After 27 years as an oversized magazine, and after publishing in a large-size version since its inception in 1967, Rolling Stone switched to traditional magazine dimensions with its Oct. 30 issue, which is on newsstands now.

By trimming one inch from its height and two inches from its width, the magazine will fit easier on newsstand racks, and advertising inserts will be easier to produce and print.

In a note to readers, publisher Jann S. Wenner said the size change did not come without serious thought. “The large format was one of Rolling Stone’s trademarks … We felt this was the right move but remained a little uncertain, knowing this was not just up to us but also in the hands of the large number of passionate and longtime Rolling Stone readers.

At one point I was both a passionate and longtime RS reader—I got my first subscription as a Christmas present in 1998. But at the end of last year I let my subscription lapse, because I was tired of reading cookie-cutter celebrity profiles. I picked up the Oct. 30th issue of the magazine to look and see if the new design could somehow win an ex-reader like me back.

My first thought when I picked the magazine up: It doesn’t have the heft previous thick issues of the old version of RS had. At 148 pages, the issue isn’t thin. But it just doesn’t feel as substantial as before.

In an interview with the Associated Press, managing editor Will Dana said the new format would let page designers use photos larger. To my eye, though, the photography doesn’t have the larger-than-life feel it used to. Included in this issue is another photo essay by photojournalist Sebasião Salgado, who is spending eight years photographing parts of the world that still look like they did thousands of years ago. Rolling Stone won a National Magazine Award in 2006 for Salgado’s work. His black-and-white pictures are just as striking in the current issue, but I miss the giant two-page-spread photos.

Wenner said in his note the magazine would be adding pages to ensure edit wasn’t getting cut, and the issue didn’t feel weak on content to me. In fact, the seven feature stories ran together, without any ad pages dividing the articles.

But the edit packages did suffer at the front of the magazine in the National Affairs section, where the political pieces, which are frequently accompanied by illustrations, are published. In each of the two political stories, the accompanying illustration didn’t run larger than half the page, and neither started on a spread. The larger format gave the pages room to breath, and they sometimes feel cramped here.

After reading the issue cover to cover, I was reminded why I did like the magazine, once upon a time. In this issue there were no pointless articles about aging rockers way past their prime, or stories on slutty starlets designed to appeal to the teen demographic. Instead I read a 12-page article remembering David Foster Wallace, and another 12-page story on how the U.S. has lost the war in Afghanistan.

But, but and but: No amount of good reporting is going to change how a magazine feels in your hands. To me, in a smaller size Rolling Stone doesn’t speak with the same authority it once did. This might be ridiculous, and Wenner said subscribers sent a test issue in the new size embraced the new design.

Each time newspapers scale down in size, readers complain, and then they get used to it. I didn’t think I would adjust when the New York Times lost 1.5 inches in width, but now I can’t remember what the larger size felt like.

Magazine subscribers have a different relationship with their publications than newspaper readers, however. It’s more personal. Granted, it’s unlikely hordes of people will cancel their RS subscriptions—the writing and the photography is what’s most important, not the size.

But by changing sizes, Rolling Stone does loose part of its identity. It’s literally trying to fit in with the other magazines on the shelf. And it shows.

Tags: rolling stone, size does matter