Prepatinated Copper

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 47 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Monday, March 25, 2013 - 11:25 am:    On a major project, we intend to spec prepatinated copper panels. We've found sources for doing this. We're concerned about controlling uniformity of color. My thought is to use control samples, similar to anodizing. Are there any better suggestions? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1319 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, March 25, 2013 - 01:36 pm:    you'll need a lot of control samples, and expect to see a relatively wide range. Actually, the prepatinated copper tends to be somewhat more uniform than the naturally patinated copper -- some years ago, I did the fourth side of a roof (we were filling in a "U" shaped building). The original three sides were copper that had aged naturally and there was quite a bit of variability in the color and intensity of the patination. The pre-patinated side looked very uniform in comparison. Keep in mind though that the pre-patinated panels may continue to change over time (depends on if you have a sealer on them or not) Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 214 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, March 25, 2013 - 01:53 pm:    I think the prepatinated panels are much more color consistent than naturally patinated ones. They are especially less likely to include the black streaking you often see due to atmospheric and natural causes. Remind the designer who wants it completely consistent, that coil coated aluminum is available in a lovely shade of sea foam green. - Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 48 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Monday, March 25, 2013 - 02:13 pm:    Actually did suggest fluorocarbon: no response. The coating would require maintenance, yes? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 477 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, March 25, 2013 - 05:15 pm:    Fluorocarbon would not be as permanent as copper. You'd probably only get 20-30 years before having to recoat but it will be uniform until it fails. Why would anyone specify copper and want it to be uniform? Do they do the same when they specify wood and stone products? spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, March 25, 2013 - 05:44 pm:    I could see using the prepatinated copper if you are making an addition and want to match existing conditions but I would actually worry that the difference between the two (old and new) would lead to the potentially "close but not quite" kind of match that can be more irritating then waiting for the new "shinny penny" to match the old. I would tend to agree with Ken, let nature runs its course, that is part of the beauty of copper. I wonder if this is another product of the instant gratification world we live in. Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 49 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 08:43 am:    I try not to ask why. Usually, the answer is carefully couched, and translates to "it will look better in the photos." In this case, I think there's been some natural patination on a past project that didn't look good in the photos. Thank you all for the input. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 215 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 09:50 am:    Ken, You asked, "Why would anyone specify copper and want it to be uniform? Do they do the same when they specify wood and stone products?" The answer is yes. Designer-types often want the most bland, featureless wood available and are horrified when I suggest plastic laminate. These are the same people who select 12 different shades of cool grey for interior paints on one project. Why do you think wood-look laminate flooring and engineered stone are so popular? - Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 95 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 10:46 am:    I would like to suggest to my fellow forum participants that we resist designer bashing here. They are our clients. They're motivated by a particular vision, which we specifiers and other technically-oriented folks are tasked to help realize by creatively adhering to real-world limitations. Some of them read these posts, which have an eternal digital life. I wouldn't want to give the impression that we find the challenges they offer unstimulating. There must be another forum where we can express our mutual aggravation. I suggest that the users of this forum would be better served if these sentiments are avoided. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 546 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 11:25 am:    In my career (spanning more than 40 years now), the numer of really good architectural designers that I have worked with can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Most of the rest of them are "exterior decorators" who are less interested in the concerns of Owners and the materiality of the products they want to incorporate into their vision. While I do not wish to "bash designers", I grow weary of dealing with those who cannot understand why knowing the difference between steel and copper finishes might be important beyond the photographs that they want for their portfolios. I take quite a bit of time to work with people who want to learn more, and I will say that there are more of those than there are of the ones who deserve bashing. I do, however, have little patience with those who feel that I am redesigning their building when I recommend a steel roof rather than an aluminum roof or point out that the openings are big enough to require curtain wall rather than storefront. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1321 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 01:18 pm:    I completely agree with Peter regarding the number of good designers I've worked with over the years, and I even agree with the number of hands it would take to count them. And, like Lisa, I had a designer who wanted the wood paneling to be SO uniform that I am certain I could have specified plastic laminate and she would not have known the difference. (I did not. But I did write in the specs that she had to be shipped off to select the trees and then the veneers so that she could see that natural products have variation.) And I'm currently working with a designer now (who is award winning) and he said "why do we care how thick the stone flooring is? the contractor will just change it anyway." Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 217 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 02:23 pm:    Jeffrey, Oh dear. I hadn't intended to sound quite so snarky in this thread. I meant to say that many of my clients care deeply about uniformity of appearance in the building materials. For instance, many clients prefer prepatinated to natural finish copper. And I agree with Scott's observation that installing prepatinated copper next to previous (or partially) natural patinated copper may not meet the designer's expectations. To me, this is clearly a current design trend, along with a preference for matte, not semi-gloss finishes, and those 12 x 24 inch ceramic tiles which should be installed at 1/3 running bond, not 1/2. I think most of us are doing our best to combine our clients' desires with a guide to successful installation. I think this is where we started this thread. - John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1489 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 - 02:59 pm:    Anne, We did a project with wood cabinetry that the designers didn't think looked so great because of variations in grain. I think the owner (a public school) was also a bit unsatisfied. For the next project the solution was, in fact, to use plastic laminate. More durable, more uniform and less expensive. Everyone was happy. Frank Wright (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 12:25 am:    In case it's not clear, the designers are much higher on the food chain than spec writers. Spec writers know a lot of stuff (probably less than they think they do), but you people should really take a reality check. Do designers ever read this forum, let alone care what spec writers say about them? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 548 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 - 10:21 am:    Really good architcts (who are good desigers) not only have a good aesthetic sense, but have a good feeling for the materiality of their aesthetics, both generally and specifically. I have known desigers who can not only recall a specific detail from a project 10 years ago, but whether it worked or didn't work, whether it would apply to the current design or not, and why it should or should not be used again. As specification writers, I believe it is our duty to support the aesthetic vision of good architects by extending their own strengths with our own. Good architects appreciate this support and appreciate when we bring something new to the table. It may be that a company is no longer in business or it may be a new product or it may be a change in the code. No one knows everything which is why architecture is a collaborative endeavor. Starchitects undermine the interests of ther clients and ultimately their own interests by operating as if they are the sole keepers of the "stuff" that is really important to project success.