RC10Talk - The Net's Largest Vintage R/C Community

mrlexan wrote:buzz words are cheap.

nice edingers aren't.

i like edinger over early production. less letters to type, less letters to read, less syllables to pronounce it. we live in a fast paced society. we can't be dicking around spending more time reading words than we have to.

MelvinsArmy wrote:Well, wouldn't using the term "Edinger" only on certain cars be pointless then? I mean, if I have a car that came in a box with an Edinger address, it is an Edinger car, even if it doesn't have those early parts. I've never had what people are calling "Edinger" RC10, and I've owned a lot of RC10's. Each of those boxes and both of those motors came with the cars that came out of those very boxes. None were "Edinger" cars as people would label them. So, the term as it is being used by collectors is useless.

my edinger car didn't have all of those early bit's and pieces on it, but it's still an edinger. i don't consider only the ones with the early parts to be an edinger. if you have a car that you know for a fact came out of edinger box, it's an edinger. i mean, they are different than a cadillac.

i guess you don't like the term cadillac either, huh?

scr8p wrote: my edinger car didn't have all of those early bit's and pieces on it, but it's still an edinger. i don't consider only the ones with the early parts to be an edinger. if you have a car that you know for a fact came out of edinger box, it's an edinger. i mean, they are different than a cadillac.

i guess you don't like the term cadillac either, huh?

Finally, we're starting to make some sense of this.

I don't mind Cadillac, but that might be because I rarely hear that term used.

I can't think of a bigger buzz word than Edinger. Or a more incorrect one, at least as it's been used up till now.

I personaly like the term of " Edinger " over early production. The reference of Edinger give us an exact timeline of what era the car was from. The term of early production leaves us open to too much debate, one could say any car with a 6 gear and short a-arms is an early production.


I do get tired of every part on the bay having a buzz word label attached to it. I do find it quite funny after how long this site has been up and running the debate is still on. As we all know with so few changes through the years we realy have no seperation between one and the next , I think that is why there is such importance placed on the few differences we have to go off of. If AE would have gave us serial numbers just think how it would be trying to get a car from every year, even if it was the same car.

I do not own an edinger , some day I might get the urge. Until then I will just enjoy bright gold, short arm Cadilacs.

Heck the only ae vehicle I have ever owned is my ft t4. Always had kyosho,losi, and traxxas. OOOOOOHHHHHH that was probably the wrong thing to say. I want to get an old rc10 some day but I don't care what it is as long as it's a metal tub chassis. But for now I will have fun with my ft t4.

greazy wrote:I personaly like the term of " Edinger " over early production. The reference of Edinger give us an exact timeline of what era the car was from. The term of early production leaves us open to too much debate, one could say any car with a 6 gear and short a-arms is an early production.

But, the term Edinger is not being used accurately. It's being used to label the first production run of RC10's, when in fact cars coming with the Edinger address on their boxes and motors have later production parts. Early Production makes perfect sense, because that's what it is. Same way with a Tiger 1 tank, early, mid and late production is easily distinquished by different pieces on each era of tank. Cars with short arms and a 6 gear are 6-gear RC10s. Then the CE, Stealth, Worlds, etc.

I'm not looking to eliminate the tag "Edinger" with all of this, but rather try to correct the language that we use. I know it's probably a futile attempt. People love putting additional labels on everything, even if they don't even understand what they mean.

The thing that I can't get over is that this site is solely responsible for all those buzz words. That just amazes me that a handful of vintage guys can influence such a thing in the way that it has been influenced.

Yep, some of the guys that use the buzz words either belong here or lurk just to find out what people are looking for. As soon as someone sees an item or 2 with a so-called buzz word identifier go for big or even decent money then everyone follows suit with their title description key words. To their credit it seems to usually work for a while, it might be revolving like Edinger is big now as was Worlds was just a few months ago but it seems to start here as far what the current trend is. There may not be any parts at all from an Edinger, worlds, Tecnacraft or RC10 for that matter in an eBay title but if it gets the auction into our search arguments then they have succeeded.

here's the thing. we have used the term "edinger" around here for quite some time. most people, if they take the time to research these cars, will understand the differences in them. i can't help it if they still get it wrong. there's enough info on the forum about them to know what they're looking at or what they have.

there's no sense in reinventing the wheel now and start calling them "early production". as for the one i had..... no, it didn't have the large rear spring cups, fiberglass battery straps, dual servo saver bellcracks, goofy shock pistons, e-clip gear drive pivot, goodyear tires, and clear gear cover. but, it still had the small diameter shock cap gaskets, light gold annodizing, parma slot car controller wiper for the msc with the larger battery plug, plain sidewall proline tires, part supplement sheets, and the 2 separate instruction manuals. one with text, and one with pictures. all of which was different as compared to the cadillac kits. so, just because mine doesn't have the early parts that everyone thinks makes their car an edinger makes mine not one? i don't think so.

as a matter of fact i would be willing to bet that the one i had (had to sell it ) is more rare than the ones with the early parts. i know of, and have only seen 2 that came with the tires that were in my kit.

my old one.........
and erich's...........

mrlexan wrote:The thing that I can't get over is that this site is solely responsible for all those buzz words. That just amazes me that a handful of vintage guys can influence such a thing in the way that it has been influenced.

I suppose that's what I feel a certain responsibilty to raise a stink about this in an effort to correct what I see as a bit of a problem. Small as it may be, it is annoying.

MelvinsArmy wrote:

mrlexan wrote:The thing that I can't get over is that this site is solely responsible for all those buzz words. That just amazes me that a handful of vintage guys can influence such a thing in the way that it has been influenced.

I suppose that's what I feel a certain responsibilty to raise a stink about this in an effort to correct what I see as a bit of a problem. Small as it may be, it is annoying.

well, it's better than only being known for helping with the rise in rc10 prices.

MelvinsArmy wrote:it is annoying.

You or it? Or both?

scr8p wrote:

MelvinsArmy wrote:

mrlexan wrote:The thing that I can't get over is that this site is solely responsible for all those buzz words. That just amazes me that a handful of vintage guys can influence such a thing in the way that it has been influenced.

I suppose that's what I feel a certain responsibilty to raise a stink about this in an effort to correct what I see as a bit of a problem. Small as it may be, it is annoying.

well, it's better than only being known for helping with the rise in rc10 prices.

Oh, Edinger is a friggen ant hill compared to the Mt Everest prices problem we've helped create. I mean, I'm sure it was gonna happen eventually, just based on old Tamiya prices, but there is no doubt we gave it a huge boost. I'm just really glad I got most of the stuff I wanted before the site really took off.

mrlexan wrote:

MelvinsArmy wrote:it is annoying.

You or it? Or both?

D. All of the above. But, especially choice A.

It's amazing how just a word can influence the price of a "toy" car substantially....

Daddeo wrote:Not trying to flame anybody here but the whole "Edinger" thing has been blown way out of proportion in my opinion. Come on, they're all old and no longer made so that makes them all very valuable to us, right?

i drug this post over from the ebay talk thread, figuring it fit better here. and i'm not really picking on you daddeo, i just quoted you because of your phrasing........ blown out of proportion.

i don't really know what you mean in regards to it being blown out of proportion. whether its guys feeling the need to disect these cars, or the way guys just throw the word around, but....................

i bet i could find quite a few threads that hash out all of the little differences of the "worlds" car, but no one seems to get irritated by those. how about anthony's thread in the losi forum about all of the difference in the parts throughout the years. no one seems to have a problem with that either. i could even mention the yokomo timeline. i believe there's quite a bit of differences between models in there too. but for some reason, the edinger rc10 just hits a nerve, and i just don't know why. this forum isn't just for BS'ing and posting pictures of pretty cars. there's alot of tech stuff on here. so what is wrong with providing all of the possible info about these cars? there's a lot of differences in them in the short time they were at that address (while producing the rc10). it's interesting to me to find it all out, and i'm sure others feel the same way.

a lot of why i dig into researching things as much as i do all stems from restoring real cars. if you've never tried to build a 100 point showcar, you wouldn't understand.

Just so I know what to call it, where was the rc1o graphite from?

or should I use the "early just past middle production run"