Talk:Tuckpointing

Dust Exposure?

What is that doing in this page? --ArtifexCrastinus (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be off topic and should be deleted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pic of 10 Downing is not good

First, the pic is black and white which begs the question: why? It's not 1965. Further, an essential aspect of tuckpointing seems to be that there is mortar that matches the color of the brick, but that is not evident in this pic. I see only white border around dark rectangles. The dark rectangles might actually be brick with matching mortar, but that is not noticeable. The later pic, which is in color, is very good. It seems to show reddish mortar that somewhat matches the color of the reddish brick. So, the first pic should go as it adds no value. IDK if we need two pics, so maybe just remove the first one and call it a day. If we want a pic near the top, then move the (currently) second one to the top. Further, I think it would be good to have a pic of tuckpointing tools in the 'tuckpointing tools' section. ~2026-28033-74 (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Essential aspect

I was confused by this article at first. What threw me off was that it starts with talk of contrasting colors of mortar. I think that's key, but not the essential aspect.

Seems to me that what's essential is that mortar that matches the color of the brick is used to fill out the face side of each brick so that it seems more rectangular, and contrasting mortar is used to outline each brick with the intended result being brickwork that has a relatively rectangular pattern instead of irregular/rounded shapes.

WRT "very fine joints have been made" : First, I never use 'very' in WP. And, 'fine' is ambiguous (in addition to size it can mean condition). And, "have been made" is awkward. How about: "The result looks as if the the joints between bricks are relatively small and regular." ~2026-28033-74 (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)