[WWI] Eduard vs Roden

Michael Kendix mkendix at hotmail.com
Fri Jan 17 09:40:50 EST 2014

I guess I am curious to know what you like better about Roden kits? I understand that they produce subjects that I really want to build - I have made 4 variants of their Albatros kits that are not really available elsewhere. Comparing say, their Dr.1 kits? I used the Roden engine but that was it. Why would I not want to make the Eduard kit in preference?

Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:16:15 +0100
From: berggren.berggren at gmail.com
To: wwi at wwi-models.org
Subject: Re: [WWI] Eduard vs Roden

In some ways, I like Roden better. But that is from a purely subjective view. Eduards newer kits are a lot better engineered, and quite buildable. But they feel boring compared to Roden.

2014/1/17 Gabriel Limon <arglim at msn.com>

I do know about the vacuforms you mentioned, but my clumsy fingers have never seemed to get the hang of making them.  


From: mkendix at hotmail.com

To: wwi at wwi-models.org
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 02:34:15 +0000
Subject: Re: [WWI] Eduard vs Roden

Most of the things you mention were/are available in vacuform. I've built the Roseplane Farman F.40bis. There's a vac of the Caudron G.3 & 4, Aviatik C.1 (Joystick), AEG C.IV (Sierra Scale), BE2a (Phoenix but God knows how to actually get hold of that).

From: arglim at msn.com
To: wwi at wwi-models.org
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:56:24 -0800
Subject: Re: [WWI] Eduard vs Roden

I got back in the hobby around 1985 and found Eduard not long after.  Since then I've been well satisfied with offerings from both Roden and Eduard.  There are certainly discrepancies in models from each of those manufacturers, it still drives my crazy that Eduard missed getting the undercarriage of the DV/a correct.  They also missed a pretty obvious placement of the footstep on their re-do.  On the DVIIs from Roden, you have to do some serious carving to get the lower wing to fit correctly.  

However, none of those corrections require any major work to get right.   I guess what I'm trying to say is that without those kit makers our little corner of the modeling world would be in a drought situation for sure (what we in CA are living through now).  It's just sad that not much new is being brought out nowadays.  For example, I've always wished for an AEG CIV.  What are the chances of seeing that in styrene?  Anyhope for a Caudron G.III or IV in plastic?  Doubtful.  So many of the early period machines are completely overlooked.  Anyone seen a Farman, BE2a,

Aviatik C.I?  I think all of us realize what a small market segment we really are compared to the WWII and jet age bunch.  Maybe with the centennial of 1914-18 more people will become interested.


From: mkendix at hotmail.com
To: wwi at wwi-models.org
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:39:32 +0000

Subject: Re: [WWI] Eduard vs Roden

Well, I am not that old.  And second, I think you know what I mean by decent but clean mold with less flash, good fit, no unnecessary tooling or over-engineering unless it enhances the model or increases the available variants. Accuracy too. All the things that you would want.

As for Shane's comment about wanting something that was already built - well, yes, I suppose but I do like some challenge and I like to have models that represent WW1 and as many as I can make; so far, I have about 50-60 built WW1 models. If you could buy ready-made models of the same detail that I build, I think:

They would probably be too expensive for me.I wouldn't get as much satisfaction from making them.


Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:54:36 -0300
From: dfernet0 at rosario.gov.ar

To: wwi at wwi-models.org
Subject: Re: [WWI] Eduard vs Roden


      It is like good art - I cannot define it but I know
        it when I see it.


    You're a befuddling model critic, old chap.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.wwi-models.org/pipermail/wwi/attachments/20140117/e6f4f206/attachment.html>

More information about the WWI mailing list