Well when is weathering considered over done?

As I read that most tanks and equipment did not survive for a few months after being either destroyed and returned to rear for rebuilding and I would guess repainting.
Was there stuff that made it for 4 years?
Which I doubt a bunch.
So when do we stop at a completely chipped vehicle that looks killer to us, but was it that way or a little more like a show room tank with mud and scratches on it.

Would like some opinions of cause I have seen pics where they looked like that were in battle for years.

And they looked interesting didn't they? I belive that most modelers who paint their models that way are aware that those tanks didn't last long. Therefore I think that it's all about artistic license than anything else.

Besides heavily chipped whitewashed equipment and that used in Africa ofcourse.

Cheers
Greg

i think its a personal choice,as it is a hobby even though we seem to forget sometimes

Well Jeff, as an Allied builder (specifically Shermans etc) this rarely troubles me as a topic, as the most that I would go on a Sherman is as you say a few scratches and some mud , due to the quality of the US paint process. There are other ways to 'age' a Sherman in the field such as damage to sandbag armour and maybe a damaged fender here or there, and clever use of stowage even.
BUT if I was to build say some Axis armour, then a decision would need to be made, as I think the well presented chipped appearance on say a Panther really looks super, but as you say, just how accurate?
Brad

Remember, its a hobby. Do what you want to it if you enjoy it. "Q"

Paint chipping is one of those personal pet-pieves of mine. I see images posted here and elsewhere all the time of tanks that look like mid-90's Dodge Neons and Caravans - paint peeling all over the place. Yet if you examine actual wartime pictures such wear and tear is often barely, if at all present. And the reason is as you stated... this equipment was often in service only for months at a time before being destroyed or rebuilt. Personally, I go easy on the weathering and I don't do much, if any paint chipping. There is such a thing as too much.

All good answers.
Like Marks the best.
But what do Judges like the subtle weather or the heavy paint about gone model?
Maybe I can see that some T/34's might be pretty banged up as not much resistance to face no more near the end of the War.
But some I do think are a little over done ,but they look great.
HMMM.

Of course some of it is personal preference, and certainly artistic licence comes into play.
I personally think the pain chipping has gotten out of hand. It seems to me like it began a few years back when the "salt chipping" technique was new to most people and I remember a couple contests, one of which I helped judge, where we had tons of heavily chipped tanks. Frankly they got pretty boring.
I think weathering usually looks better when kept a little more to the subtle side, but that's just me. Fire away!

Using IPMS standards, basics come first. Alignment, seam work, proper applicatio of decals, etc. Weathering would be considered only in how well the builder accomplished what he was trying to do. In most cases, models are knoed out of contention in basics. In the event of three models, a clean one, a lightly weathered one or a chipped and rusted out hulk, that were otherwise equal in all basic construction, I'd personally lean to the lightly weathered one. Maybe. If the third example was displayed to represent an abandoned hulk sitting in a field for many years, I might lean that way.

I personally am not fond of any heavy weathering, including mud unless the vehicle is on a base that supports that weathering. The wear and tear has to show a consistency and logic as well. I often see vehicles on line and want to ask, "How did that paint get chipped that badly THERE?"

Still more good answers.

Any more?

All good reads.

If we consider that the 'technique' of chipping was introduced by someone, probably a published modeller, and then taken on board by all who liked his work, it is only logical that a number of people started to 'improve' the technique, by increasing it. If a few chips look that good in a magazine, then surely a few more will look better...
I think that paint chipping has come about through the (wrong) interpretation of war time photographs, were dirt patches, shadows and the like have been seen as chipped paint. One reason why German AFV's seem more prone to receiving this treatment is possibly due to the propensity of Zimmerit to chip. Often in photographs, the thin layer of Zimmerit may not contrast enough, and the viewer thinks they are looking at chipped paint.

I am one of those who thinks weathering has gone overboard over the years, but let me qualify that idea.

I tell people starting out weathering to look at bulldozers--easily found. Those show mud, grease, rust, etc. I think that once battle was joined, even if vehicles (and aircraft) did not last long, that earth raining down from explosions would shower them with debris. That earth would--like dust--make a perfect camouflage for the local soil. But add any rain, one gets streaks, wear, etc. As far as chips, think about what makes paint come off. Abrasion of boots and shoving boxes across corners. Rubs paint off. Mostly so small an area that it is barely noticeable in 1/35

But what of the vehicles that have been in use for training before going in to action? I doubt they were repainted to 'pretty them up' before being sent to the front. So I find it plausible that our vehicles that arrived in France after D-Day, having been used for months in England, can show wear and fading. Same for , say, the Eastern Front, during the time of the mud. Weeks could go by with little direct action, the vehicles setting out in the elements. No doubt they could get ratty.

My gallery shows air and armor subjects that run the gamut of almost 'factory fresh', to heavily distressed. I do so with a specific story in mind. If you have photo references, that really helps. I have whined about this before in site posts, about a photo in my WWII In Color, showing Shermans in the desert, their OD glacis and tops almost completely covered by yellow dust; one had a mere 'dusting' of dust, but lots collected into the imperfections of the cast armor, giving a freckled look. I built one and had show judge tell me that 'it was too over done'. When I showed him the photo, he said it just didn't look right on a model.

So build your model to either tell a story, or represent a specific finish. And enjoy it! Don't let any pompous know-it-all like me ruin your hobby!

More good answers.
thanks to Henk for coming out with a decent response to the subject.
I have seen some great models chipped that nobody would say would not be right.
So a little chipping is okay if kept from an extreme.

Only one more thing to add. When using black and white photos to help with the weathering, it is good to remember that we usually have NO idea on what the camera setup and/or lighting conditions where for any specific subject. So any info from the photos would have to be taken with a grain of salt. Just my 2 cents worth
capnjock