firstname.lastname@example.org (Calvin Henry-Cotnam) writes:
| email@example.com ( firstname.lastname@example.org) said...
| >A few years ago some of the plumbing had to be replaced in the bathroom
| >of the house I grew up in, and part of this was to remove some mosaic
| >tiles that were put down about 1974 using a mastic. Man, getting those
| >babies up was a great deal of hard work, and now that ceramic tile has
| >entered a project of my own, I find everyone pushing thinset. Is it
| >really better?
| I prefer thinset on a concrete-like surface. That includes concrete floors,
| wood floors with a mortar base preparation, and concrete tile backer board.
| For applying tiles on a drywall surface, I prefer mastic. The only exception
| to this is when applying a tile "base board", I will usually use thinset
| since I am already using it for the floor.
How does the thickness of the layer of thinset compare to that of mastic?
I'm doing some repair work where eventually the edges of the repair have
to line up with the existing tiles. The existing tiles are attached to
a plaster wall with mastic. I can set my backerboard at whatever depth I
want, but obviously it would be nice if the surface could line up with
It's been suggested that I use thinset rather than mastic because this
is a tub surround/shower, but if the thickness of a layer of thinset is
different from that of mastic I think I'll be making my life much more
difficult by using thinset.
A related question: assuming I have a choice, is it better to make the
transition from old work to new in the middle of a tile or at a joint?