# "exposed" masonry **URL:** \ **Category:** Archive - Product Discussions #6\ **Created:** [September 20, 2015, 12:18am UTC](https://forum.4specs.com/t/exposed-masonry/2934 "2015-09-20T00:18:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![lazarcitec](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3bc359/32.png) [@lazarcitec](https://forum.4specs.com/u/lazarcitec)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2015, 12:18am UTC](https://forum.4specs.com/t/exposed-masonry/2934/1 "2015-09-20T00:18:42Z")
An engineer was looking at my Concrete Unit Masonry spec and questioned a word in a paragraph from an old Masterspec entry, the verbage: “Single-Source Responsibility for Masonry Units: Obtain exposed masonry units of a uniform texture and color, or a uniform blend within the ranges accepted for these characteristics, from one source and by a single manufacturer for each different product required.” The Engineer suggested I remove the word exposed from the spec section as there was no exposed masonry in the job. Does anyone agree with this engineer? I can’t even begin to estimate how many jobs this paragraph has been used in and the use of the word “exposed” never came up? ---
**Author:** ![liz\_osullivan](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex047/user_avatar/forum.4specs.com/liz_osullivan/32/41_2.png) [@liz\_osullivan](https://forum.4specs.com/u/liz_osullivan)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2015, 12:22am UTC](https://forum.4specs.com/t/exposed-masonry/2934/2 "2015-09-20T00:22:49Z")
I’m not sure the engineer needs to be weighing in on color and texture. I also don’t think you need to dictate color and texture of concealed masonry. If there’s no exposed masonry, maybe consider deleting the entire provision. But deleting “exposed” changes the intent. ---
**Author:** ![lazarcitec](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3bc359/32.png) [@lazarcitec](https://forum.4specs.com/u/lazarcitec)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2015, 12:34am UTC](https://forum.4specs.com/t/exposed-masonry/2934/3 "2015-09-20T00:34:28Z")
This is a spec section I prepared for the Engineer pro bono, the engineer doesn’t provide specs but the bank wants specs, one of those deals, I’ve known the engineer for 20 years so I volunteered to assist. ---
**Author:** ![michael\_chusid](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex047/user_avatar/forum.4specs.com/michael_chusid/32/211_2.png) [@michael\_chusid](https://forum.4specs.com/u/michael_chusid)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://forum.4specs.com/t/exposed-masonry/2934/4 "2015-09-20T01:09:04Z")
Variations in color and texture could indicate products with variations in performance characteristics such as strength. Hence, it is can be retained as a quality assurance measure. ---
**Author:** ![sheldon\_wolfe](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex047/user_avatar/forum.4specs.com/sheldon_wolfe/32/197_2.png) [@sheldon\_wolfe](https://forum.4specs.com/u/sheldon_wolfe)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2015, 2:31am UTC](https://forum.4specs.com/t/exposed-masonry/2934/5 "2015-09-20T02:31:03Z")
The engineer may have been going for “Obtain masonry units from one source and by a single manufacturer for each different product required.” What is the value of such requirements? Assuming appearance is not a factor, if the products meet the specifications, what does it matter where they came from? ---
**Author:** ![wpegues](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex047/user_avatar/forum.4specs.com/wpegues/32/122_2.png) [@wpegues](https://forum.4specs.com/u/wpegues)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2015, 2:55am UTC](https://forum.4specs.com/t/exposed-masonry/2934/6 "2015-09-20T02:55:32Z")
I agree with Sheldon and Liz here. With Sheldon in that if it is all concealed, single source is essentially irrelevant - if it preforms, who cares what color it is - and there are no issues that I know of where single source for concealed masonry would address. With Liz because the way this paragraph is worded, a note to the specifier should have stated, “Delete the paragraph below if there is no exposed unpainted masonry or where color control is of no importance.” William ---
**Author:** ![anon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/47e85d/32.png) [@anon](https://forum.4specs.com/u/anon)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://forum.4specs.com/t/exposed-masonry/2934/7 "2015-09-21T16:56:47Z")
I only include this language for decorative CMU, not garden variety gray block - even if that garden variety gray block may be exposed in the finished work. Retaining this language for non-decorative CMU is over specifying. ---
**Author:** ![bunzick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a587f6/32.png) [@bunzick](https://forum.4specs.com/u/bunzick)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2015, 6:57pm UTC](https://forum.4specs.com/t/exposed-masonry/2934/8 "2015-09-21T18:57:54Z")
I don’t think color or texture serves as a quality assurance measure for strength - that should be done by the manufacturer via a QC plan. A batch produced with aggregate from an alternative supplier may change color with no change in performance. I think this paragraph is intended solely for exposed, especially unpainted, CMU and can be deleted if not needed. It is arguable whether it is otherwise required to have a sole source clause.