Facade defect: mortar residues and smears - defect or not?

By the way, the stone is very beautiful even though we did not remember it as rustic. Therefore, I highly recommend paying close attention to reference objects, even if the firings and batches are often different.

I still don't find it very bad based on the pictures. A brush won't help, a wire brush rather.

Well, I have to say, in terms of jointing, you put more effort into it than just a smooth finish. I think it suits the stone.

Merciful goddess, no. I must absolutely disagree. To me, it looks more like it was done by apprentices. Namely, by scraping off the mortar with the plaster straightedge. In my opinion, with hand-applied facing bricks, this is not a matter of taste, but rather a design blunder – if only because this method inevitably causes the irregularities of the stone edges to be "filled" with mortar. As much as can be seen in post #4 at the underside of the roll layer, they should at least have left the joints recessed behind the stone line. In the base area, it looks to me like different stones, even with a different surface roughness – but definitely in a different format and bond. In that respect, I do see grounds for justified complaints about defects.

How one personally defines "smooth finish" is, on the other hand, more a matter of taste and therefore only makes sense to involve an expert if objective deviations from professional practice can be identified. From my point of view, the appearance clearly suggests that this is not the work of masons.

However, there is one mistake that is unfortunately quite common but cannot be blamed on the craftsmen: clients like lively color gradations without realizing that this inevitably requires "a knack" for balancing the different tones across the surface. When viewed up close during masonry, the result can appear successful, yet from normal viewing distance it simply looks "unclean" and blotchy. As the range of color variation increases, the time required for processing necessarily – and unfortunately nearly exponentially – rises, since the stones must then be placed almost artistically, even if it looks "just craftsmanship" to onlookers. Here, the result to me looks as if laborers quickly copied something from seasoned pros and thought they could do it too.

Don’t be offended, but in cases like this I think the clients’ learning costs are well deserved. Anyone who wants lively color-sorted facing bricks must understand the link to twice the mason hours on the bill – if not, they get a discount-store result.

From my point of view – but as mentioned, this doesn’t necessarily constitute a formal breach of regulations – the blonde interpretation of the term "smooth finish" does not excuse this. Visually, it should be prohibited ;-)

Thank you very much for the detailed opinion. I am certainly not angry. :) After all, I started this topic to read honest opinions and criticism. Only in this way can I, as a layman, better assess the whole situation.

Our construction company clearly does not belong to the discounters, which is why it is so shocking what was delivered there. I also think that, as the client, I can expect a general contractor to present the different types of skim coat and then let me decide, especially since the contract stipulates the execution in two working steps and it was done in just one pass. I don’t know if that affects the joint pattern, but still, you can’t shake the feeling that they wanted to save themselves some work there.

When I commission a general contractor, one can assume that I am not particularly knowledgeable in the matter, so my "blonde interpretation" is justified from my point of view. Certainly, one should question many things, but where does one begin and where does it end? Normally, you have a competent construction manager who pays attention to such things, but ours apparently is always busy fetching chalk! ;)

that he introduces me to the different types of smooth finishing and then lets me decide, especially since the execution in two work steps was contractually agreed upon and it was only done in one pass.

Basically, there are two types: in one work step (i.e. during masonry, where excess mortar is scraped off with the trowel and each joint is properly filled) or in two work steps (i.e. after masonry, the joints are initially partially raked out and then evenly filled). However, this actually refers to exposed masonry, less to claddings – and above all: to straight-edged and flat-surfaced bricks.

But here it is about a cladding shell, namely made of hand-struck bricks. In this case, it is not possible in one work step at all, and the "smooth finishing" must rather be interpreted as an even joint design.

In the present case, however, the joints were not smoothly pointed, but rather "spackled ready for wallpapering," and the smear pattern also indicates that this was done more in a way similar to smoothing plaster surfaces.

therefore my "blonde interpretation" is justified from my point of view.

In this respect, by the blonde interpretation of the term "smooth finishing," I do not mean you. But rather the (I believe, called them) "screed-Ahmads," whom I accuse of this sacrilege.

Hand-formed or hand-struck bricks have an uneven shape that varies by several millimeters from the form of an "optimally straight-edged cuboid." If one makes a classic smooth finishing in the sense of joints in line with the bricks, the mortar in the joints has "flooding," i.e. it overlaps the edges of the bricks. Then the bricks no longer look intentionally irregular but look like they have been "rounded off" by a glacier. For larger formats, such as with rubble stone walls, this is acceptable. But it does not belong here.

To summarize: from my point of view, it was executed incorrectly because a classic smooth finishing is not suitable for these bricks; however, it is certainly feasible in two work steps, namely masonry with jointing and later smooth filling of the wall surface.

That is a nice stone :) I am not really a fan of clinker for my house, so I haven’t really dealt with joints. That the GU doesn’t suggest any alternatives for whatever, I have experienced that too. You just have to accept it if everything else is done properly. Therefore, I can’t judge if that is the case here. But I can say that you should not look at a house facade microscopically. That is like looking at a TV screen from one meter away and getting upset about the individual pixels ;) Therefore, I would advise trying to get a discount in the form of concessions, but ultimately live with it (whether something comes of it or not). I don’t find it bad anyway... as I said: later on it won’t even be noticeable. As for the mortar residue: only an eagle eye will see it, and who has one of those? Don’t get too caught up in the details, that just makes you unhappy ;)