Modern Tiles or Rosemary plain tiles : Character

[dishman]

I just wondered what people's views on replacing 1930s rosemary clay tiles with modern large format concrete.

I see it done so often and always think a lot of character is lost in the process.

What is your view?

Just sentimentality? Do you think modern looks better? Is it about cost/labour and not being worth the effort? Or if you could stretch the budget would you replace like for like?

Thoughts?

 

[Banksy61]

Dont do it!!! you said it yourself, you will lose all the character of the building. Concrete interlocking will be more cost effective, but it will make it look to top heavy!

 

[danielroofer]

Would stick with Rosemarys everytime, but there are some interlocking tiles that are designed to look like smaller plain tiles, handy for extensions with low pitch roofs that are too shallow for a plain tile:

Marley Ashmore
Mini Stonewold Mockbond

 

[tony1851]

+1; plain clay tiles every time.
They are small in scale and harmonise well with brickwork; the interlocking tiles are faster and cheaper, but are too big in scale and look thick and cumbersome.

 

[shane12345]

All depends on how much money people have to spend.
Plain tiles look much nicer.

Marley Ashmore are awful tiles.

 

[dishman]

All depends on how much money people have to spend.
Plain tiles look much nicer.

Marley Ashmore are awful tiles.

Those Marley Ashmore tiles look nearly identical to Redland Duoplain.

I have ordered a number of samples from Sandtoft and Redland. I do like the Redland "modern" Rosemary plain clay tiles. They are a good match/replacement for my exisiting 1930 ones, only a few mm wider and they seem to be nice and thick.

Was quite impressed with Redlands sample guy, he came in a car to my house with a boot full of tiles sample, and just gave me any I was interested in.

The sandtoft plain clay, although nice, seem to be much thinner/delicate and double cambered, so may look too bumpy.

Anyone with any experience of Redland Rosemary Clay tiles.

 

[tony1851]

they seem to be nice and thick.

That's part of the problem; the concrete tile always look thicker and more cumbersome than plain clay.

The sandtoft plain clay, although nice, seem to be much thinner/delicate and double cambered, so may look too bumpy.

Traditional plain clay tiles were always double-cambered to keep rain away from the joint on the next course below.

 

[dishman]

That's part of the problem; the concrete tile always look thicker and more cumbersome than plain clay.



Traditional plain clay tiles were always double-cambered to keep rain away from the joint on the next course below.

Sorry maybe I was not clear, I agree the interlocking concrete tiles look too thick and large, but it was the plain clay tiles i was actually referring to.

I was actually talking about the differance between plain clay tiles. The 1930s rosemarys on my roof are hardly cambered at all.

The difference between sandtofts and redlands plain clay tiles, is that Redlands is a bit thicker and is single cambered more akin to my original plain tiles.
View media item 69391

The sandtofts seem thinner, more delecate and are double cambered to give that bumpy uneaven look. View media item 69390

So, I guess it is down to which style fits. The redlands, as I said, feel a bit more solid, thicker (not in a bad way... about 2mm thicker than my originals).