosophy? Give the readers an experience visually as well as good information. Make the subject come alive.

With the advances in imaging and publishing technology, good papers, why not let it show in the publication?

Aviatik

[Rick]

Aviatik,

Being ax ex Aerospace Engineer, I tend to agree with you. However, for proposals, where the page count is strictly limited, then I must take exception. Although, I suspect, that many of those went unread also!! R.

[Aviatik]

Rick,

Ahhh, those darn proposals! Good point. It is best to design for your audience, true. Glad OTF isn't a proposal!

Aviatik

[john_g]

Aviatik

An accountant I am not, just a working man who looks after his hard earned pay.

Lets not fall out hear. As I said I am a member of both and have been for many years, both journals have thier strong points and of course weak points. But as a long term subscriber to OTF, the two things that begin to grate are as stated, white space and biogs. I can agree that biogs are ok once, or twice, but that has not been the case. Of course there are diifferences, the world would be very boring if we all looked the same. OTF are to be commended on thier general innovative journal production. If you do not want to justify the text fine. Of course white space is there to be used, but examine some of the journals, and from this punters point of view I ask myself, some of this space is not doing anything, it could have been put to better use. The veriety of size used for the photographs and illustrations I do not have a problem with, and of course I have not criticised the quality of the paper or covers which are excellent.

It would be interesting to see how much space is actually taken up with biogs, and I am not going to do a survey of the last 16 yaers. But take Vol 16 and as of today I have the first three issues, issue one has 5, issue 2 has 3, and interestingly issue 3 none, yet it had five articles include.

So we have 8 biogs, which vary in length, some are 1/2 a column and others 1/4. I personnally would prefer to use that space for another item. I accept it is OTF editorial choice.

So to return to my original point, C&CI in my opinion if you want content for the mighty $ is better value for money.

I would also agree with Andrew, do not forget The 14-18 Journal, it really is excellent value for money.

As a matter of interest, for those who have not recived the latest issue of C&CI , the latest issue has glossey laminated covers, colour side views of 55 sqn DH4's and three view colour drawings of SPA 124 Spad X111, Articles on 55 sqn Capt. Orlando Beater DFC, Esc SPA 124, RNAS Airship service and The Construction Corps, Capt Basil Hallam Radford, A mission to the RFC (This will interest our American friends).