We're giong to have to watch out that "Solid Surface" stops meaning what it has always meant.
This product wants to join the club, just by saying it is solid surface. I doubt this squares at all wilth ISSFA's and the manufacturers' accepted definition.

Are there any watchdogs out there? Or is this going to water sol surf down till it means nothing?

Tom

Tom:

I clicked on the link and it took me to a quartz story. Quartz is solid surface according to Lenny Elbon and that's good enough for me.

I woudn't look for ISSFA to defend anything but Oxley's newly extended contract. If they don't consider the Consumer Reports countertop comparison worth responding to, I doubt they'd take me on if I said cardboard was solid surface.

Joe

Hmmm...
You're right. Joe.
The link must only get you to the front page. There is a link above it for ceramic solid surface.
As for estone being solid surface - does it fit within the expected standards for solid surface?


Tom

Like Corian and quartz, as long as the material is the same color and pattern all the way through the thickness of the material is solid surface.  Just my opinion.

Andy,
That broad a definition ignoresw accepted similarities in products we are comfortable with, such as fabrication methods, repair methods, maintenance procedures, etc. The solid surface materials from Staron, Corian, Hi-Macs and the like are very similar in these things. When you change, for instance, the entire method of tooling for fabrication, how can you call it the same product?

It's not just old-time stubborness saying this. How can I answer a question from a customer about maintenance or repairability when I have to qulify every thing I say about a general moniker ("solid surface")?

Tom

ISSFA does not consider quartz to be the same thing as solid surface. Rather, the membership said that they felt that it was important for ISSFA to embrace quartz as a material,  since members were making an integral part of their business. Lenny Elbon may feel they are the same thing, that is his right and I respect his learned opinion. In fact, he and I served on the committe that wrote the definition of solid surface for ISSFA.

As a fabricator, I say that until it can be seamed, sanded, shaped, and formed like solid surface, it is something else. Being homogenous is not the sole test.

Brad,

I have to agree with you.  Quartz is something else,but it is not solid surface.  

Mory 

You guys seriously kill me. You over-tech all things counter top and now you're defining what is solid as it relates to surface? Is that what I'm to understand? What "something else" is it Mory?

Perhaps quartz was spelled wrong. Maybe it should be quarts.

Dave,
It may have been an unfortunate choice (I don't think so, but wtf?) of phrase, but there are materials that have similar properties in manufacture, fabrication, maintenance procedures, etc. Hi-Macs, Staron, Avonite, Corian, etc. all share these common traits. Zodiaq, Silestone, Cambria, Blarneystone, all also share similar traits and points  with each other. They deserve their own column in the "what materials do you sell for countertops?" gambit.

The people that matter got together and came up with a satisfactory working and functional definition for solid surface. The choice of name may not be to your taste, but that ship left port awhile ago.

Tom

OK.  I am game to this idea that solid surface is "Solid Surface" and countertop matertial made with quartz is called "what".

Let's come up with a name that defines that segment of the countertop industry and stick with it.  Maybe "Quartz" surfacing is the name we should consider the industry standard for any material made up of quartz, held together with a polymer base.

How bout it?

We need Scott to come to Fla., just to hear him say:
"If it's not solid surface, it's crap!"

I did a job for an research material engineer once, he refered to Silestone as Quartz Composite.  

" I thought that was easily understood, since the consumer has heard the word composite in many automobile ads, sporting goods ads, ect.

Tom, the definition  leaves neither a good or bad taste in my mouth. My point is I think this what is solid surface defined stuff is nonsense. The "in the know" folks actually got together to set a definition? What a waste of time.

No wonder consumers are left uneducated about countertop material when the BOD of whatever group takes on such weighty issues as definitions.

I've always Quartz surfacing "engineered stone".  Similar to Cultered Marble instead of just marble.

How about we call it  " Robo Top"  its tough on grime. 

just a thought.

Wes

 

Tom, let me clarify. Instead of what I perceive as wasting time with what is is. Promoting the industry should be at the fore front. When I read that a meeting was held in an attempt to define what solid surface is, I rolled my eyes. Sometimes, IMO, people try to make complex what is not.

Au Contrere, mon frere!
It was one of the best moves they made, was wildly accepted, and made the complex more simple.

Ok, so what's the definition and who "wildly" accepted it. Obviously not consumers who should be the focus.