I have subscribed to this magazine for almost 8 years. I found it by accident on a shelf in a bookstore. I wait by my mailbox about the same date each month waiting for the next issue. It combines current events in the US and all other Navies, with articles of a naval nature. It goes into lengthy histories of individual ships, and classes of ships. It provides a complete guide of what is happening to all navies all over the globe. It goes into technical details as far as development of classes of ships, and technologies embarked on board. Many articles are written by the actual sailors who served on board those ships.
It also tell of development and abandonment of certain naval technologies throughout the years (ever wonder what happened to the Navy's old hydrofoils, they had a recent article). They go into details that only someone who worked, lived, ate, cried and laughed on board would ever know. It also goes into historical events and analysis of the significance of those events. They provide a balanced approach and avoid anything of a political nature.
It may be boring to those not ever deployed on a REAL SHIP or embarked on a REAL CRUISE (and not on those whimpy ocean liners). However, if you know of anyone ever in the Navy (not the air side-they have their own magazine called "Air Classics"), who went to sea or served on a ship, then a subscription to this magazine is a MUST.
I have kept every copy of mine over the years and find myself re-reading them over and over.
1: One of their more prolific authors cannot refrain from inserting his personal biases and opinions into every article. This is especially noteworthy when he is penning the section "Intel File: Latest Naval & Maritime Happening Around the World." That is supposed to be news from the world, but it reads as an ill-informed editorial section. His opinions are presented as fact, and are often quite wrong. Furthermore, this same author has an addiction to the exclamation mark. Looking at the October 2011 edition his "Intel File" entry contains two exclamation marks, this for a section supposed to be factual and unbiased. An exclamation mark, never mind two, is an entirely inappropriate usage of punctuation.
2: There seems to be no real editing done of articles. The staff credits note that the editor is also the publisher, which is a direct conflict of interest (the editor should be focused on getting things right, the publisher is concerned about getting them done). It's clear which of those interests is winning. Every month I am spotting at least three grammatical, or even spelling, errors. I am a Historian by training so while I have a fair amount of experience with grammar and proofreading, I am by no means a professional in the field. I imagine there are many more errors which a trained eye would spot.
3: I understand they must sell add space. They are a print media and like most print media I'm sure that membership subscriptions do not cover the costs. Nevertheless, I read the magazine for enjoyment. What I do not read it for are political commentaries. For perhaps the last two years they have been publishing full page ads for an organization called FLAME, a vehemently and unabashedly pro-Israel lobbying group. Regardless of my own opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict, it's not something I want to be subjected to a lecture about while reading a magazine for enjoyment.
4: They do not fact check. Let me repeat that. They do not vet their articles. The October 2011 issue published an article that was overwhelmingly plagiarized from Wikipedia in all but the last three paragraphs. I will present excerpts from the article to demonstrate. In each excerpt I will provide the article first and then the wiki entry. The entry is entitled "The Deadly Sting of the Wasp!" and the wikipedia entry comes from the USS Wasp (CV-7).
Article: This experiment-the first time a US Army plane had flown from a US Navy carrier-foreshadowed the use of this ship in the ferrying role that she performed so well during WWII.
Wiki: That experiment, the first time that Army planes had flown from a Navy carrier, foreshadowed the use of the ship in the ferry role that she performed so well in World War II.
Article: Wasp and her escorts passed through the Straits of Gibraltar under the cover of darkness, avoiding the possibility of being detected by Spanish or Axis agents.
Wiki: Wasp and her consorts passed through the Straits of Gibraltar under cover of the pre-dawn darkness on 19 April, avoiding the possibility of being discovered by Spanish or Axis agents.
Article: Early in May in the Pacific, the Battle of the Coral Sea had been fought, then the Battle of Midway a month later.
Wiki: Early in May, almost simultaneously with Wasp's second Malta run -Operation Bowery -the Battle of the Coral Sea had been fought, then the Battle of Midway a month later.
Article: This group transited the Panama Canal on 10 June and at that time,* it became Task Force 18 and carried the two-star flag of R/Adm. Leigh Noeys in Wasp.
Wiki: The group transited the Panama Canal on 10 June, at which time Wasp and her consorts became TF 18, the carrier flying the two-star flag of Rear Admiral Leigh Noyes.
* Grammatical error, no comma was needed. Or, if one wanted a comma, one should have been present after the preceding and. Again, no fact checking or editing appears to have been present.
I could provide dozens of more excerpts, literally going sentence by sentence through the article, but I believe my point has been made. A simple google search for any one sentence would have turned up the wiki entry, as that is exactly what I did to confirm my suspicions. And while this is the most glaring example to date, I have seen dozens of factual errors and incorrect presumptions in previous articles going back several years.
Avoid this magazine. It once was good. It is not anymore.Like most specialty magazines, this has rather variable editorial quality. I have to restrain myself from editing as I read.
I expect many of the authors are semi-pro, at best, but that's just fine with me. I'd rather learn from an expert/veteran than hope for the best from a polished journalist who hasn't been there.
Good stories, mostly, and always leaving me wanting more. I think that works out ....
Read Best Reviews of Sea Classics Here
I ordered this magazine after my husband saw a copy at a friends home. It has brought back memorys that only those that serve can understand. It is interesting to find out where the ships ended up and why. Keep this wonderful magazine alive for the many men and women who find solace in it.Got this for my Dad, who was in the Merchant Marines at the end of WWII and was in the Coast Guard after that. In general he's hard to please, but he's told me several times how much he loves this magazine. He even keeps reminding me to renew his subscription!Save 39% Off
