Has anyone else noticed that the paper quality has gotten worse over the last few months. Have I missed any discussion about it elsewhere?
It seems the paper is super duper wafer thin and flimsy. Even the cover is floppy and thin, poor quality.
What's up with that?
Maybe it's just me?
It's probably inflation/Putin/Disease-X or something.
Never mind the stock, feel the zarjaz...
I have a digital subscription, so no.
On a related note, can anybody remind me which was the last prog to be printed on newsprint? My collection of old progs is long gone, I'm afraid.
Quote from: nxylas on 06 February, 2024, 08:56:53 PMOn a related note, can anybody remind me which was the last prog to be printed on newsprint? My collection of old progs is long gone, I'm afraid.
519 I believe.
Quote from: Colin YNWA on 06 February, 2024, 09:25:11 PMQuote from: nxylas on 06 February, 2024, 08:56:53 PMOn a related note, can anybody remind me which was the last prog to be printed on newsprint? My collection of old progs is long gone, I'm afraid.
519 I believe.
I thought it was, but wasn't sure.
Quote from: nxylas on 07 February, 2024, 02:42:54 PMI thought it was, but wasn't sure.
Looking on BARNEY now, I'm pretty sure that's right — you can see the move to painted colour covers for 520 onwards, which they definitely wouldn't have done on newsprint.
Yeah - it was deffo 519.
PROG DIMENSIONS etc.
1 to 109 240 x 280mm [newsprint, 32pp]
110 to 127 215 x 280mm [better paper, 32pp]
128 to 519 240 x 280mm [newsprint, 32pp]
[500 has better quality cover, different dimensions, 36pp]
520 to 1032 230 x 300mm [better paper, starts at 32pp]
[589+ shiny cover, +4 internal color pp, 36pp]
[650+ more color pages, 36pp]
[723+ all color printing possible, 36pp; 889-44pp; 920:52pp]
[950+ 44pp]
[974+ 36pp; 1023:44pp]
1033 to 1199 210 x 300mm [starts at 36pp]
[1077+ back to 32pp excepting specials]
1200 to 1370 195 x 300mm [32pp excepting specials]
1371 to present 210 x 280mm [32pp excepting specials]
When they start printing it on a perforated roll it's time to worry
"Good news for all readers!"
(https://www.computinghistory.org.uk/userdata/images/large/2/55/product-80255.jpg)
I'd be more than happy if they went back to the prog 1 paper
Quote from: Swerty on 07 February, 2024, 04:36:32 PMI'd be more than happy if they went back to the prog 1 paper
I remember David Bishop saying back in the '90s that there were no printing presses left in Britain that were capable of handling that low-grade newsprint they used to use. It's why we can have beautiful full-colour strips like Thistlebone, but also why the prog doesn't cost 45p*.
*= based on converting £8 in 1977 money to 2023 values using the Bank of England inflation calculator (which only recognises whole pounds) and dividing by 100.
Quote from: Judgedreddrocks on 06 February, 2024, 06:00:53 PMHas anyone else noticed that the paper quality has gotten worse over the last few months. Have I missed any discussion about it elsewhere?
It seems the paper is super duper wafer thin and flimsy. Even the cover is floppy and thin, poor quality.
What's up with that?
Maybe it's just me?
Yes I had noticed that and I don't even get physical Progs any more! Like you I thought there would have been some debate about it.
It seems to have a weird waxy quality and the colours seems very muted. It almost makes me not missing getting the physical Progs, having swapped to a digital subscription a year ago.
With regard to the other question, the last newspaper print Prog number is completely ingrained in my memory, with 519 having the last episodes of Bad Company and Slaine the King, and 520 being the 10th anniversary Prog with the memory space station cake wrap around cover.