I may get flack fo this - but here goes.

There is a trend in modeling to over weather. Aircraft with seams that are "blackened" to the point that the finished plane looks like it is striped.

Armor - with huge paint chips, pre shading, post shading, washes, drybrushing so as to represent an AFV no tanker would want to be seen in.

I have seen more and more of this in modeling magazines and on the contest table.

Anyone else noticing this trend

Thanks

Well Frank, i dunno...

i moslty do WWII tanks where i dont think there is a phrase "overweathered" but i can agree with you that i lately see more and more Jet planes and modern armour with a bit too much weathering on them which shouldnt be.

cheers
Mirko

Eh, no flak here...
I think this has been addressed several times previously, but I basically think that theses are methods to try to advance the 'realism' of a scale model, but in itself has defeated the purpose IF overdone... In the right amounts, they only serve to enhance a kit (as was their original intention, I'm sure) but yes, I think there are many out there who adhere to these techniques as a necessity, and therefore overwork the look... Wrong in my book, but hey whateven turns your topsoil...
You only have to make a kit and post some images to realise that there are many who adhere top this view also, and can help people to realise a more realistic finish... ie. OD paint chipping on a M4...
My 2 shekels worth...
Cheers
Brad

I have noticed the trend to over weather too. I agree with Sensei about armor not being over weathered but it some cases I have seen there have been some examples of every weathering type under the sun on one model and way too much.
As far as aircraft go my major pet peeve is the panel line shading and panel fading. In many cases every single panel is done and to the point of excess. Or the plane is so weathered and it only has 5 mission marks. And the best one is where the plane (or tank) is weathered symetrically on both sides.
But weathering techniques and materials have gotten better over the years. Just wish that some would use better judgement and learn to spot before overdoing it.

No flak gunnery here either. As weathering goes,I'm all for mud,dirt,dust,oils,and grime . Paint chips?Not really.The exception would be DAK vehicals and weapons,and then only some chipping at that.
Those guys that partake of the chip'n' flake- til- you-see-polished-metal are doing it in the name of 'artistic licence'. Some people like it.I myself don't care for it.
One thing I do see that is kinda fakey is what I call "perfect cammo" syndrome.Cammo jobs that are artistically appealing,no runs,blunders,shade changes from crummy paint,and looks like the spray gun was in 20 ft tall Gulliver's hand! Guys see nice aircraft cammo jobs and translate that to armor. I haven't seen too many photo back-ups of it at all.
My .02 from the cheap seats
Rick

I have to agree with you on the camo - especially German WWII. Not all German tanks were painted with a paint gun. Many were painted with whatever was available to slap on the paint. YET - enter two of the same model - identical in all ways - EXCEPT the camo. Paint one with a hand paint brush and one an airbrush - the airbrush version be seen as "More" realistic.

Like the others, no flak coming from here. It is perceived by some that the more beat up a kit looks, the more likely it is to appear more realistic. Although i cant really say thats always the case, i personally prefer a kit thats somewhere in the middle. Not too dirty and not too clean either. Striking a balance between the 2 is often the hardest.

Something wierd with the posting, but anyway here goes for the 4th time:

I think there are basically two types of modellers: those that set out to build and paint a really great model, and those that set out to replicate a real vehicle. This trend is there in other art forms. You'll see paintings done to look like a painting, not a person. A vase made with fake cracks to make it look like cool pottery instead of a vase. Etc etc.

EDIT: This goes for figs too. There are many figs that look like beautifully painted scale figs. And there are those that look like replicas of real people.

I agree with David here.

Seems like there is almost 2 different ways of building AFV models.

I recently purchased two books to learn from:

"Panzer modelling" by Tony Greenland

"F.A.Q." by Mig Jimenez

reading those two books made me more confused than ever . The first one makes nice and clean models while the second builds muddy, chipped and dusted models.

Almost feels like it is not the same hobby

Hi Frank,

I'd tend to agree with you. I don't like to see great quantaties of 'paint chips' on AFVs, mud, dirt, oil yes and the odd dent.

I think people do it because it does produce a great effect, maybe not realistic, but looks good.

I do think it has a place on soft skinned vehicles particularly those in desert settings as that is a very harsh environment., but again in realistic places, around the mud gauards and botom edge of the vehicle. In the same vain it looks good on boat ramps etc.

I hand paint all my kits, but that's because I don't own or want a paint gun. There's no doubt that spraying can give a sharper effect but to me it's too clean a look. The perfect vehicle, yip looks great but also a bit false. Never saw a perfect vehicle unless it was at an arms fair or in a museum. When we were mechanised in Germany most of the vehicles were hand painted, if you got lucky you might borrow a paint gun from the LAD and do it that way.

There's a good example of over kill on site at the moment. Brilliant techniques, great effect and looks cool, stuff I could probably never do but I've never seen an AFV in that 'state' for real unless it had been abondened and left for years. The crew would have been marched straight to the Guard House!!

In the end it's a personal thing. I'd say that if you're happy with the result then don't sweat it because this is a hobby and we do it for fun.

Who cares if the paints not the right color, in real life troops used whatever was available and if it wasn't the 'proper paint' tough, it got painted anyway.

Personally I'd like to see less of it, but I'm happy to view the kits and appreciate them for the time and effort that went into them, but 'over kill' just spoils the vehicle.

That's my 10 cents worth.

Cheers
and be happy, keep modelling and lets see some purple Tigers!!! LOL, LOL..

Al

Here's my 2 cents for what its worth -there are prototype models that are very clean and lok good -and there are replica models that look like the real thing -after almost 10 years in the Navy I can tell you that most milaitary vehicles and equipment in the field get filthy-this includes jet aircraft - from a distance they look clean but up close even the must carefully maintained F-14 is grubby! In the Navy we do depot level maintainence in port -at sea we tend to do operational maintainence -make sure it works! I have seen aircraft with mis-matched panels and unpainted parts and pieces. It's a matter of chioce and there is certainly room for both in this hobby.

I've been ranting on this for ages! The two techniques I find most overdone are paint chipping and pre=shaded panel llines. I'm sure what's happening is builders using other models as references instead of primary sources, i.e., photos of the real thing. The modeler B sees modeler A put a few chips to make his model "more realistic" so modeler B puts more chips to be even more realistic. Modeler C then uses modeler B's kit as a reference and increases his chiping even more. And so it goes. The same with pre-shading. One of the most egregious overdone work was the AC-130 cover on a recent FSM. Our member, Sticky, uses a great deal of moderation in this technique and prodices some excellent work.

I keep it simple, I personaly prefer light weathering for my models.

Thanks Al.

All the techniques and styles mentioned so far are tools used to acheive a result. Like any tool they can be mis-used, producing less than desirable results. But all tools take practice, and It has taken me years to get to the point that I can make the airbrush do what I want most of the time, and get my "systems" established. Over the years I have over done my fair share of kits, but they were all part of the learning process. So as we evaluate finished kit done by others, it is important to remember that they just might be learning and experimenting - and to give them the freedom to do so, as well as maybe offer some guidance too!

I will get off my soap box now! :-)

Al -
The AC-130 you refer to won "Best of Show" This is what I was referring to when I stated that the panel lines were so dark as to make the plane look striped.

I do think some of the Japanease Aircraft tend to be overdone. Someone in here had once stated "When you think you need just a little more wheathering, STOP"

Theres only one thing worse than an overweathered model and that is an underweathered model.

No flak because this is a place where we can all get together and share our views. I think that like in anything our hobby goes through fashions, where techniques come and go, only to return sometime in the future.
The most important thing is that we can choose how we develop our personal techniques and in many cases theere is no definitive right or wrong, just what we as individuals like.
At the end of the day in most cases you arer modelling for your own satisfaction, so if you like it and can feel a sense of pride and achievement then its an excellent build. If others like and give compliments then thats a bonus.

John

I'm inclined to agree with you Frank. I see alot of models I consider to be "over weathered", this is particularly with WW2 vehicles. I think some of it is due to the fact that the only real vehicles are now 60 years old, so even the best preserved in museums will show some wear & tear & rusting. But a lot of people forget that when they were first used in action, a lot of these vehicles were brand new. In my view, it's fine to put mud & dust on a tank when it's being used in inclement weather, but not to go mad with paint chipping. My particular bugbear is Ardennes scenes, late 1944, where you see a KT or similar with the full treatment. The armoured vehicles used in this campaign by the Germans were nearly all BRAND NEW guys! They replaced the catastrophic losses in material from Normandy.
ON the Eastern Front, things got more battered because of the poor roads etc. Bear in mind that many of the vehicles used under these conditions were destroyed before they made old bones. You will only rarely see a vehicle issued in 1939 still in use in 1945. OK if you want to model one of these survivors, they certainly will look pretty battered, mismatched paint, scavenged parts, rust, wear & tear, but these are a minority.
In the West, with a good road network, things just didn't get that battered. Dusty, yes. Chipped & paint falling off, no. Some of the models I see look like they have been in a junkyard for 50 years!

I have to admit I am one of those who like to over-weather my model....everytime I model a vehicle, I always feels like it is not complete if it is too clean...or just with subtle weathering...

But everytime I goes back for the reservist training, I looked at those vehicle running on the ground for the last 3 days...they will not get as dirty as how I would model it...and

Guess it is a case of over-zealous modelling....

Conversely, it may be more accurate to show paint worn on modern vehicles. Some have been in service for 10-15 years or more! I know from running old bikes, that even with the best will in the world, & touch-ups, a 15 year old vehicle won't look as fresh as a new one. Don't forget WW2 only lasted 7 years, & little of the equipment in service in 1939 was still front-line in 1945, especially combat vehicles like tanks. Much of the equipment that was obsolete went to training units or anti-partisan units. Training units in particular had/have a ready pool of labour for the sergeant-majors to use to keep vehicles spick & span! I notice that modern kit I see being transported by road is frequently dusty, but over good paint.

Interesting thread. I really have to work at my weathering. Sometimes I feel that I have too much (and get complemented for it) and other times too little (with the complements). I am not "big" on chipping and shading, although I have tried to duplicate specific vehicles. I try to match the weathering process to the vehicle, era and user. It seems that some folks feel they have to use every method on their kit and do not strike the right balance. Sometimes too much, not enough or unrealistic. It is an ART.

Just my outlook.

Doug

Hi all ,

Interesting is that I had been building some older tanks for a while (WWII) and I used the standard washes, bit of chips etc. Now I am building a Leopard 2a6 and it is really really hard not to put on paint chips, exessive washes or damged fenders. I have seen many pics of them and they all are in tiptop condition. They only thing I could do is add 1 maybe 2 scratches and a lot of dust . At first I thought the model looked too "new" but when I compared it with the real thing it looked very accurate.

so it seems indeed true that people have the tendency to weather too much (at least I do)

next kit will be a Tiger but apparantly they were maintained pretty well and paint hardly ever chipped due to the high quality primer I read somewhere on this site. Damn the person who wrote that!! Just kidding

Cheers Matthijs

I think that the term 'overweathered' needs to be broken down in different segments.

Paint chipping
When applied this is usualy overdone, using reference photo's from many sources shows very little paint chipping, other than abandoned/badly damaged vehicles. Paintchips are something which will be attended to during routine maintanance, and makes for an interesting (although difficult to replicate in scale) effect of patched paint work.

Mud and/or dust
This is often underdone, a tracked vehicle rips up the ground like a plough, and flings it everywhere... AFV's will be coated in mud/dirt shortly after moving off, and contrary to belief, would not be washed at regular intervals. I mean where did the mobile vehicle wash come from? And washing a 60 ton Tiger ( or 45 ton Panther or even a 23 ton Pzr IV) with a bucket from a tap? Sure, when essential maintanance/reloading takes precedence washing a vehicle is the last thing on your agenda.
The trick is to create the coating of mud and dust, which will partialy wash of in the rain, covered again, layer after layer. This is where washes or light coats with the airbrush come in.
Dust, unless it rains, an AFV will trow up lots of it, and be covered within miles of moving of.
The only photo's I have seen of crews washing the whole vehicle are either in a rear maintanance/refit depot, or parked in a river.. Don't forget, mud and dirt are also another form of 'camouflage'.

Rust
Oh rust, don't we all love to recreate that '10 years in the junkyard look'? :-) I'm guilty of it myself, I do it with the exhausts.. A vehicle in continuos service will hardly rust at all, again there would be a specific reason for it. Tracks will rust over night, but this rust will disappear when the tracks start moving again. Rust streaks down the super structure? Not unless the vehicle has been immobile for quite some time. Rust, like paint chips and unlike mud, would be attended to at every opportunity.

Damage
Damage can be tricky, in general you should balance dirt with damage, i.e. a badly mauled vehicle would typicaly by filthy, whilst an undamaged vehicle has probably not yet build up the multiple layers of grime. Unless the crew has been very lucky/carefull..

Oh well, time to get of the soap box and put my own words to use.. Tonight is weathering night, I havea few kits that I'm working on tonight, just weathering.

EDIT- Just realised that my old bias towards German AFV's slipped in again.. I have of course seen plenty of photo's of filthy Shermans, Churchills, M10's etc -EDIT
Cheers
Henk

Henk,I think you've hit it spot on.Thanks guy!
Yes,I'm guilty of the 'rust' thing from time to time