Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:08 pm
by caz26
May seem obvious, but is the riven yorkstone (new) worth the extra over six side sawn. I know the extra work involved, but from a long term look is either superior? Riven may be from different layers and therefore age differently, guessing now but would love to know the difference!
thanks,
Caz
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:38 pm
by Rich H
Don't understand. Sawn is usually much more expensive than riven.
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:39 am
by caz26
thought riven was hand split then machine cut or hand fettled rather than just machine cut all round which would I'd guess be cheaper.
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:42 pm
by Tony McC
Your understanding of the production process isn't far wrong, but the economics seem to be avoiding you. Saw cutting stone is relatively expensive and you can get several hundred Asian quarry workers for the cost of a replacement saw blade. It's also a matter of time: a typical 560x560 or 600x600mm flagstone will be riven and trimmed in around 60-90 seconds. To saw cut six sides, even on relatively soft sandstone will take 5-10 times as long.
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:57 pm
by caz26
thanks for that information guys (and Tony I must congratulate you as many people do on this fabulous site).
Can I ask one further question regarding the difference between the two. Mrs Caz thinks a smooth finish will look like a pavement! can you reassure her that perhaps this will not be the case. Over a season or two will there be a whole lot of difference between the two?
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:14 am
by lutonlagerlout
sawn does indeed look like a pavement!
theres rakes of it in dunstable town centre and you wouldnt notice it (i would but thats me)
hand riven looks more authentic
LLL
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:36 am
by Rich H
Unless you want a perfect contemporary look for your urban roof terrace, riven is better for me.
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:07 am
by caz26
Looks like the wife was right......again. Thanks all.