CDi Magazine issue numbering (Missing Magazine)

[marktrade]

So I just finished editing issue 01 of CDi magazine. The editor's column says it's the first issue and everything. But it's dated Sep/Oct 1994, which is off from the Retromags database by over a year.

Anyone know what's going on here?

Here's a link, btw: https://archive.org/details/CDi01SepOct1994

Edited June 6, 2016 by marktrade

[marktrade]

Here is issue 02.

https://archive.org/details/CDi02NovDec1994

[RetroDefense]

As far as I can tell, CDi Magazine began in the UK but eventually saw distribution in the states as well.  But instead of picking up where the UK edition left off, the US edition rebooted the numbering with issue 1.  The cover dates also vary, apparently.

 

Not sure how long the US edition ran.  Latest issue I've seen is #5 (May 1995).  Which - judging by the cover - corresponds with UK edition #12 (June 1995).

 

CDi Magazine (USA):

 

01: Sept/Oct 1994

02: Nov/Dec 1994

03: Feb 1995

04: March 1995

05: May 1995

 

I've created a gallery for the US edition and also added an entry to the US mag dbase.

[RetroDefense]

Was curious as to the differences between the UK and US editions so skimmed issues 5 US and 12 UK.

 

They're fairly substantial.  While the layouts and sections are very similar - and many of the larger features are shared between editions - a good portion of the content is unique.  News, previews, etc.  Which makes sense considering the disparity in CDi popularity between countries.  The UK edition included a cover disc - I assume the US edition did not.  (Some other issues of the UK edition bundled discs as well.)

 

Here's a cover comparison of 12 UK (thanks to archive.org) and 5 US (thanks to marktrade's recent scan):

 

[KiwiArcader]

The last three of these have been edited and compiled into PDF's from marktrade's raw scans and are available on OGM. I didn't bother with .CBR files for Retromags as Sean697 said my editing wasn't acceptable for the site so decided to leave to someone else to provide the edited versions here. Not that anyone over here has stepped up mind you ......

[kitsunebi]

Not gonna get in-between any of that.  I do want to at least say thanks, though.  A goodly portion of the mags I've downloaded have come from you, Kiwi, and your site.  And I've got no complaints.

 

It's kind of funny to even pretend to be overly picky about perfect quality standards considering the state of most of those Nintendo Powers involved in that recent kerfuffle.  I guess there are two philosophies: some people want a scan to be a perfect recreation of the actual magazine.  And some people want a scan to be a perfect recreation of what the magazine might have looked like right off the presses had it never touched human hands.

[RetroDefense]

I think I read about an EGM higher-up's suggestion that if this site were to preserve magazines, they should be preserved to a certain level of quality?  I'm not sure what that level of quality is but the idea of what constitutes a suitable scan is a matter of opinion, imo.  And a big enough subject to justify its own discussion, really.

 

Thanks for the edit work, Kiwi.  I should've mentioned it in my post - it is a group effort, after all.  

[kitsunebi]

I think I read about an EGM higher-up's suggestion that if this site were to preserve magazines, they should be preserved to a certain level of quality?  I'm not sure what that level of quality is but the idea of what constitutes a suitable scan is a matter of opinion, imo.  And a big enough subject to justify its own discussion, really.

 

Yeah, that was way before my time here so I've just heard it mentioned in passing.  I was under the impression that at that time, RM was hosting a lot of mags that were essentially unedited raws.  While I have no problem with raws being a part of my collection, I agree that we needn't be hosting them here, especially when other places like archive.org are available for such things. 

 

But yeah, when it comes to editing, it's a matter of opinion how much digital manipulation should be used to remove any physical flaws (scuffs, scratches, tears, etc..)  I admit I'm a stickler for trying to fix such things in Photoshop, which is why covers always take 20 times longer to edit than an interior page.  Hell, one of the covers to Dengeki PC Engine I uploaded originally had a big honkin' hole where half of a character's face was before I fixed it (but can you tell which one...?).  But even if I personally like trying to "fix" such things, it seems a bit silly to fault a scan for faithfully capturing a physical flaw in the magazine.  A bunch of those Nintendo Powers that got taken down had front and back covers that were downright homely - but it wasn't because the scanner hadn't done its job - on the contrary, it scanned exactly what was pressed against the glass, warts and all.