Equipment reviews for Ancient Warfare

[Gaius_Calvus]

Well, John, there may be a problem with finding "unbiased" reviewers, but I certainly know whose opinions I trust, and whose I don't.

And, as Matt states above, I certainly trust Jasper and the rest of the editorial staff at AW to know the difference as well.

Edge

[texascavtrooper]

What we need is a reenactor that is knowledgeable and has no connection to any of the vendors or companies that makes the gear. I think the real problem though is funding. I have found that most reenactors are not the richest folks around! To just buy gear to check it out could get a little costly. There would have to be some kind of agreement with the company to get the stuff at low or no cost just for the review. Then it could be returned to the company. Anyway I think this is a great Idea it would make it a better hobby by improving the quality of the gear.

[Praefectusclassis]

Yeah, that's why I was asking the retailers, such as Ade, to see if we can work something out.

Jasper and the rest of the editorial staff at AW

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Uhmmm, whenever I speak of 'we' in relation to Ancient Warfare and it's an editorial subject, it's pretty much the pluralis majestatis :wink:

[Gaius_Calvus]

Which makes it even easier to trust AW's judgement!

[Hibernicus]

I used to publish, edit and write for a landscape and landscape maintenance trade publication. "Professional Gardening and Landscaping"

35,000 subscription, with a total of 50k in circulation in the USA

The HARDEST part was product review.

We made ALL of our money on advertsing. A dilemma!

We ended up using subscribers that had a number of years experience in the field. In many instances the product manufacturer gladly sent product for review.

In one case we set up a day for a brand of lawnwowers (large mowers mostly: self propelled walk behind mowers and riding mowers with cutting swaths of 32" or larger) . The distributer brought out a truckload of gear, we had a large number of subscribers attend and we put the gear to the test on an enourmous lawn that had hillocks and rills and inclines and declines and tight areas and broad flat expanses etc.

In all cases where a review was generally negative we withheld publication until we could substantiate the reviewer's claims.

a few quick thoughts for a RAT review section.........
.... perhaps one review section that let's the potential customer compare via a series of photos:
Here's the reproduction, here's the actual artifact. Requires no critical commentary, just observational.

Perhaps another section that details durability of a product.
-I used "ACME Brand" segmentata for the following activities: A_____; B____ etc etc and over "X" number of hours/days/months; and these are my observations_____, ______; backed by photos and video.

Perhaps a review form can be developed and/or a format described.

[jkaler48]

a few quick thoughts for a RAT review section.........

A RAT review section (not the AW magazine reviews) has the problem that
it has to be reviewed in advance because RAT mods do not want to it to become a free advertising vehicle for commericial companies who contribute nothing to RAT. (Reference: the marketplace rules changes a little while back) The situation now is unless a private member buys an item and posts a review in marketplace or one of the existing marketplace vendors stocks the item and makes a post about it new items take much longer to become known to RAT members. A paid advertising section of the marketplace would be nice and make some happy but others not.
Plus it would be more work for already busy RAT mods. I would be happy
to come up with some easy way to impliment a paid advertising marketplace section if a decision is made to try it out.

[Magnus]

Gents, let's keep this one on topic please.

[jkaler48]

You could occasionally use (with permission) an exceptionally well done review that was posted from RAT for the Ancient Warfare magazine. I have seen some very good ones in the past. Of course RAT is an excellent place to recruit reviwers and contibuters for the magazine.

[Hibernicus]

I meant AW.MAG not RAT.

A photo comparison, artefact/reproduction would be a great magazine feature that could be suppplemented by a web source.

By using an established review format a product review table could be developed much like what's used in Consumer Reports.
-- a judge team of select RAT members

Imagine a scenario where products are reviewed in person at a gathering of RAT members; at an event attended by some/several RAT members so they can put the item(s) to the test; fill out a review form; it gets written up with accompanying photos for AW.MAG

[jkaler48]

I meant AW.MAG not RAT.

A photo comparison, artefact/reproduction would be a great magazine feature that could be suppplemented by a web source.

By using an established review format a product review table could be developed much like what's used in Consumer Reports.
-- a judge team of select RAT members

Imagine a scenario where products are reviewed in person at a gathering of RAT members; at an event attended by some/several RAT members so they can put the item(s) to the test; fill out a review form; it gets written up with accompanying photos for AW.MAG

Rusty (SOTW) will have some new products available for review at events in September

[Praefectusclassis]

Imagine a scenario where products are reviewed in person at a gathering of RAT members; at an event attended by some/several RAT members so they can put the item(s) to the test; fill out a review form; it gets written up with accompanying photos for AW.MAG

Not a bad idea there, Sean.

[Hibernicus]

Thanks Jasper.. that's the kind of thing I was referring to when referencing my past experiences with trying to do neutral reviews... for AW.Mag.