EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
The great weakness of the shake on system is that if, subsequently, the floor surface is damaged, the gray of the initial slab is revealed, and this can be unsightly.
With regard to the integrity of the materials, is it any less dishonest to employ shake on pigment than to use floor paint? Surely, if a brick is to be a brick brick, and a board to be a board board, to quote FLLW, then a colored concrete slab should be just that also?
Some of the points that â€˜outside inâ€™ makes in his second post are valid, but I would urge that the extra cost justifies the result. I have used the integral method for more than 40 years, and it beggars belief that a thin layer of shake on pigment results in a more intense color.
If FLLW had allowed the manufacturers and suppliers of building materials and elements to call the tune, there would be no Prairie or Usonian houses as we know them. Life must be an effort for any truck driver who finds it irksome to thoroâ€™ly wash out the agitator of his concrete delivery truck.
From experience, I attend the site whenever a concrete slab is to be poured. I specify that the basic materials be delivered mixed, but dry, and personally supervise the quantities of pigment, and finally water, added to the mix. I would not deny that the truck drivers dislike this approach, but are they taking he responsibility for the finished product, or am I? Moreover, when the slab is a good result the supply companies are not backward in asking if they may take photographs to include in their publicity.
I agree with laurie concerning the lack of brillence of color one gets with the color impregnated concrete pour.
I recently had my front por and entry court done with the impregnated concrete and find the that color turned out to have splouches and lack of color uniformity.
The concrete contractor did add the coloriing agent to e mix when the truck arrived on site. I did have to pay a significant charge to the concrete supplier for having to clean out the truck.
The cost to break out a terrece every 5 or 6 years to replace the shake on surface is certainly not practical and integrated colored concrete presents it's own challenges to produce that rich homogenious color of the shake on product. That is why I am trying to find a product that is not perfect but will last longer than paint, have the proper look of concrete, and be affordable.
I got a call from a Conservancy member in Chicago yesterday and he put me onto a product that he is investigating made by Concrete Solutions that is called "Spray Top." Go to http://www.concretesolutions.com/SPRAY TOP/SrayTop.html to take a look at this product.
Traditionally painters would apply wet pigments to fresh slaked lime plaster.
They would work in "day pieces" an area that was the size of a days work, for the plaster had to be damp for the pigments to become integral to the plaster.
The pigments colored only the surface and to this day the process is one of the oldest known to man and of course one of the more permanent. It holds its own to another old painting process... Encaustic painting.
As for the comment of being more honest if the colorant was used through out the concrete mix is like saying adding a shellac or varnish finish to wood (only on the surface) is some how not as honest. And furthermore if one chips the concrete mat beyond a 1/16 of an inch, one has a crater that would be seen if the bottom of the crater is colored or not.
Shaking the color on to the wet concrete and troweling it in gave the workmen time to add more pigment to areas, if necessary, to eliminate uneven coloring. All cement finishers were not created equal...some were a little more talented than others. Unfortunately it is difficult to find any one with the know how today.
Plus 5 to 6 pounds of pigment to a bag of concrete (how many pounds of concrete per bag?) verses the technique of cascading on to the surface has to be a considerable amount savings to the pocket book. How many pounds of colorant do you suppose would be needed for a 1,800 sq. foot pour that was 4inch thick? And what is the price per pound of pigment?
Potential for less labor costs and avoiding impacts of windy weather when dusting pigment powder?
Or is there a significant different in sheen and texture between hard clear-coat and buffed wax ?
I would think that many would be satisfied with a simple opaque painted finish -- especially if uniform color was preferred -- after reading this thread. ( A renewable finish like wax is probably preferable outdoors, where the elements eventually attack a hard coat like poly, leaving it intact in places and making renewal difficult.)
S D R