ᐅ Facade Defect: Mortar Residue and Smudges – Is It a Deficiency or Not?

By the way, the stone is really beautiful, even though we didn’t remember it as being this rustic. Therefore, I highly recommend paying close attention to reference projects, even though the firings and batches often vary.

I still don’t think it looks that bad based on the pictures.
A brush won’t help; a wire brush probably will.

winnetou78 schrieb:
Well, I have to say, they put more effort into the jointing than just a smooth finish. I think it suits the stone.

Good heavens, no. I have to strongly disagree. To me, it looks more like it was done by unskilled workers. They appear to have scraped off the mortar using a plaster straightedge. In my opinion, when it comes to hand-applied thin brick veneers, this is not just a matter of taste but a serious design blunder—mainly because this method inevitably causes mortar to fill the irregularities of the stone edges. The amount of mortar visible along the bottom of the roll layer in post #4 is so excessive that, in my view, the joints behind the stone face should have been flushed back at least that much. In the base area, it looks like different stones were used, even with a different surface texture—definitely in another size and bonding pattern as well. So, I definitely see grounds for justified complaints about defects.

How someone personally defines "smooth finish" is, in contrast, more of a matter of taste. Calling in an expert only makes sense if there are objectively identifiable deviations from professional standards. From my viewpoint, the appearance clearly suggests this is not the work of trained masons.

However, one common mistake, which should not be blamed on the craftsmen, is that homeowners often select highly variegated color ranges without realizing that this requires a certain skill to balance the different tones over the whole surface. When viewed very closely during installation, a result might seem successful, but from a normal viewing distance, it can simply look unevenly blotchy. As the color variation increases, the required processing time rises almost exponentially, since the stones have to be placed almost artistically—even if it looks like just routine work when watching. In this case, the outcome looks to me like unskilled helpers copying what they saw from experienced workers, thinking they could do it too.

No offense intended, but in such cases, I believe the learning curve is deserved. If you want highly varied color-sorted veneers, you must understand that it comes with at least double the mason hours on the invoice—if not, you simply get a discount-store result.

From my perspective—and again, this does not necessarily mean any formal standards were violated—the naïve interpretation of the term "smooth finish" does not excuse this. Visually, it really should be prohibited ;-)

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

Thank you very much for the detailed opinion. I am certainly not upset. 🙂 After all, I started this topic to read honest opinions and criticism. Only in this way can I, as a layperson, better assess the whole situation.

Our construction company is definitely not one of the discount contractors, which makes the quality delivered all the more shocking. I also believe that, as a client, I can expect the general contractor to present the different types of skim coats and then let me decide, especially since the contract specifies that the work should be done in two steps, but it was completed in just one. I’m not sure if this affects the joint pattern, but you can’t shake the feeling that they were trying to save labor there.

When I hire a general contractor, it is safe to assume that I am not very knowledgeable about the subject, so my “naïve interpretation” seems justified from my point of view. Of course, many things should be questioned, but where exactly do you start and where do you stop? Normally, you would have a competent site manager who pays attention to such details, but ours seems to always be busy fetching chalk! 😉

Guschi schrieb:
that he explains the different types of smooth finishing to me and then lets me decide, especially since the contract specifies the work to be done in two steps but it was done in one go.

Basically, there are two types: done in one step (that is, during bricklaying, with the trowel removing excess mortar while each joint is properly filled) or in two steps (that is, after bricklaying, where the joints are partially raked out first and then evenly refilled). However, this usually refers to exposed masonry, less so to cladding, and primarily for sharp-edged and flat-faced bricks.

Here, however, we are dealing with a cladding layer made from handmade or hand-struck bricks. In this case, doing it in one step is not possible, and the "smooth finishing" should rather be interpreted as a uniform joint design.

In the case at hand, the joints were not smoothly filled but rather surfaced in a way suitable for wallpaper application, and the smear pattern also indicates it was done more like smoothing a plaster surface.

Guschi schrieb:
therefore my "blond interpretation" is justified from my point of view.

I do not mean you by my “blond interpretation” of the term "smooth finishing." Instead, I refer to the (I believe @Nordlys called them) "screed Ahmeds," to whom I attribute the execution of this blunder.

Handmade or hand-struck bricks have an uneven volume that varies by several millimeters from the form of an "optimally straight-edged cuboid." If you apply a classic smooth finish with joints flush with the bricks, the mortar in the joints will “overflow,” meaning it covers the edges of the bricks. That causes the bricks to lose their intentionally uneven look and instead appear "rounded off" like they were shaped by a glacier. For larger stones or rubble masonry, this is acceptable. But it does not belong here.

In summary: from my perspective, it was executed incorrectly, since a classic smooth finish is not suitable for these bricks. However, doing it in two steps—first laying and jointing the bricks, then later smoothing the wall surface—is entirely possible.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

That’s a nice stone 🙂

I’m not really a fan of facing bricks for my house, so I haven’t really looked into joints much. I’ve also had the experience that the general contractor doesn’t suggest any alternatives for anything. I guess you have to accept that if the work is otherwise done properly. Therefore, I can’t really judge if that’s the case here.

But I can say that you shouldn’t examine a house facade with microscopic scrutiny. It’s like looking at a TV screen from one meter (3 feet) away and getting upset about individual pixels 😉

So my advice would be to try to negotiate some discount or benefits, but ultimately live with it (whether or not you get anything). I don’t think it’s terrible anyway... as I said before, it won’t even be noticeable later on.

As for the mortar residue: only an eagle eye will spot it, and who really has that? Don’t get too caught up in the details, it just leads to dissatisfaction 😉