Homeowner Forum / Construction / December 2003

Some credentials: I was a pretty good stone man ; walls, veneer,
fireplaces and such. IMO, stone is a difficult and expensive material
to use as a thin exterior veneer. If you must go this way, I'd suggest
artificial stone (looks great, and is lighter) over extruded wire
lath. Using real stone as a viable, more expensive, alternative to
brick (4-6 in.) works for me too. Tarpaper, wall ties,  and a good
footer (hopefully integral to the foundation) are essential. Do the
soffit first.

Flagstone is great, but expect anything dropped on it to break.
And it's cold on the feet. Good in summer, bad in winter.

Mach Twain

OK.  Based on your thanks-in-advance (likely to be the only
thanks), here are my thoughts.

Stone is not a facing.

Stone is either the major structural component or a
contributing portion of the structural components or it is a
veneer.  Veneers in an exterior wall are by definition
attached structurally to or hung upon the supporting
structure, although in practice they are some times
vertically self-supporting and tied horizontally to the
principal wall structure.  They are not applied to the wall
like paint.

The primary purpose of veneers, including stone, brick or
tile masonry veneers, etc., is always decorative rather than
structural and nearly always decorative rather than
protective.  Supporting this is veneers are incapable of
even self-support and make no real contribution to
structure.  And, veneers are far more expensive than
alternative protective coatings or surfaces, so are choosen
for their cosmetic effect.

As a veneer and regardless of the veneer pattern, stone
should appear to be structural, that is supporting or
contributing to the support of the structure.  Stone stuck
on various parts of an exterior wall is "not at home" and
"not comfortable" with the building.  Ashlar veneer, as
example, looks like solid, shaped stone that constitutes the
major wall material.  It does not look like a facing or a
"fabric."  So called "Zurian" stone, an abysimal material
stuck on many terrible buildings in the 60's and 70's
doesn't even look like it could be structural.  It is
obviously "stuck on" and should be "struck off."  Most
everyone gets a "fake look" impression of Zurian, but it is
still used.  Whether consciously or not, improperly used
stone or rock facings or veneer on any building are a
conspicuously inappropriate, uncomfortable use of materials.

How thick your stone "facing" is or is not in application to
your Cape Cod is not the question.  Unless, it is a true
component of the wall or, at least, LOOKS like it is a true
component, consistent with the use a real component would
have.  If you only run the stone part way up the wall, say
to the sill level of fenestration, then make sure it is
thick enough to provide a six inch or greater ledge between
the stone and the siding above, so as to look like it
actually belongs there . . . serving more than a cosmetic
purpose.  If it runs full height, make sure it again appears
to be an added thickness, equal to a full wythe plus air
space, apparent at the top below a facing or the soffit and
at its sides adjacent to wood siding or similar, thin
materials.

A "thick" material, such as stone, next to a "thin"
material, such as wood siding (or, even though to a lesser
extent, next to thick but thinner than stone material, such
as brick) should project beyond the thinner material by a
similar thickness.

One to three inches isn't going to look right.  It's going
to look "stuck on."  Go with the thicker material.  (And
don't think that by installing a thin 'return' on the tops
and edges of thin, split stone is going to look better.  It
won't.  It will look even worse.  It will look like you not
only knew no better, but that you did know better but were
too cheap to fake it correctly.)

My thoughts.

Jim