When I first got back into modeling in 2006, I was drawn to seeing the great work shown in various modeling magazines. While my focus at the time was aircraft, I did enjoy seeing armor models too. Having last built models in my mid-teen years in the early 1980s, the “state of the hobby” was eye-popping for me. It suddenly seemed as if everyone had achieved Sheperd Paine status.

And at the time, the weathering process seemed as mysterious to me as it did when I was 13, sitting in the storage room in our carport, sweating or freezing as I built my models. At that time, I’d only begun to explore the most rudimentary of weathering messes – mainly very simple enamel washes, and horrible, horrible dry-brush chipping with bright silver paint.

The Clouds Begin To Clear

After I began to build more models in 2006, and explore weathering, I started to see a disconnect between what many others said on forums (it’s hard) and what I was starting to experience in my own work (no, it’s not).

In fact, most of the “mystery” was removed as I learned the basic products and application tools and methods. And fairly quickly I saw that the “how” part was not really much of a mystery. It all came down to some form of liquid (acrylics, oils, enamels, etc), solids (pigments and pastes), and an often overlooked critical piece… applied over what?

In a way, it was a nerdy hobby version of John Boyd’s Energy Maneuverability Theory. Once you’d dialed in the basic data, it was simply a matter of asking where to place, how much, and at what opacity?

The Critical Piece

Mick Foley, opacity, suggestion versus realism

An aspect of weathering that often befuddles modelers is realism. The notion of “does it look real” can trip folks up, and is the source of endless online arguments. Yet a notion I’d read in Mick Foley’s book on professional wrestling really plowed through that barrier. It became not so much about realism, but rather suspension of disbelief. Is it plausible enough to make people set aside the assurance that it is a plastic toy, and instead step into the world as if it were an actual thing? Rust or mud or oil stains don’t need to be hyper realistic if they suggest to the viewer’s brain that they are the thing they portray. It lets the viewer’s mind “fill in” the rest.

The last piece of the puzzle was seeing that opacity could be of great use – specifically lower opacity. On thick layer of mud may look cool. Five thinner layers applied over each other gives a depth of finish that is far more interesting. And lower opacity makes it easier to determine how much is enough. Building up layers gives time to evaluate, consider, and reflect. You’ll know it when you see it.

Weathering doesn’t need to be difficult. It’s just… stuff… applied over stuff. Keep the opacity lower, stack it up… and watch the depth of finish emerge.

This video shows a simple set of weathering steps. Mix and match as needed.

But always have fun.