THE QUALITY DIFFERENCE
01.
This page is dedicated to explaining the disparity in quality between 2CM (3/4″) and 3CM (1 ¼”) stone slabs. Frequently, customers from Arizona inquire about the variance in thickness and quality, seeking guidance on which type to select. To provide clarity, we showcase the fabrication process with detailed images highlighting the pros and cons of each option. Here, you’ll find a demonstration of a kitchen constructed using 2cm (3/4″) stone, which will be laminated and customized for our client. Additionally, we use a slab set on a bridge saw cutting table as a visual reference throughout the explanation. Notice the irregular movements and patterns in the stone slab.
02.
Here’s a kitchen countertop featuring an inside corner, where the stone has been inverted to facilitate lamination. Take note of the fractured laminate section on the right side, which can occur with softer granite during cutting or glueing. Due to the inside corner, full lamination isn’t feasible on both sides of the countertop, necessitating filler lamination sourced from another part of the slab. Additionally, it’s important to bear in mind that achieving an exact color match for the filler lamination isn’t always possible. Also, each side with a laminated edge is deliberately extended by half an inch to accommodate a double cut during the final measurements for that specific countertop.
03.
This image offers a frontal perspective of the upside-down countertop, showcasing the lamination on top, which was cut from the same side to maintain continuity with the surface movements. In Arizona, it’s customary for 2cm thick slabs to feature a doubled edge known as a laminated edge. It’s important to note that this isn’t the finalized profiled edging; rather, the lamination serves the specific function of doubling the edge thickness from 2cm to 4cm (¾” to 1 ½”). This picture was captured prior to grinding and glueing the two parts together.
04.
Following the lamination process with epoxy, the countertop underwent its second and final cut. The upper stone represents the finalized front view of the countertop, while underneath lies the remaining piece after the edge cutting. It’s worth observing that the section I’m holding in my hand seamlessly aligns the movements, whereas the top portion no longer maintains the continuous flow from the countertop to the bottom lamination. This discrepancy arises from a 1-inch difference in the movements between the initial slab picture and the subsequent countertop cut.
05.
These final two images highlight the variance in thickness resulting from the application of lamination. In the first picture, we observe a thickness of 1 ⅜”, whereas in the second, it measures 1 ¾”. These two countertops are positioned on either side of the stove. It’s worth noting that this discrepancy is an inherent issue that, depending on the material, may be unavoidable. Such situations are more frequently encountered with 2cm slabs.
06.
In this final image, we observe the difference in the seam line where the sink cutout will be placed. The irregular movements and patterns present in the material pose challenges for fabricators, often making it difficult or even impossible to achieve a perfectly matched color seam.
