“lESs iS mORe” and other pet peeves


In any community, there are certain phrases elicit groans and eyerolls. Maybe they’re bad takes. Or maybe they started out well-intentioned enough, but have just become hackneyed and tired.

“In the unprecedented times” started as an earnest way for businesses to acknowledge COVID without saying “shit’s all fucked”. Which a lot of businesses are loathe to do. But it got picked up by everybody, used ad nauseum, and nowadays is seen as a poster child for bland, say-nothing corporate-speak. Suggest it to a copywriter at your peril.

The modeling community is full of such phrases. It’s your model. But you’ll know it’s there. I build for myself. There are no bad kits. Modeler vs assembler. No crew chief would ever.

But the one I want to talk about in this post isn’t just annoying. It isn’t just tiresome. I think it might actually be pernicious. An idiomatic virus that leads to a kind of same-same blandness.

Less is more.

As a platitude, “less is more” can trace its modern origins to the post-WWII minimalist movement. Indeed, it was the whole point of minimalism. And for that movement, from postwar apartment buildings to flat design in mobile UIs, it’s highly appropriate.

But it’s not a general truism. Sometimes you want flourish. Sometimes you want to go heavy, or go contrasty, or whatever.

Not that any of that matters anyway. Because…

In modeling, “less is more” only seems to apply to weathering or shading.

Where is “less is more” when people build entire engines that can’t be seen in the finished kit? Nowhere. It cedes all ground to “but you know it’s there”. Where is it with hyperdetailing? Or parts counts?

It’s not. It’s not there at all.

There’s something about weathering

Modeling is by its very nature a quite reference-based hobby. We’re generally building and painting scaled down representations of real things – aircraft, ships, tanks, people. Even sci-fi and fantasy subjects, creations of pure imagination, refer back to things like studio models, or someone’s illustrations or paintings. Kit designers measure the real things and work from detailed plans. Modelers obsess over reference photos to make sure the smallest details are correct. There’s a whole subindustry of reference books that cater directly to this behavior.

Nobody argues with a photo that shows…here’s what a P-47 throttle quadrant looks like. Here’s a Sherman tank with concrete for additional armor. Here’s an Apache with upturned ASPI exhausts. Here’s a rare F-105 in Euro I camo.

Yes way, Ted!

Likewise, you can find photos of all kinds of weathering conditions. Direct photo evidence that shit gets dirty!

This is just a small sampling of photos that provide irrefutable evidence of the way a variety of vehicles chipped, stained, faded, got dirty, got touched up, and so on. It’s right there.

And yet.

And yet, if you were to recreate any of these subjects as faithfully in terms of weathering as you would detail, you’d probably be accused of overweathering. If you give a shit about contests, this level of weathering would probably cost you at an IPMS contest.

On Preferences

Quick detour here.

In any form of human expression – call it art if you want – there are different styles, tastes, and preferences. You can see it in different schools of painting, different genres of fiction or music. And yeah, absolutely in different finishing styles in modeling. The showroom look that’s so popular among car builders isn’t my thing, but that doesn’t mean it’s invalid. Super-contrasty, almost cartoonish looking figures don’t really do it for me either, but I’m just one person with my own preferences.

Weathering is no different. If you like cleaner finishes, cool. If you like more stylistic stuff like what gets lumped together as the Spanish school, right on. Like things dirty and beat to hell? Go for it.

What frustrates me is when a preference gets confused for a rule. And that’s exactly what “less is more” does.


Unless you’re building and painting a model around minimalist principles, “less is more” is pretty much bullshit anyway. But people don’t let that stop them.

“Less is more” and its partner, “overweathered” lay a subtle groundwork that weathering is bad. Which feeds a vicious circle where people absorb that lesson, come to believe weathering is bad, and repeat the lines to others, and so on.

When in reality, weathering just is. It’s as much a part of the subjects we strive to recreate as the paint schemes or the mechanical details. It just happens to be more variable, so there is more freedom on how far you choose to take it.

It’s also just another tool in our arsenal. And a lot of what gets dismissed as “overweathered” is probably, if you go back to the reference materials, actually underweathered. This is another area where this shit is really pernicious. I struggle with it myself, and a great number of my builds, I’ve actually pulled my weathering punches. It would seem, at least from where I stand, that “less is less” is by far the more accurate statement.

Beyond the percentage of people who are just biased against weathering, it’s worth noting there’s another contingent for whom “overweathered” seems to be some kind of polite way of saying “poorly weathered”. And models can absolutely be poorly weathered, just as they can be poorly constructed and poorly painted. These things are skills. And skills take knowledge, practice, failure, and experience. Poor mud placement, chipping in areas that wouldn’t chip (because they’re fabric or rubber or…), chips that are too large, too orderly, paint that fades in the center of panels only, these are all examples of poor weathering, not overweathering.

Why we’re in this

Listening to the most recent episode of the Plastic Posse Podcast (I think episode 44), there was an extended discussion of the judging at AMPS, and how it’s different from IPMS, and one thing that struck me is how much impression seems to matter. There seemed to be a decided lack of interest in getting all anal about alignment, and much more interest in the overall package, or in a good story.

All of that fits very nicely with how I think about modeling – which is – I want to do cool shit.

I very much doubt that I’m alone in that. I’d venture we’re all in this to do cool shit.

It’s just that we all have our own view of what cool shit looks like. And it’s important to respect that our preferences are exactly that, preferences. Not the one and only way of doing things.

Another idiom

Rather than perpetuate the tired “less is more”, let me offer a different idiom. This one is from Japanese architect Kenzo Tange, and I think it speaks quite well to my love of weird paint schemes, asymmetric loadouts, off-color pieces, and weathering.

Inconsistency itself breeds vitality.

12 Comments Add yours

  1. Barry Biediger says:

    I’m offended by the lack of profanity in this post. Otherwise it’s excellent.

  2. Gene Dubey says:

    Theres nothing wrong with modeling an armored vehicle as if it just came out of depot overhaul or even new delivery. In Germany in rhe 60’s I saw Bundeswehr tanks on manuevers that were pristine. I also saw US M-60’s that were dirty old dogs. I believe the weathering thing is COOL, like faded Jeans, reversed ball caps, tattoos, and the like.
    All these things are about image and marketing. So good for IPMS putting the brakes on this.
    My all time peeve is panel lines that look like grooves filled with road tar.

    1. Doogs says:

      Huh? Never said there’s something wrong with modeling fresh vehicles. If that’s what you took from this, I’d suggest another read. What’s wrong is confusing preference and personal opinion for some kind of rule about how things should be or should not be done.

      As for IPMS, per the rules, weathering is supposed to be a non-factor in judging. And that’s clearly not the case. As one who likes fair application of rules, that seems pretty shitty to me.

      1. Andrew Redman says:

        I am in total agreement with you. I recently have become more interested in making military vehicles in 1:35 scale. A variety of Second World War types. I looked at contemporary photos of the models I made and checked out kits that had been made both in person and on line. I am still some what confused by what I saw. The photographs of vehicles in action were covered in dust or mud to the point where a brand new Sherman coming ashore in North Africa taking part in operation torch was covered in dust so much so it was no longer green. It had been loaded in the states and landed in Casablanca taking part in one of the first engagements the Americans took part in. The dark green tank was photographed in colour and it was filthy.
        When ever I see military vehicles modelled in shows they are almost always under weathered.
        I often think that people are influenced by this over weather ‘rule’ and get into a routine of what they do to weather. By that I mean the follow a process that they have found to be suitable to show weathering but not to be too excessive and so get accused over over weathering.
        You can weather badly but you can not over weather.
        Don’t take my word for it look at the photographs. So like you say build them as you want but there is a whole spectrum of weathering to go at and the only criteria is it must look convincing (coo) no matter where it is on that spectrum.

  3. Pete Fleischmann says:

    Spot on Doogs.
    Thanks brother for so eloquently putting into words the shit that drives me batshit.


  4. Gene Dubey says:

    So long Doogie, y’alls be crazy.

  5. sacpartsman says:

    It’s the ever present woke world…there way is the only way…bullshit all the way…

    1. Doogs says:

      Has literally fuck all to do with woke

  6. Andrew Redman says:

    I like your piece on this subject and agree whole heartedly with it. It is surprising that this is still an issue with some people. I too like to see the effect of service in the field on equipment and how that takes its toil on that vehicle , aircraft or ship.
    There is nothing wrong with modelling the original in its original condition – factory fresh and ready to go , but my preferences are much further on the sliding scale of wear and tear.
    I prefer the aesthetics of the imperfect, the dirty the scraped and rusted. To emulate this is a challenge and when I get close to it through lots of fascinating paint processes is very satisfying.
    As the Japanese suggest with there term wabi sabi it is where I try to pitch my work.
    I am a big fan of your approach to the hobby and the work you produce, I look forward to following your builds and the time and effort you take to film them. Keep it up

  7. Clyde Lourensz says:

    Enjoyed the article mate. With reference to judging at comps. If you provide the reference material, as in pictures, of what you are modelling you won’t get an argument from me.

  8. Scott A Peterson says:

    This post resonated with me. I got back into modeling to make cool-looking models and at significant risk of sounding like a sycophant; the quirkier the particular subject, the better. Look at that 105 in Euro 1 paint, yes, please. Accurate, realistic weathering is no easy feat to pull off. It is unfair for something that is very realistically and well-weathered to be excluded or brushed aside because of institutional inertia regarding weathering. That sucks. I am glad that AMPS acknowledges that overall impression matters. I think a model can tell a story, and it should count for something. Just looking at the photos posted above, I know absolutely nothing about what is happening in those photos, but I can easily imagine something. The staining around gun ports on the F-8…the super aggressive-looking Abrams with all that camo netting…why is that pilot petting his Spitfire…there is a ‘true story’ there, but without the actual context of those photos, I filled in the blank in my mind and went on a little journey. Episode 45 of the Plastic Posse Podcast touches on this. A well-built and displayed model lets us, the viewer, imagine and ‘feel’ something. Good on AMPS for understanding that.

  9. Terry M says:

    I’m going to go on a limb here and say I don’t believe that, as a rule, there is such a thing as “too much” weathering. IMO the “too much weathering” problem is a problem with out of balance weathering (clean tires, filthy airplane) or too abrupt weathering (instant, full-on heavy black exhaust). Or, my favorite, whoever builds those models for the new Revell boxes….just look how stupid the Spitfire looks with those panel lines so abrupt the whole damn thing looks like a chessboard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.