I'm not sure I know if there is such a thing. It depends on the intent of the album.
Music as both a personal art and public entertainment. As a personal art, I don't see how anything can be overproduced, because until it reaches the artist's vision, it's not done, underproduced.
As public entertainment, it seems "overproduced" is what sells. Group vocals, overdubs galore, fake instruments. It's overproduced in that it can never be performed by a real band, and the singers would be lucky to nail 1 line, let alone the multi part autotuned passes, but it sounds nice to the average Joe.
Maybe overproduced is when there has been a lot of effort put into production, yet the music has no impact, so the artistic endevour is a failure from a musical standpoint... even if the artist is satisfied?
I like, even love, a lot of the albums that people consider overproduced. They sound to me like they must have met the artists' visions, or even exceeded them. Even something like AC/DC's Back in Black meets this criteria in my mind. People think of that album as raw, but I hear perfectly (over)produced rock and roll. That's not just a "hey, throw up a few mics and we'll print it no matter what" sound.
There are plenty of albums where I might call them overproduced simply because they are musical turds polished into something that attracts a certain number of listeners, but that's entertainment music, not art music. I look at it like a sci-fi movie with special effects or a horror movie. It's just part of the product. You can't make a real horror movie with real killing(who would act in it?), so you overproduce the visuals because the consumer want's to see blood. It's the same thing with music.
I'm more concerned about an album that's underperformed than overproduced. I actually get annoyed when lazy slips make the cut when seriously talented players are the reason I'm listening. Sure, I know they're human, but I want a little overproduced fantasy sometimes. I want my gods to be infallable.