We have amusingly different ideas as to what constitutes clutter and
where it is tolerated.
She likes the kitchen counter *clear*. My container of tea routinely gets
"put away" -- meaning I have to go retrieve it at least once a day
(despite using it 7 or 8 times EACH day).
She likewise gets upset to find a 5 ft LCD TV lying on the living room
floor (where *else* can I get that much clear workspace?).
OTOH, *I* consider the various bits of electronics around the house
(DVD players, TV's, stereos, doorbells, cordless phones, etc.) to be
"clutter" and will go out of my way to make them disappear (by building
them *into* walls, ceilings, etc.). Though my office/workspace is
filled with equipment -- which spills over into bedrooms, etc.
(but not "living" areas).
And, her "art studio" makes my office space look HIGHLY ORGANIZED
(hint: it is NOT!)
She'll object to my leaving a (my) "chore list" (i.e., a scrap of paper!)
in the center console of the car -- but, won't hesitate to put her
sunglasses, sunscreen, bugspray and several little containers of snacks,
there. (is there some reason you can't put the sunscreen on BEFORE
heading out? and "store" it in the BATHROOM instead of the car??)
<shrug> Something about Mars and Venus...
On 04/19/2016 9:54 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
...saga elided for brevity...
As a couple have said, the answer is probably "just live with it" as the
most likely solution but if it's really _that_ much of a distraction
before you do something too extreme I'd suggest contacting the
manufacturer for information regarding the specific tile pattern.
Probably this is a "feature" but perhaps there was an error either in
installation or (rarely, but not unheard of) manufacture.
If this were a binaries group, I'd have no problem posting a picture
which would reveal just how bad/glaring the effect is. Unfortunately,
the only photos I currently have would do little to give anyone a good
look at the actual pattern, up close, to assist in finding a solution.
I'm guessing I wasn't making it as clear as I thought I was. Understand
that the vertical "seams" are NOT straight, only the horizontal seams
are. The vertical seams are irregular, saw toothed, jagged or whatever
term you wish to use.
They can be butted together in one way only so that pretty much kills
the installation error theory. It may well be a "feature" but I'm hard
pressed to believe that was their intent, but who knows? Stranger
things have happened.
No need to post pictures here, just load them to some photo sharing website and post just the address here. Then everyone can
see what the tiles look like. Here is a site that has a review of many photo sharing sites.
These illustrate the situation and also, if you consider them carefully,
show that it's either a design or manufacturing defect (or "feature" if
you're so inclined) rather than an installation error.
I'm thinking that when I get there in person and see the field tiles
remaining (on the spare sheets), I'll find some lighter ones that will
be the same size as the darker ones which are causing the problem.
Then again, rather than get hung up on just one solution, I go back to
the question of: If this is a man made product (don't know) and the
material was dyed, would a bit of muriatic acid (or anything else that
someone might suggest) offer a "bleaching" alternative, or. . .?
On 4/20/2016 8:29 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
Wow! That *is* very noticeable!
Yes. Someone deliberately made sure that they would fit together
to visually reinforce that coloration. I'd previously assumed it was
just "an unhappy coincidence" owing to the small size of the sets
(easier for a pattern to appear over a short distance).
So, consider that it might be deliberate. In fact, the top edge
also appears to be darker. I.e., if she had done an entire wall
with this, it might look like 12" SQUARE BLOCKS stacked in
But, the tile is already installed. hard to imagine you can remove
individual "pieces" and fit (tightly) selected replacements in their
places. You'd have to replace a sizeable fraction of the darks
to tamp out the effect!
Understood. You're really hoping for a solution that you can impose
AFTER the installation has been completed.
[Pretty kitchen, though!]
On 04/20/2016 10:29 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
I'm wondering why they didn't stop after the first two or three sections
and ask the manufacturer if this is the intended effect--had to have
shown up immediately.
I'd agree w/ Don Y here--while it may be theoretically feasible unless
you've got _way_ too much time on your hands the sheer number of pieces
you'll have to replace to eliminate the effect is, I think, going to
make it essentially impossible simply owing to that time required even
if it works on an individual basis to fit in another.
I'm sure it was colored before it was fired, yes. You can try but I'd
strongly recommend learning what it actually is, first. Obviously, try
whatever you do on tiles of the product not installed first.
Have you contacted the manufacturer w/ the picture and asked if this is
the expected outcome just to be certain? While as said, looks like it
was deliberate, there is always the potential for a production error and
quality control slip-up that let defective product out. You just
_might_ get some relief if that were so.
Also, as Don Y points out, what's the cause of the top 5-6" color
difference that seems overall darker than the rest?
On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 1:15:49 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
What's also weird is that it looks like there is a whole section at the
top, extending down about 5", that goes across the whole room, right
below the cabinets, that's the same darker color? If these are in sheets,
how did that come to be? Or is it a shadow I'm seeing?
It certainly looks bad to me. If the product was bought in a store,
he could go back and check some from another lot, if they have it.
And I'd definitely contact the manufacturer. I'm also surprised that
a competent installer would not have stopped, like you say, after the
first ones were put up, make sure the client was OK with it. It sure
doesn't look normal or like anything I've seen.
On 04/20/2016 5:15 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
I considered that and it is, of course, impossible to tell for certain
from just the pictures, but it surely looks to be along a seam to me and
doesn't seem that different along the run despite the lights...
But, that's judging _just_ from appearance certainly, which certainly
isn't definitive. Would be interesting to hear what it looks like in
the flesh (so to speak).
Beats me. I was 1500 miles west of her when she did it. Same distance
when she realized what she was stuck with. I got off the plane at
6:00PM last night and haven't driven the 60 miles to see it in person,
nor will I for a few days to a week.
It didn't take her but a bit to do it, but it's gonna take a lot longer
to correct it - if it can be.
Any solution proposed will be test run on surplus pieces so eventually
she (and I) will learn what, if anything, will work.
On 4/20/2016 5:19 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
Well, I managed to view the back splash in person today and the
solution, while time consuming and tedious, appears to be relatively
1) The individual pieces of stone are all of only three or four lengths.
2) The offending dark pieces can be removed individually without damage
to either themselves, the adjacent pieces or the underlying wall board.
3) Removing them will be no more involved than selecting those they wish
to remove and carefully breaking the bond to the wall cement with a
razor knife as pry tool.
4) The inoffensive pieces adjacent to the dark pieces will remain in
place to provide support, alignment and a "preview" as they mix and
match pieces to "lose" that hideous vertical "stripe."
I'm 100% certain that this plan will a) correct the problem and b) once
I turn over the tedious work to the kids after showing them exactly what
they need to do it will reinforce the "prior planning" aspect of this
Best of all, I've conned them into have me and the wife come in on a
weekend for their demonstration and instruction on this cure and that
means a free lunch or dinner and quality time with our toddler grandson!
Still not sure how we'll cure the dark top band over the sink area but
they have enough spare tiles to work something out, I'm sure.
On 04/27/2016 8:13 PM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
...[description of removing individual tiles and swapping elided for
Sounds at least feasible if they've got the patience.
I'd still be curious as to what the cause of the above is...unless
there's a similar shading at the top and bottom of subsequent sheets
similar to the edges and it only shows up there because there's the only
place where there's a horizontal joint? Might try laying out some
spares that way and see if that shows up. Otherwise, I'm at a loss to
the cause; the other is easy to see "why".
I'd also really, really like to know what the manufacturer/distributor
says of the appearance -- as to whether that's really the way if was
supposed to look or not. Of course, it's a moot point if they're
satisfied to deal with it on own and not seek any other redress for the
need if it is, indeed, a flaw not a feature...
The other tiles are similar. No matter what you do, you're going to see
a dark area along the interlocking butt joint. What's really strange is
the dark bank along the top area. either the entire sheet she cut down
was a darker shade overall (she only used a horizontal strip 5 (?) tiles
high) or had a shading to the bottom. Pretty sure though based on what
she had left over it was darker overall.
As far as I can determine it's a flaw. Nobody in their right (or wrong)
mind would opt for a pattern like that. I'm surprised (and somewhat
disappointed) that our daughter let it go to the point she did. She
realizes now the error of her ways. I'll do half of the first vertical
joint to show her how to correct it and then it's her baby. That will
ensure there will be no repeat<g>
On 4/20/2016 7:07 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:
Post a photo (on a file sharing site) so folks can, at least, see
the overall *effect*.
Of course, what others have to say about "your" (her) kitchen doesn't matter.
*You* (she) are the one who will be living with it!
Ah! I'd assumed it was square and was advocating MAKING it irregular.
(but, the same approach remains valid)
Brain *loves* to find patterns. After all, that is it's primary purpose
("recognize" something so it can react to that knowledge).
You can make it harder to notice patterns by having SEVERAL patterns
and alternating between them (I think there are 12 or 16 different
"appearances" to our floor tile -- so, how you lay them determines
the nature of any patterns that YOU create).
Or, by having something that is overly "busy" to confound the senses.
Or, by increasing the size (reducing the spatial frequency) of the
pattern so it's spread over larger distances and less likely to
be captured in a glance... EVERY glance.
On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 9:42:30 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
I don't see any easy solution either. A lesson to be learned here, with
any installation like this, it's a good idea to lay some of the new product
out, like it would wind up being installed, to better see what it looks
like. Kind of like painting one wall, or at least a big part of a wall
as a test, not just relying on what a small test area looks like.
I'll wager the installation instructions that came with the product or
are available from the manufacturer's web site say precisely that...
Laid a _lot_ of tile for the uncle during college years as weekend work;
_always_ lay out new tile, "you never know" what you may discover either
as defect or as noted above, not appearing as expected from a sample...
Agreed. This is one of life's little lessons that she learned the hard
way. Sometimes this is the very best way to teach<g>
In the meantime, rather than beat on her, I'm trying to figure out a way
to recover from her error and that's just as important.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.