Guys: I’m seeing a trend that perplexes me…cleaner and cleaner armor builds. I’m thinking that if it keeps going like this the last step in the build process we‘ll say, “…then I called it done, and sealed her all up with a heavy coat of future…”. An exaggeration of course, but you get the point. I’ll concede that us weathering “liberals”, including yours truly, get a bit heavy handed with the burnt umber and rust-all now and then but now I’m hearing that tanks didn’t get dirty/muddy?! C’mon, that‘s going to be a hard sell to convince me to buy!!!
In wing_nut’s thread for his Ferdinand Manny wrote:
“I have to disagree with SMJ’s assertion that you have not stretched yourself just because it isn’t rusted out or looks like it has been driven through a Monster Truck Competition arena…I think you have refined your techniques immensely…”.
This thread isn’t about rust so let’s not go there…and it is not intended to be a commentary on Marc’s Ferdinand. It’s just an observation by me…I have a couple other thoughts, but would rather just open the floor for comments…Let’s keep this civil…
What do you guys think? Is this just a trend, do they evolve?, I’m still a relative “newbie” I’d like to hear from some of you long-timers.
Since that won’t likely give the satisfaction desired…I’ll address your points individually.
“I’m seeing a trend that perplexes me…cleaner and cleaner armor builds. …but now I’m hearing that tanks didn’t get dirty/muddy?!”. This is an exaggeration at best and and outright distortion at worst. No one, at least not here on these forums, has ever suggested that tanks didn’t get dirty/muddy. You do your argument a severe disservice but adopting such an extreme viewpoint right out of the gate. The spectrum of “accepted” weathering in the hobby coves a wide band and isn’t just a case of “clean” or “dirty”.
The “trend” that you see isn’t one that’s taking the hobby by storm but is instead IMHO actually a recovery from the pendulum swing to the far side of the spectrum of heavy weathering/chipping/rusting that gained popularity over the last decade. It doesn’t mean that heavy weathering is going to go the way of the do-do, only that things are starting to swing back the other way a bit.
There are others who can offer a deeper history from their personal experiences, but the trends in weathering/finishing models have seen an explosion of diversity and “schools” or “styles” as a result of the advent of the internet and forums like this. We now talk about “Spanish”, “Nordic”, and “Mig” styles with common frequency and inevitably some of those schools/approaches are going to be more popular vs. others depending on regional dominance, contests/shows, etc. But thsoe styles/schools are now more broadly exposed to the model hobby as a whole. I don’t think there’s an “end of the world” trend starting to where we will return to the factory-clean standard of builds, but there are constant shifts in style/approach/techniques/materials that is indicative of the continuing golden-age of model building we are in today.
Those shifts build on the pioneering foundations laid by the likes of Greenland, Verlinden, Zaloga, Mig, Wilder, etc. and the model “public” tends to move in those waves as well. I think that, ultimately, is what you’re seeing. Popularity of certain styles peaks then ebbs as newer styles come in and become the hot new thing of the moment for everyone to try and emulate. All it takes is someone “known” to publish an article or the “how I did it” SBS approach and something can take off. The “hairspray method” comes to mind as a most recent example of that.
wbill76: I exaggerated by saying armor doesn’t get dirty/muddy of course…
I’m glad you chimed in quick, becuase it was the info on the trends that was most helpful, thanks. You’ve probably been around long enough to have seen many an evolution, huh?
Thanks for the info…I’d like to hear from others too…for the meantime I’ll curb the “coaching” and “swaying others” a bit…and just let the trends run their course[#toast]
Personally, I try to do my models the way they would look “in the field” in “real world” conditions. They do get dirty, nasty, filthy! That’s what the field is! The only time I ever saw CLEAN Abrams, Bradleys, Paladins, etc. was when we were in garrison where the vehicles sat in the motor-pool.
Having lived in Hohenfels and Grafenwoehr Training Areas in Germany and in the KTO during Desert Shield/Storm I can tell ya that the vehicles get dirty the second they start moving.
I think as long as war fighting remains a nasty business our models will (and should) reflect that!
The impression i get is that the trend is moving the other way, there seem to be more heavily weathered armour on here at least than light weathering. To be fair, i have only been on these forums a year and before that i only had the mag to go off.
I accept that people will try out new ideas and especially those they see by the so called experts. For about 15 years i have been following Greenlands light weathering approach of dry brushing and pastels, and that was it. Thats all changed in the last two weeks.
But late last year i started to think about how i weather. I realised that after years around real AFV’s i had never seen one with an almost white edge, as Greenlands dry brushing leaves. I would like to think that no one style gains dominance. As i mentioned on another thread, just because i have done one heavy weather don’t mean i am going to be a weather head. I want my builds to represent real life, which means variety.
While i love the work that some of you guys do, wbill, SMJ, doog, to name a few, i don’t understand why you stick to one style. It’s you guys that people on here follow and learn off, and you are the trend settings on this site at least. I would like to practice and perfect all the different weathering methods, so i can produce a factory fresh tank or one that looks like its been sat in mud for 6 months and every where in between.
I can only speak for myself but even within the realm of what I do I vary the approach and style of weathering and don’t consider each vehicle to be the “same” in terms of approach…for example I’ve done several winter white-wash schemes where I had a lot of fun and heavily weathered it because that was the appropriate “style” needed for that type of finish. I look at each vehicle I build as a separate entity and always bear in mind that mine are going into a display case and not on a base or part of a dio, so the constraint I place on the finish also derives from that angle. The vehicle has to look “right” to me sitting on the shelf and heavy weathering, IMHO, needs a context to explain how the vehicle got that way.
I also try to take into context the timeframe/setting of when the vehicle I’m modeling is in service or was produced and factor that in…so a June 1941 Barbarossa StuG III A will get a different weathering/finish approach than a Marder III from southern France 1944. My general “style” is perceived to be on the lighter/cleaner side compared to others but in reality while I have an indentifiable “look/feel” to most of my builds, they aren’t cookie-cutter or rigid in terms of the how/why they are finished. Every one gets approached individually which in turn influences how it turns out. I try to experiment a little bit with each build while still relying on tried-and-true methods and, over time, sometimes those methods are kept or discarded or modified as the case may be. It’s a continuing, evloving journey and isn’t a set formula for each one. [;)]
You know… I hate getting into these things because even though we say we want to keep it civil, somebody takes something the wrong way, tempers flare, and… well you know the rest.
So let me start by saying that anyone that post in this thread must be a good boy or girl or i will track you down and in the middle of the night, dip all your best sable brushes in CA glue, then steal away under cover of darkness.[}:)]
I cannot speak of trends in armor since I have only been building it since last April. And to be honest the only thing I can say about trends in aircraft is that they are way different now then when i was seriously modeling in the 70’s and my brief “TOPGUN” period in the mid 80’s. I generally do not get into a discussion about the right color since that is one that will never be answered. the variables are too numerous to list. The same is true for weathering as far as i am concerned. In aircraft there are those that say, “You NEVER see the panel line that dark!” Well guess what… you do and there are photos out there to prove it. On Monday a tank can start the day nice and clean(ish) but to avoid an ambush he has to cut through a muddy filed, do a few hard turns and throw some mud around and then go though a muddy rivulet. But he has survived the day and is just filthy. Tuesday he is pulled of the front and it is pouring rain for the few hours he is driving tot he rear on a paved road. he is gonna get clean(ish) again. When you build a model for the shelf you can get away with anything. Put it on a base and you need to think a bit more. Take the base to the “dio” stage and that weathering had better fit the situation being pictured.
I understand what Steve was getting at in the Ferdie thread and the 251 example really speaks to that. At the urging of others i was able to try something new and turn the model into something better that it was when i 1st said, “Stick a fork in this one boys…” Actually a few times for the same model. 1st the base, then the guys, then the guys reading a map. I agree with nearly all that Bill has said but I am not sure that Steve’s zeal was over the top. Remember it was directed at me and I took it the way it was intended. This is not going to make me change the way I model. And believe me i am looking for way to improve my models with each and every one. When I feel I am ready I will take those next big steps like scratching interior details so i can occasionally open a hatch. As modelers we are many things. Engineers, sheet metal workers, plumbers, artists and illusionists. The 1st of the thing are the mechanicals and the last 2 the more subjective thing. When I am on the road I am lawys looking around at stuff and then trying to figure out how I would recreate that in 1/35 sclae or 1/48 scale. What painting technique could reproduce that, what material and how can it utilizes to make that part to look right in scale. This is where I push myself at this point in my modeling. Trying to the realism, or appearance of realism, in the builds.
Thanks for the compliment Bish, but with all due respect, I don’t think I “stick to one style”–I’ve built cars, figurs, dio’s. to give myself a wide pantheon of “variety”, and in working with different finsihes and to satisfy my thirst for diversity.
I’m working on a spaceship right now!
/forums/2/1094738/ShowPost.aspx#1094738
As far as Armor models though, I’ve built my share of “clean” tanks–got two eight-shelf bookcases full of them at my parent’s home in Pennsylvania. I have built them, but now when I look at them, I don’t think they look “finished”.
I DO however, model modern armor in cleaner finishes. But for a well-abusd, in-combat tank, I just don’t like the look of a “clean” vehicle. That’s not being stuck in any style-rutt; that’s just acknowlegding my preference for what I think looks “realistic”. The only places I’ve seen “clean” tanks has been VFW posts, sitting outside near the roadways, and State Fairs.
By the way; for the record, I don’t see any evidence of any “trend” moving one way or the other, Sincerely. It’s all a matter of personal taste and style.
I am honored to be mentioned in the company of doog and wbill76 and I thank you for the compliment, but I must also say, as they did I do NOT stick to one style. My T55 was VERY clean in contrast to a dirty T34…just like your last sentence.
Well when i say one style, i do mean in the way armour is finished. To be fair i have only been visiting the site for less than a year so haven’t seen the full range of your work. So i apologise if i have mis represented you or anyone else. And no doubt the same goes for the other guys i mentioned as well. Andf maybe i am getting the wrong impression from such a short time on here, and i have mainly taken more of an interest in the heavy weathering because i think thats where i have things to learn that can be apllied to what ever finish i want.
I spent 12 years either sat in the back of or driving a Warrior. I know full well that as soon as they hit the ground they get dirty. While until now i haven’t done heavy weathering, i haven’t done a parade ground finish either. But rather always at the lighter end of dirty. But that was mainly down to not knowing any other way.
I hope and am sure we will continue to see a range of finishes on the armour shown here.
I think next time i will check out more of your work before i open my big mouth [:)].
But would you and doog say that you tend to aim more at the heavy end of weathering. And do you think theres an in between parade ground and covered in mud. The impression i get, and again i could be wrong, is that we tend to talk mostly about either clean or very dirty armour.
This sounds like a rehash or a slight twist of Spackepacker’s recent thread on over-the-top weathering.
I certainly don’t see a trend of cleaner and cleaner builds, and I think over the long term the builds are becoming more muddy, more rusty, etc. If that’s good or bad, I guess that for each individual modeler to judge.
One thing to remember about mud and dirt is that even though tanks do get muddy and dirty at various points during their service life, they all start out clean, so muddy or clean can be equally realistic.
I certainly do disagree with the occasionaly cited contention that one has to build extremely muddy/weathered vehicles in order to advance one’s skill in the hobby. For my money, it’s actually harder to produce that realistic “non-plastic model” look in a clean build than a dirty one, because you’re having to do all your work with the finish paint, and the build itself needs to be flawless because there is no mud to hide any mistakes or even distract the viewer’s eye from them.
Gentlemen, if I may poke m’ head into the hooch and make an observation or threee…
What I see, here in the “Armor Forum” is a discussion on the wide range of “weathering” on about a dozen or two different vehicles… So many folks building the same/similar kits, each wanting his to stand out from the others. There’re so many different modelers with different styles and skill-levels doing and using techiques so varied and with so many different patterns, techniques, stowage, open hatches, closed hatches, missing hatches, light damage, heavy damage/no damage/some damage, bed rolls, tool rolls, jelly rolls, ammo cans/water cans/fuel cans/kick the kan/ Yes, I can… The list goes on and on, ad infinitum, yet ONE thing remains constant throughout the entire range of “issues” that this modeler sees… THe ONE thing is that:
None of 'em are doing anything…
They’re just sittin’ there, with no rhyme or reason as to why they look like they do… There’s no CONTEXT to the weathering (or lack of it) depicted… Show your tanks and other AFVs and military vehicles doing what they’re supposed to do in the “real” world, and the “how much and what kind of” weathering question answers itself… It can be as simple as a concrete pad outside the afore-mentioned VFW hall with a welded chain rope going arounf it and a scale bronze plaque showing it’s a war memorial, or a vehicle roaring down a dusty Norman Road, or a tank sunk up to the return rollers in a stink-hole at Graf, or if you REALLY wanna go nuts with the rust, a hulk sittin’ in the Impact Area at Ft Sill as an artillery target…
'Course, if all y’all do that, you won’t be “Armor Modelers” anymore though… You’ll be “Diorama Builders”…
I know your not saying that people put lots of mud on models to cover up bad work, though no doubt it can happen. But i would argue that to weather a vehicle well takes as much skill as to produce a good clean model. Its not just a case of slapping some mud on, its about the vehicles itself looking weathered and used.
Wheeewww[:-^]…for a minute I thought this was a thread about sealing your model with Future before applying washes…thanks goodness it turned out to be a less-contraversial topic…
That’s a really interesting opinion, Andy. But I would offering a countering opinion, with a caveat.
First of all, my eyes read what you wrote, and I say “Definitely YES! It IS INDEED harder to build a clean model”–but then I think “That’s CAR modeling!” [;)]
I’ve built several cars in the last year, and the only reason I haven’t built more, is because of the difficulty of working with flawless gloss finishes! If the finishes hadn’t required that damned high-shine, glossy finish, well…
However, as a modeler who can, and HAS built “flawless”, “clean” “realistic” armor models, I am of the opinion that it is NOT hard to do a clean “parade ground” Armor build, mainly because you’re working with flat paint. Once you spray itand apply maybe a light wash and some light drybrushing, you call it “finished”. All the details get painted in their required colors, and the model is “finished”. It’s a pretty prosaic process.
But when you weather something heavily, you not only have to paint everything pretty much exactly in exactly the same fashion, but you have to take into account the effect of environment and age upon each part and section of the vehicle. Then you have to apply that effect in a “realistic” fashion that actually “looks” “real”. (of course, THAT is a fair subject for debate!) But “extreme” weathering is applied AFTER a “clean” model has already been completed.
No imputations or implied condescension is intended to anyone, guys! [;)]
If someone would be kind enough to inform me when the “rule book” on how i should be finishing my models comes out i would be most appreciative, until then i will just keep winging it, thanks. [:)]