| Author | Message | ||
     Old_school (Old_school) Senior Member Username: Old_school Post Number: 268 Registered: 01-2009 |
Branden, I appreciate your comments and I understand where you are coming fron on this topic. There is an old saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. If we give due diligence to the facts for the people and they still want to use a manufactured product, I believe the only thing we owe them is to do the best job possible with what it is that they want. I think it is a big waste just as you do, but some of the fake products are better than a lot of the shingles that are out there. I cut my teeth roofing on asphalt shingles. I still do a lot of shingles along with the building that we do. I do the majority of the slate repairs by myself and I love it. I think that our biggest responsibility is to be here when the demand is there for slate and to do our best to stimulate that demand. In the meantime, we all have to eat and my worst shingle job is better than most of the rest I see around here. Ciao! | ||
| Branden_wilson (Branden_wilson) Advanced Member Username: Branden_wilson Post Number: 41 Registered: 03-2008 |
what a frustrating topic! there are several reasons why a guy like yourself should NOT install these products! you too john! i wouldn't expect to hear that from you!! i get calls almost once a week to install something fake and unproven and i clearly explain to them that they called the wrong guy! i only install natural, proven products using proven techniques. that's not even close to fake slate or wood! even shingles! are we just in this to make money?!? shouldn't we perpetuate wise principals rather than lies? the people who buy and install those products will get what they deserve. i've actually got sooooooooo much respect for you. all the more reason why this is so disappointing. please comment on my rant and rave under slate roofs under the topic proper laying of slate tiles--bond. when i first read "the slate roof bible" almost fifteen years ago, i never ever thought i'd hear things like this from others who have read that book. that book opened my eyes to the war on slate roofs caused by "roofing contractors". now you have to be a "roofing contractor" just to join the slate club. ward, you've done things with slate that i can only hope to ever have the opportunity to do. you certainly don't have to risk your name on fake, unproven, temporary lies! | ||
| Joe (Joe) Senior Member Username: Joe Post Number: 421 Registered: 07-2006  |
Here is a direct link to Standards for Restoration: http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/restore/restore_standards.htm | ||
| Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration (Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration) Senior Member Username: Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration Post Number: 84 Registered: 04-2007  |
Thanks, Braymer. We constantly refer to these standards when specifying restoration and preservation work. Interestingly, this location is NOT on the state or national register, and the funds come from private sources. Hence, they refer to the Secretary's standards as a guideline. Also interestingly, the site is viewed by many of it's board members like Ft. Ticonderoga, Plimoth Plantation and Colonial Williamsburg. They are 'learning' sites, all of the above being replicas or replicas built-upon the bones of the original. So it makes for some interesting and challenging customer relations on my end. | ||
| Braymer (Braymer) Senior Member Username: Braymer Post Number: 128 Registered: 09-2008 |
Here is a link to the National Park Service / Secretary of Interior Website that presents the standards for Treatment of Historic properties. http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/index.htm I put this up before elsewhere, but no bites. This info is especially important when funding is coming from Public/Govt Resourses and/ or the Property is actually listed on the State or Federal Historic Registers. Many times there are strict limitations on restoration work, especially when grants or any public money or mandates come into play. These standards are what many State and Federal Agencies look to before issuing grants or permissions for work on Listed Properties.. This is the homepage link, if you navigate in further you will find a page for Roofing. They are pretty clear,, and yes,, the real stuff is better than the fake crap. | ||
| Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration (Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration) Senior Member Username: Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration Post Number: 83 Registered: 04-2007 |
Truth be told, I have not yet installed a synthetic slate, tile or shake product. I have met with two customers in the past who wanted it, and I switched them to the real deal. I agree with Old School ... if somebody wants it who are we to say no? In the case of this historic site, my goal was to sway them to cedar shakes, and I think I will be successful. However, there are board members who would like to consider alternatives; they, too, are part of the customer base which must be appeased. As a note to my purist brethren, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards are straightforward where historic structures are concerned: Where original materials are still available, they shall be used. Hence the term "replacement 'in kind'" we hear frequently. This includes new materials like Azek, which folks like to use when restoring fascia/soffitt/built-ins. BIG no-no. | ||
| Tonyeriepa (Tonyeriepa) Member Username: Tonyeriepa Post Number: 22 Registered: 03-2007 |
Yes .... even the This Old House TV show used synthetic slate and power nailers, albeit with nice copper work, on their post-&-beam build project this spring. A visual give-away on the synthetics I've seen is that for some reason the snowguards have to be placed 1/3 of the way across a slate and not in the joint between two slates. | ||
| Old_school (Old_school) Senior Member Username: Old_school Post Number: 194 Registered: 01-2009 |
I have installed some of the ECO STAR slate. If people want it and are willing to pay for it, why not. I do tell them that I am afraid it will not last and will curl. No one wants to listen. It is curious that everyone wants something that looks like slate, and nothing looks as much like slate as ...SLATE! | ||
| Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration (Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration) Senior Member Username: Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration Post Number: 82 Registered: 04-2007 |
Hopefully somebody who has experience with the fake garbage, or who has knowledge of its con's, will comment. FYI: hope you purists don't use Azek ever; Secretary of the Interior says that's a big no-no on anything historic. Just a friendly FYI. | ||
| Slate_man (Slate_man) Senior Member Username: Slate_man Post Number: 442 Registered: 01-2007 |
I never installed the fake stuff so can't help you there. | ||
| Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration (Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration) Senior Member Username: Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration Post Number: 81 Registered: 04-2007 |
Yeah ... I'm aware of that. Thanks. I think we're on the same page, Liam. I have prepared a quote that makes real cedar shakes much more attractive. The relevant portion of my question re-phrased: "In my attempt to sway influence with this organization I am trying to get info from you folks out there about the synthetic materials. Even negative stuff about fake slate is helpful." While we're at it, any thoughts about cedar vs cyprus? | ||
| Old_school (Old_school) Senior Member Username: Old_school Post Number: 187 Registered: 01-2009 |
What Liam Said! | ||
| Slate_man (Slate_man) Senior Member Username: Slate_man Post Number: 433 Registered: 01-2007 |
Its not a traditional material, it should not be used. Case closed. | ||
| Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration (Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration) Senior Member Username: Olde_mohawk_masonry__historic_restoration Post Number: 79 Registered: 04-2007 |
Couldn't think of a better category to file this question under than 'Traditional Roofing' ... We are working, again, at a historic property doing plaster and masonry restoration. The historic society has asked me to prepare quotes for total roof replacement on all three structures (ca 1690, 1720, 1757.) Existing roofing is asphalt shingles. Original was obviously shakes. The board members want material/cost comparison of cedar shakes vs. synthetic products. Somebody visited Colonial Williamsburg where (DaVinci's 'Hand-Split Cedar Shake') synthetic materials were installed. Now they want cost, pros/cons of each prepared. I have the pricing, labor, materials, warranty info. Can anybody offer real installation experience with the synthetic, good or bad? Thanks! |
