While I love the look of weathered engines and rolling stock, and applaud those who have gone that route, it's not for me. I made a decision long ago on weathering , when I started my collection, either to go all in or not at all, and chose the latter course. I thought that it would also look very odd to have a layout mixing and matching weathered and non-weathered equipment, so that was not a viable option for me. Now, having accumulated in my collection hundreds of freight and passenger cars, and approximately 75 engines, it is far too late to reverse course, even if I were so inclined.
As far as whether weathered or non-weathered equipment is more valuable, I am not certain. One would think that because of the additional time and expense that goes into weathering, that weathered equipment would be more valuable. Value, however, is not the only issue. Marketability is the other. One would also think that there is a greater market for non-weathered equipment, as I suspect most collectors/operators go the non-weathered route. Additionally, if I were a person who likes weathered equipment, I could always weather whatever equipment I bought. Of course, the converse is not the case. Finally, some collectors/operators are also very picky in the way they weather their equipment, and might not buy weathered equipment that fails to meet their standards.
Pat
