Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think they're ugly and dated.
Quartz is also ugly and dated, so.
I’d love to know the materials you’d put in your kitchen.
Quartzite counters.
... that look exactly the same, but cost more. Congrats.
+1 Pretentious dolt that wants to spend more on something more difficult to maintain because its 'different'. Will it have a very subtle enhanced aesthetic due to being natural stone? Sure. Will it be unique because of the presence of natural imperfections and other natural materials? Sure. Will anyone notice or care besides you? Likely not. Will it be worth all the additional maintenance? Definitely not. I'm going to guess in a lineup of 10 slabs (excluding the tragic quartz tops with too many glass inclusions), you'll guess 6 or 7 correctly. So if one looks dated, the other will too.
I HAVE a matte marble, a quartize and a quartz. They are all identical. The quartize has more quartz "sparkle" so I actually like it a little less. There's a difference in cheap quartz vs expensive quartz and how realistic they look.
Nope. Quartz always looks manufactured and lacks warmth. Even the top brands. It is what it is and people can appreciate it for being inexpensive, simple, bombproof etc but it will never look like a real stone. There are lots of ugly real stones so it isn’t a broad stone > quartz thing, but great stone is always > quartz from an aesthetic standpoint.