Brick to stone wall join

[Chubber]

Has anyone else tried a junction of brick/stone wall and managed a convincing result? This will have to do for me as I am fed up with scraping it off and starting again, I'm getting closer and closer to the windows on the left!

 

Before I try again on the other side of the building [an extended 15th/17th/19th century mill] I'd be glad of a more convincing finish. I appreciate this is photographed from 3" away, but it doesn't exactly rock my boat!

 

[Red brickTX01, squared rubble TX48, lintels from Pavement TX21, sills from Blue brickTX27]

 

Doug

 

[Coombe Barton]

Doug

 

i would have thought that the more common occurance is for the brick (being probably later) to just butt up to the stone. This is based on the assumption that brick is usually being later than stone and is used, in effect as an 'extension'. Where it doesn't it's probably a repair or modification (as your window)

 

Or if this is a bonded repair/extension there would probably be a few half bricks in the join to get the bonding in - and to get a clean mortar edge from the stone so that you don't get mortar erosion.

 

Just my 2p.

 

(and if you're looking for a prototype of what I'm sayiing so am I)

 

Edit - just re-read and see that you have a prototype. I was going from the assumption that the sstrongest part f the building is the corner, and they wouldn't want to mess that up.

 

2nd Edit - in a join such as this they would have probably used extra mortar in the join. So instead of recessing the mortar (which is how I read what' you've done it may well stand proud. So filling the join with something to represent that? Carrying the white-ish brick mortar into the stone area?

[Chubber]

Hi, John, thanks for your swift reply, I have tried more 'organised' joins but they haven't looked right. My prototype was one of those 'I don't need any pictures, I'll remember that....' efforts and I do remember a certain random effect. This is a building that was extended and altered over many years. I have been through all my piccies and can't even find the building, let alone any that help and now have a sneaking suspicion it was a church.......Still, there's always 'Scenecraft' to fall back on!

 

 

Incidentally, their wooden goods shed, which I fancy as a subject is £45!!! Talk about cheque-book modelling, that's more than I spent on Scottish Laughing Water in the last few months............

 

 

Doug

[Kenton]

Sorry, but I think it looks pretty good as it is and can't find any improvement.

 

if I was trying to be overly critical, and completely ignoring the close-up photography comment, there are a few small gaps in the join - though they could just be artifact of the photography or even my eyesight.

[buffalo]

Well, that's two in favour, but I'm afraid I have several reservations. To go back to John's first point, a butt joint would indeed be much more likely. In this case, if the stone building was anywhere near intact when the brick extension was added, the brickwork would most likely extend the existing stone wall at a corner. I would therefore expect to see a vertical straight edge on the stonework with visible quoins.

 

An alternative scenario would be that the stone building was partly demolished or had suffered a partial collapse. In this case the structural integrity of the remaining stone part might still be guaranteed by an internal wall perpendicular to the outside wall. However, the gap between the door and edge of the surviving stonework does not look sufficient for this to be the case.

 

The next problem for any partial collapse/demolition case is that there are several parts of the stonework that would be unsupported if the brickwork were taken away. This begs the question of how they were supported before the brick wall was completed. Look, for example, at where the bricks undercut the stone at the base and are interleaved with the stones at the height of the lower windows. Again, there are several large stones jutting out into the brickwork at the height of the upper windows.

 

Now, I'm not saying you won't find a prototype that looks like this, but I do find these details unconvincing.

 

Nick

[Guest stuartp]

My prototype was one of those 'I don't need any pictures, I'll remember that....' efforts

 

Depending on where it is, would Google Streetview be any help ? I was surprised where they'd managed to get their camera car.

[Coombe Barton]

The next problem for any partial collapse/demolition case is that there are several parts of the stonework that would be unsupported if the brickwork were taken away. This begs the question of how they were supported before the brick wall was completed. Look, for example, at where the bricks undercut the stone at the base and are interleaved with the stones at the height of the lower windows. Again, there are several large stones jutting out into the brickwork at the height of the upper windows.

 

The scenario I was thinking of was that the 'extension' may have needed bonding in. In constructing the walls may have been there in the first place but blocks removed and substituted with brick to make the bond. It would not have, in this case, been unsupported before the brick went in.

[buffalo]

That's entirely possible, John, but I wouldn't have wanted to be the bricklayer who removed some of those stones level with the middle of the lower window or those above the upper window sill level On the other hand, the bonding to the left of the door, with the possible exception of one missing stone, is entirely convincing for this sort of scenario.

 

Doug's work is otherwise very convincing and I think my reservations could be overcome by carefully replacing a small number of individual stones.

 

Nick

 

ps. in fairness, I should perhaps say that I sometimes find parts of real buiildings unconvincing, but that's all part of the fun of disentangling their architectural history.

[Coombe Barton]

Doug's work is otherwise very convincing and I think my reservations could be overcome by carefully replacing a small number of individual stones.

 

I tend to agree with you, Nick, especially about the first floor window height stuff.

 

Whenever I've seen older joins like this they've always had plenty of mortar slopping around. I think that filling the 'holes' may make a more convinciing join, Doug. However how you do it is another matter

[Chubber]

Thanks, guys for some reasoned critique, all duly noted. As I said above, the joint started off about 1/2" to the right before 'The Hand of Doom' scraped it all off! I think removing some 'over-hangers' and a bit of mortar are deffo called for in the near or not so near future, thanks again. Below is the wall in question loosely placed in situ on the model to show the context.

 

 

 

Doug

 

 

Edited to say that a suitably placed, large enough sign might help, but only cows would read it!

[buffalo]

That is really very good, Doug. If you'd shown us that originally, I probably wouldn't have noticed the problems with the butt joint. I take it that the explanation for the brickwork around the race and wheel is that it is later restoration/refacing of an earlier stone core? If so, the fact that it stands slightly proud of the stonework is very convincing.

 

I'll be keeping my eye open for more of this...

 

Nick

[Coombe Barton]

This of Coldharbour Mill any good?

 

 

50°54'06.62" N 3°20'04.91" W

 

Edit: Comment from tame buildings expert (SWMBO - of Secretary of SW Council for British Archaeology and their buildings person) looks a bit too uneven or jagged and contrived. Expected to see more like the pic above.

 

But let's not forget that we're critiqueing some seriously good modelling here, well above the standard comonly seen.

[Chubber]

Once again, thank you for your help, and John, I wish I'd had that picture in front of me when I started. I have saved it as there are several other walls to go, the building being 'L' shaped and set at an angle to the back-scene.

 

 

 

 

 

Doug

[Mustermark]

That's some very good modelling Doug. I think it's probably right that the stone would have been less jagged unless part of the stone wall had collapsed - which is what I think yours looks like. I think it depends on what back story you invent for it. I think it looks great in situ, but I understand the feeling that you need to keep going till it's right... I've done things in N gauge that no-one would ever see, but I know it's there. That's nice work with the damp and mossy-algae weathering too.

[Coombe Barton]

Once again, thank you for your help, and John, I wish I'd had that picture in front of me when I started. I have saved it as there are several other walls to go,

 

I only remembered it (late) as we'd been to a meeting there four weeks ago.

 

And another view

 

[mauricediplock]

Hi I would just like to put my two pennyworth in, firstly I am very envious of your modelling ability, secondly to join one texture to another have you tried the method used in marquetry where you overlap both textures and then cut the join line through both sheets, this should give you an exact cut match on both textures.

[mauricediplock]

sorry I had forgotten to mention you would need to decide which texture cut line should be dominant, this would be the top texture to guide cut line, hope this makes sense.

[Chubber]

Thanks for that Maurice, I was trying for a less precise join line, and then impressed some ares of join with a filed-down nail tip, but it seems I did it too 'unprecisely'!

 

Your suggestion is a good technique, I use it when wrapping elements for scratch-built items, double layering, cutting through both thicknesses and after peeling back, removing the inside layer, as in the tenth picture here http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/13523-getting-those-important-folds-sharp-and-square/

 

I hope that might help someone. Anyone who has done any wall-papering should know the way to do it!

 

Best wishes

 

Doug

[Chubber]

Well, having had a think, I've filled in some of the big 'overhangs' with individual stones cut from the same sheet and invented 'sticky mortar' by mixing scraped off-white artists pastel with Pritt-Stik and applying it with a mini-spatula made from a tooth-pick.

 

I shall leave it now, as it is deffo getting a bit overworked, thanks for your advice and pictures.

 

 

 

Doug

[buffalo]

That's quite convincing now, Doug. The remaining overhangs look very plausible as the result of the bricklayers removing the odd stone when tidying up the ragged edge of the stonework.

 

Nick

[Stubby47]

Doug,

 

A question about the door in the stone part of the building. Had the original building finished just to the left of the door, then the door would appear to open so the entering person would have to step towards the wall to get in to the building (left pic). I would have thought the more natural way would have been to hinge the door the other side, so the person steps into the larger portion of the room (right pic).

 

 

(Unless, of course , there is an internal wall just to the right of the door...)

 

Cheers

 

Stu

[Kenton]

I would have thought the more natural way would have been to hinge the door the other side, so the person steps into the larger portion of the room (right pic).

might be more natural but not uncommon, even in modern builds, the door into our garage opens just like that (into the corner) and I can think of at least two other buildings with this type of arrangement without really trying.

[amdaley]

Well, having had a think, I've filled in some of the big 'overhangs' with individual stones cut from the same sheet and invented 'sticky mortar' by mixing scraped off-white artists pastel with Pritt-Stik and applying it with a mini-spatula made from a tooth-pick.

 

I shall leave it now, as it is deffo getting a bit overworked, thanks for your advice and pictures.

 

 

Doug

 

That looks great Doug.If you ask the same question to ten people then you will get ten different answers.I think it looks really good & if you're happy with it then that's all that matters.Lets have more of the same.

[Penlan]

..i would have thought that the more common occurance is for the brick (being probably later) to just butt up to the stone. This is based on the assumption that brick is usually being later than stone and is used, in effect as an 'extension'. ......

And in support of the above.......

The bricks used here look to be wire cut, thus likely to be later than the Mill stonework ,

earlier brickwork was hand moulded and varied in shape* and sans 'sharp' edges.

* by varing in shape I don't mean by a large amount, but the size wasn't a constant 3" thick etc., probably around 2.5" etc.,

 

The infill panel of brickwork to the window in the post a couple above, has the feel/look of handmade bricks.

 

However, if I had achieved the looks on this model, I would have been well satisfied.

[Job's Modelling]

Very nice piece of work. Shows me what can be done with paper.

 

 

I've learned a lot from all the replies.

I somethimes use acrylic modelling paste to fill in small gaps.

Can be sanded and painted with acrylic paint or pastels.

I use some dentel instruments, which I asked my dentist. Their old ones can be used for modelling.