guv wrote:
Ive decided to lay tiles in our hallway, downstairs loo, kitchen and
utility room all in the same tile design.

I have been looking at Porcelain tiles, purely because they are meant
to be much tougher and less likely to crack if something was every
dropped on them.

Having looked in a few tile shops, I note the huge variation in prices
(as expected), but also that porcelain is very much more expensive
than ceramics.

With this in mind, I was intriuged by something I spotted on ebay:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2381620E

I have contacted the seller (who has a shop on ebay, shop in Epsom and
warehouse in Gravesend) and he has sent me a sample of the tile shown
in that link and a few others.

One thing that struck me, was they seemed slightly thinner than I had
expected (probably about 7 or 8 mm) and surprisingly light. (Having
said that, the samples were only small peices, not full tiles.)

Looking on the back of the tiles, they were ridged, like I would
expect on ceramics. Is that normal? All the porcelain tiles I have
seen, look like they could be laid either way round! (Though there
probably is a correct side - thats just a quick observation!)

The tiles also seem to originate from China.

Does it look like I should avoid these? (I have to say, I like the
price)

I dont want to regret a purchase, but Im guessing as long as they lay
ok and behave themselves once down, whats likely to go wrong?

A dilema! I'm fully aware of the "get what you pay for" ideal,
but.......



I think the answer lies in what is meant by porcelain.

To me porcelain is a fine delicate ceramic,usually white, from which
dainty and fragile teas sets are made. And possibly toilets and basins.
And is totally unsuitable as a flooring.

Ceramic, is a material used because its tough and strong and goes in the
business end of jet engines ;-)

Then there is terra cotta, earthenware, brick, quary tiles, natural
stone tiles, and so on ad nauseam.

Before you even get to the galze, which is 99.99% of the wear capability
of the tile.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think the answer lies in what is meant by porcelain.

To me porcelain is a fine delicate ceramic,usually white, from which
dainty and fragile teas sets are made. And possibly toilets and basins.
And is totally unsuitable as a flooring.

Ceramic, is a material used because its tough and strong and goes in the
business end of jet engines ;-)

Then there is terra cotta, earthenware, brick, quary tiles, natural
stone tiles, and so on ad nauseam.

Before you even get to the galze, which is 99.99% of the wear capability
of the tile.


Ah, but porcelain tiles are quite well defined, they are quite different
from glazed ceramic tiles.

With a ceramic tile, you have a baked-clay body, with a thin vitreous
layer on top. With porcelain tiles, they are fully vitrified - there is
no top glaze. They are also totally non-porous.

As for the OP - that price is amazing. If they are really porcelain
(easy enough to tell if you have samples) snap it up. We paid around
£30/sqm for similar tiles in blue.


--
Grunff

guv wrote:

On the point you are making about snapping them up? What am I looking
for? I wasnt sent whole tiles, just small peices - and I was able to
break one of the peices just by bashing against one of the others. So
they are quite brittle. The big test would be if they were laid and I
hit them hard with something! I dont have the luxury of that test! ;-)

Is there anything I should be looking for specifically?

Porcelain is a lot like glass. Look at the snapped cross-section - it
should be uniform, the same colour all the way. It should also look
slightly glassy.


One reason I think they may not be porcelain, is the fact there is a
definate side they need to be laid. ie they have ridges like you would
find on ceramics to help adhesive adhere to them. Is that normal?

Yes, many (most?) porcelain tiles have ridges on the back.


I
know the few tiles I looked at, seemed to be the same on both sides.

Some are, but most of the 30x30cm ones had ridges.


Also, they are not as think as I had expected. Not much thinker, if
anything, than I think a 30cmx30cm ceramic would be.

Ours were maybe 10mm thick.


Im certainly not bothered if they are "fakes" - from a snobby angle.
If they have similar properties, that would be good enough. I will
probably take the samples into a tile shop and ask them! As you can
appreciate, describing things is a little difficult, when you dont
know how to specifically describe the texture you would actually
expect them to be when broken!

If they're uniform throughout, and the broken edge looks slightly glassy
(certainly not porous), they're porcelain.


--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I think the answer lies in what is meant by porcelain.

To me porcelain is a fine delicate ceramic,usually white, from which
dainty and fragile teas sets are made. And possibly toilets and
basins. And is totally unsuitable as a flooring.

Ceramic, is a material used because its tough and strong and goes in
the business end of jet engines ;-)

Then there is terra cotta, earthenware, brick, quary tiles, natural
stone tiles, and so on ad nauseam.

Before you even get to the galze, which is 99.99% of the wear
capability of the tile.


Ah, but porcelain tiles are quite well defined, they are quite different
from glazed ceramic tiles.

With a ceramic tile, you have a baked-clay body, with a thin vitreous
layer on top. With porcelain tiles, they are fully vitrified - there is
no top glaze. They are also totally non-porous.


I wonder why they call them porcelain then. Never seen nor heard of
anything like that apart from quarry tiles.

Ah, Wikipedia has a decent enough blurb..

....."Through-body porcelain tile, is as the name implies does not
involve a glaze or a layering of different products together to create a
tile. The surface, and the interior of the tile is the exact same
material. Much as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, tile is
only as strong as its weakest component, which is why porcelain tile is
used in many applications, where glazed tile would not be able to hold
up to the local conditions (impact, frost).

Italy is the birthplace of modern porcelain tile production, but today
is produced in many countries, including China, Turkey, Argentina, and
Spain.

Porcelain and ceramic are essentially the same product, the difference
being the end result out of the kilns. The two defining characteristics
for tile are water absorption, and abrasion. By definition by ANSI to be
classified as porcelain tile, the product must be 99.95% non-porous (or
better)."






As for the OP - that price is amazing. If they are really porcelain
(easy enough to tell if you have samples) snap it up. We paid around
£30/sqm for similar tiles in blue.

The message
from guv contains these words:

One reason I think they may not be porcelain, is the fact there is a
definate side they need to be laid. ie they have ridges like you would
find on ceramics to help adhesive adhere to them. Is that normal?

The Italian porcelain tiles I laid in the conservatory are one-sided.
They're pressed from powder and then fired. Incredibly tough [1] and the
colour goes right through, even on speckledy tones, so chips and wear
won't matter.

[1] Though I planned to use the diamond tile saw all along, I thought
I'd try to score and snap one. Even my rather too massive frame couldn't
bust one. I guess because they're homogenous there's less reliance on a
surface skin to maintain the strength. They're cerainly tough.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

guv wrote:

They ARE the same colour all the way through. But I wouldnt describe
them as glassy. I suppose I would say one of the samples could have
that description applied, but not the other 3. They are more textured
- but I would have to say, the tiles are matt not smooth on the
surface either.

I think they sound just like our porcelain tiles.


One other thing of note. Whilst they are only small samples, I do
think they are relatively light. Of course that observation may just
be subjective to their size. I wouldnt say they are heavier than I
would expect a ceramic to be. Do you think it should be?

They should be a similar weight to glass :-)


I will try to have a look around at the weekend at alternatives, but
they are looking more promising after seeing your comments.

I think they are worth a closer look. See if you can get a whole one,
then try to break it.


I am also thinking about underfloor heating.... but will ask that in a
seperate thread! Its a simple question of the undertile surface (which
is a plasticy looking tile) and connecting to the mains. I'll explain
further..... look out for "Laying under tile floor heating" . ;-)

No idea what you mean. We put in UFH under our porcelain tiles, it was nice.


--
Grunff