Message text written by david:
>. I think you said something along the lines of "better lost detail than
fake reconstruction" .... 

I have an fundamental problem with stone restoration in Australia, where
the prevailing attitude is that if a detail or a portion of a detail has
been lost, then it must be reconstructed, irrespective of the condition of
the rest of the detail or piece of stone.

What I think will happen is that the repair will outperform the rest of the
stone that the repair is in, or the newly indented stone will perform
longer than the original stones on either side.  So consequently building
owners are spending buckets of money on access systems to permit full
'restoration' to their stone facades ... and they will be back spending the
same money in 20-30 years time.  <

This thread is obviously drawing a great deal of interest and discussion,
as I suppose should be expected with so many of us earning our livelihoods
in stone restoration. A lot of valid comments have been made, but I am
concerned about catchy phrases that oversimplify the complexities of
restoring and maintaining stone facades.

I agree with david's comment that there is often a tendency to do too much,
but that should not be taken as license to do nothing at all. Carefully
thought out repairs can resolve basic materials and engineering problems
which, if left unaddressed, can in fact lead to structural failures, unsafe
conditions for the general public, and more serious economic penalties to
the property owner.

Clearly there are alternatives other than "do nothing" or "do something
that looks really fake". Will repairs outperform stone? Well, some may,
most have historically not. But how significant is that  really? On any
given sandstone facade, chances are that one stone has greatly outperformed
another. We've probably all seen examples of side-by-side stones on the
same elevation, one in nearly perfect condition after 100 years, its
neighbor suffering from multiple rounds of exfoliation. 

As for being back every 20 or 30 year for maintenance, I would argue that
this time frame is probably too long. Maintenance is the key to avoiding
more serious problems, and more frequent inspections and maintenance make
both technical and economic sense.

Rather than run off any longer, I'll just restate my point that
oversimplification isn't helpful. Each situation has unique
characteristics, and the decisions regarding any particular situation
should include consideration of a full range of technical, aesthetic,
philosophical and economic alternatives.

Mike Edison