I watch these demolition notices for historic structures in the west end of louisville go through my inbox every week. It’s hard to look at sometimes. This one is no exception.
Posted 24th February 2009 by Kurtis
This is what a valley is supposed to look like. Each course runs all the way to the exposure line and you shouldn’t see any of the next slate hanging down. If your valley cut is wider than a normal bond you use a slate that is larger than the rest of the field slates to run all the way in.
This is what field should look like. Slates are laying flat, the bottom of the slate shouldn’t be canted up in the air. Gaps at the bottoms of the slates like those shown in the photo below are usually a sign of over-nailing, poor decking preparation, or lack of a cant strip at the bottom.
This picture shows a job where Commonwealth Roofing, from Louisville, KY stripped a perfectly good peach bottom roof from this house and laid new slate. There was some damage to the box gutters and a dormer from a tree fall, but it only required replacement of the copper work and a few courses of slate. I’m sure they convinced the homeowner or the insurance company that the whole thing needed to be re-done. I guess that would have been OK, but the work they did is terrible. This is a “new” roof. It is only a few months old. Notice all of the slates that are not laying flush and the inconsistent exposures everywhere. Also they didn’t run each course all the way into the valley.
More of the same junk. These are not even the worst areas of this roof.
- jimmy March 8, 2009 at 12:21 AMI don’t even know what I’m looking at and the old stuff looks like total shit to me. I could never leave a job looking like that. I don’t know if I’m too anal or what, but I just don’t understand how people do work for others that isn’t 100%. Where’s the pride..
- Kurt March 8, 2009 at 10:31 AMJimmy the terrible-looking roof isn’t old. It was just finished this week by a local roofing company who advertises slate work. The word is greed. They convinced the homeowner or the insurance company that the whole thing needed to be re-roofed when really it just needed minor repairs. The original roof was better than what they got, even with the storm damage.
- Anonymous March 9, 2009 at 4:05 PMOf course – the real question is: who is the lucky homeowner for the 1st set of pictures? Those are georgous!Reply
- Kurt May 4, 2009 at 7:43 PMThe 1st set of pictures is a client’s house that we installed a new slate roof on.
Kevin, musing on the inevitability of the next roofing crew causing damage to this, which can and should last the lifetime of the building. It brought to mind, one of my early works that was later destroyed by an eager insurance claims industry. Ready to sell work that was un-needed because of “dents”
This roof, completed by my company: Patina Slate & Copper, was destroyed by overzealous “hail damage” sales tactics, and ignorance. Only a few years after installation: in spite of being perfectly sound. The contractor who ended up doing the work sought me out to get up training on standing seam, however it was much after this roof. Truly a crime.