To weather or not to weather...?

[PqLear]

Being relatively new to the forum and hobby I'm interested in getting perspectives from some of the forum veterans 

 

I'm more familiar with plastic kit modeling, where weathering is often an art in and by itself, and ranges the full spectrum from "museum builds" with no weathering at all, to dioramas where wear and tear, dings and dents, bullet holes, dirt, smoke, oil splatter, etc. can be 80-90% of the total effort.

 

My impression is majority of wooden ship builds are "museum builds", with minimal (if any) weathering?  Would you agree, and if so -- is this for a particular reason, or "just" tradition?  General apprehension/reluctance to hide thousands of hours of painstaking labor under layers of dirt?  Is it more of a size thing -- as most plastic kits are relatively small in comparison to most wooden ship builds?  Is there a different approach for sails (which I often see with various levels of "staining"), rigging, hull, and copper plating?  Is it more common (standard?) for waterline dioramas, but not for mounted builds?

 

In the plastic build logs I've seen here there are quite a few examples of great weathering -- I think it can bring an extra dimension and so I'm curious if it's also common for wooden builds.  I'm close to the point where I need to make this decision for my own (plastic) build, too -- so I'm interested in other folks' perspectives here.

[robert952]

The decision to weathering a model becomes one of the many facets each modeler looks at when deciding on a build and how to approach it.

 

Example, as you appear to have done, I've read posts on the subject of weathering copper.  My personal taste when looking at a model with bright copper hull plating it's too shiny. I haven't done a model with coppering, but I feel I would tone down the copper with some form of weathering. 

 

Similar with rigging and sails and part of the look of sails.  I think some of that 'weathering' comes from a matter of making sails that look to scale and possibly effect how much details the modeler wants in the sails. Pristine sails don't stay pristine for long. So a little weathering would still be an accurate "as built" representation.  

 

Weathering does provide one thing a lot of modelers want to do: differentiate thier build by others of the same ship. Again, a aspect of the hobby that varies from one modeler to the next.  

 

Additionally, as you point out, weathering models (wood or plastic) requires a set of skills that have to be developed and honed. Some builders want to learn new skills and may look at weathering. 

 

Bottom line:  What does the modeler want to accomplish? What challenges is the modeler willing to tackle? What interests in a given ship or subject does the modeler have?  I think the answer to these questions determines how much (or little) weathering is done. 

 

As for your current build, take the weathering to whatever level you want. There is not a right or wrong answer. And, I can't say I have ever found adefined 'tradition' that directs how to build.  The decision on your current build is up to you. 

 

I this all gives you answers some of your questions. 

[yankee clipper]

I use to judge ship categories in IPMS events. I would remind readers that the P in IPMS stands for plastic. I never thought that wood ship models were fairly treated in these contest. Having said all that here are some of my observations on weathering ship models.

With plastic models I found that a great many of the models were weathered very good. The problem with many of them however, was only the hulls were weathered and superstructure and deck furniture were pristine. A fine example of this are the IJN ships that had a orange colored linoleum deck covering, which with a highly weathered hull, should reflect fair ware and tare on the deck but in most cases I found them to be without blemish.

In the case of wooded ships being weathered, you would really have your work cut out for your effort. First, the same species of wood could weather very different from the same plank lying next to it. If you finished your spars with bright oil you could get the same result. If you want the ship to look weather, then you would have to present paint patterns and shades with variances. Most ships were not freshly painted stem to stern at one time. Paint would have been applied when the captain thought a spot needed painting, paint was available, weather was agreeable and the manpower was available. On wooden ships, any iron work would invariable show black rust which would detract from the workmanship of the builder. Why put such effort into to building something you are very proud of and then cover it up in dirt?

Just some thoughts from someone who believes that ship models should reflect a miniature or replica of an actual or designed ship untouched by human hands.

[PqLear]

12 hours ago, robert952 said:

As for your current build, take the weathering to whatever level you want. There is not a right or wrong answer. And, I can't say I have ever found adefined 'tradition' that directs how to build.  The decision on your current build is up to you. 

 

I this all gives you answers some of your questions. 

 

Thanks Robert these are great insights! 

 

That's a great point about style/"flair" of individual modelers.  Being fairly new to modeling, my approach thus far has been inconsistent, using each build as an opportunity to try (learn?) new modeling/finishing techniques, as well as to read up on history.  I have come to feel less is typically more when it comes to weathering, and I'll use it in moderation on my current build.  My two goals here were to (1) get back into sailing ships, and (2) to try a conversion/kitbashing project.  In retrospect, I should have started with something less ambitious   

[PqLear]

12 hours ago, yankee clipper said:

I use to judge ship categories in IPMS events. I would remind readers that the P in IPMS stands for plastic. I never thought that wood ship models were fairly treated in these contest.

Just some thoughts from someone who believes that ship models should reflect a miniature or replica of an actual or designed ship untouched by human hands.

 

Thanks -- had to look up IPMS, what an amazing resource!  Great point about consistency, esp when dealing with many different materials... e.g. just such a seemingly simple effect as salt stains would look quite different on tarred hemp ropes, varnished oak, canvas sails, and painted iron.  

 

I often find weathered models a bit odd-looking when out of context, i.e. unless in a diorama setting, with crew/figures -- so the "untouched by human hands" principle makes sense to me.

[Kenchington]

Weathering, sails but human figures too. Ships can't go to sea without people aboard and, even when in harbour, there is often an anchor watch, maybe people doing maintenance work, loading cargo or whatever. Yet most ship models are presented devoid of any human presence. When there are any figures, there tend to be one or two for an indication of scale, rather than the dozens or hundreds aboard the full-size prototype when she was in service. That's quite unlike plastic models of aircraft or military vehicles, which usually provide for a pilot in a cockpit, a tank-commander's head emerging for his turret or whatever.

 

For any one ship model, those are matters of individual choice of the model builder, of course, with the complexities of the task being major considerations. Weathering is an art, sails are hard to represent realistically at scale, while creating miniature human figures (in appropriate clothing and postures) needs a whole other skill-set. Yet the presentation of ship models as miniature ships in pristine condition, with the underwater body visible (!) and nobody aboard, is so frequent that I have to guess that our choices are being shaped by our expectations --which amount to what PqLear called a "tradition"-- or maybe by something deeper in our psyche.

12 hours ago, yankee clipper said:

a miniature or replica of an actual or designed ship untouched by human hands.

"Untouched", yes: The essence of the ship in a pure, unsullied form. And yet any ship is, of course, the product of human hands and could not exist otherwise. To be human is to be a toolmaker (that's what sets us apart from other life on this planet) and throughout history, down to the 1940s, watercraft have been the most advanced tools made by man. Maybe capturing their unsullied essence in miniature meets some need in some of us?

 

Maybe I am just over-thinking answers to a simple question!

 

Trevor

[brunnels]

I guess it really depends on the subject, but personally I find weathering to look wrong on Military Age of Sail ships.  Those ships were packed with men who spent the large majority of their work time on board doing nothing but maintaining the ship.

 

[Capt. Kelso]

PqLear. You raise an interesting question regarding the traditional finish style of wooden ship models. I have rarely seen a weathered wooden ship model, in a museum, competition, or otherwise. Personally, I never felt there was a standard, weathered vs non-weathered. Didn't think much about.

In my opinion it was simply a matter of the builder's preference, scale, "imagination" and skill level.

Depending upon the type of vessel, I like the application of weathering. It adds a dimension of reality; it offers a nice change and challenge to a normal build. Also, I don't feel weathering hides detail but oftentimes can enhance it with washes and highlights.  But the weathering needs to be done proportionately. I have seen models with the copper hull weathered but nothing above the water line! 

My photos are intended simply to offer a perspective on differing degrees of weathering I apply. A subtle application to the tryworks enhances a basically dull structure whereas the 1/24 scale Dory is given more depth.

As the saying goes, "one size doesn't fit all", "different strokes for different folks".