As the ski magazine equipment reviews appear, we wonder just how pragmatic they are and how they're put together. It's also frustrating. Ski season is five months away.

It happened on Monday. The season's first ski magazines arrived in the mail. A big, fat one it is-with plenty of ski photos, snow photos, and the required pre-season ski reviews. In this case, ski reviews, ski bindings reviews and ski boot reviews.

No snowboarding reviews. This is strictly a ski magazine.

As I wrote back in July, there's way too much choice in ski and snowboard gear. But, each year, the ski and board magazines grow fat on pre-season advertising and offer readers anywhere from ten to thirty pages of equipment reviews. Some publications do this in one issue. Some require two or three issues to cover the "buy this, buy that" ground.

And, then come the resort reviews.

And then the resort ratings.

All these reviews are supposedly based on tests performed the previous winter at ski resorts around the country. And, indeed, these tests do take place. Ski writers, editors and ski shop personnel descend on places like Killington and spend two or three days skiing on as many different products as they can.

After each road test, they fill out paperwork.

The larger magazines perform its own tests. Hopefully, these are "blind" tests, which is to say the equipment they're using is sheathed somehow to conceal the brand and model. More likely, even if these are "blind" tests, the testers know only too well what they're sliding on.

Or, in the case of ski boots, sliding in.

Either way, there's a conspicuous absence of product in these ski or snowboard review issues from companies that aren't advertisers.

There's also a conspicuous absence of testers who aren't professional level skiers or riders. Perhaps only Ski Press is an exception to that last rule: they recruit a certain number of "citizen" ski testers for their extensive test.

Magazine editors and equipment gurus will tell you that the average Joe can't really tell the subtle differences between one ski and another, especially at the intermediate level.

But, ask this: can an expert skier really tell how well an intermediate ski functions?

An experiences relates. Skiing in Spain a few years ago, I was given generic, intermediate-level rental skis on which to play. I felt like I was trying to drive a road race course in a 40-foot tractor trailer. I thought it was me; perhaps jet lag. The next day, I donned some performance skis, and the difference was palpable. I'm not an intermediate skier. I can only react negatively to intermediate skis.

This isn't to imply that ski magazine equipment reviews aren't useful. They are. They simply must be taken in context. Ask yourself:

Who's publishing the review? Powder and Freeskier have very different perspectives from Ski or Ski Press. Then find th4e middle ground. (Whenever I've shopped for a car, I've always tried to find the middle ground between reviews in Car and Driver and those in Consumer Reports.)

How many non-advertisers' products are reviewed?

What kind of a skier am I, and which of these skis relates to me-the skier I am, or the skier I want to be?

And, remember, there's no substitute for demo-ing gear.

How to demo gear is a subject for another day. But, in the meantime, it's alright to ogle the reviews of the new gear. Just remember: be patient. It's close to five months before you can actually use any of it.

Here's the follow-up discussion on this article:

View all related messages

For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Mitch Kaplan's Winter Sports topic, please visit the Discussions page.