I'm about to start on a pair of sofa tables. They are to look like this:
http://tinypic.com/r/2d2c1ed/9

I have three possibilities for the inset black areas...

1. 3/8" black granite tiles, weight about 2.3 lbs./sq.ft

2. 1/2" soapstone tiles, weight about 9.2 lbs./sq.ft.

3. 1/2" ply plus laminate or 1/2" mel board, weight about 2 lbs./sq.ft. for
the mel, less for ply

Each possible choice presents problems. My preference would be for the
soapstone - even though it is much more costly - because it isn't much more
difficult to work than wood which means I could easily get a flush surface
between it and the wood surround. The problem is the weight...using it,
each table would weigh 150 pounds or more. Not real easy to move to clean
around.

The problem with the granite or mel/laminate is in getting it and the
surrounding surface flush. Can't sand so that means plane/scrape/router
trim, all of which are possible, just a bit of a PITA. There will be a
shimming underlay under the tile so I'd be able to get it pretty close so
the leveling of the wood surround would be minimal. Still, I'd really
prefer the soapstone; maybe I'll do it and just forget about moving them to
clean

I'd really appreciate comments/suggestions from y'all.

On 10/19/2016 8:51 AM, dadiOH wrote:
....

Each possible choice presents problems. My preference would be for the
soapstone - even though it is much more costly - because it isn't much more
difficult to work than wood which means I could easily get a flush surface
between it and the wood surround. The problem is the weight...using it,
each table would weigh 150 pounds or more. Not real easy to move to clean
around.
....

I fail to grasp the "why" of the difficulty -- unless the proposed
material isn't uniform thickness, perhaps?

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 9:50:20 AM UTC-4, dadiOH wrote:
I'm about to start on a pair of sofa tables. They are to look like this:
http://tinypic.com/r/2d2c1ed/9

I have three possibilities for the inset black areas...

1. 3/8" black granite tiles, weight about 2.3 lbs./sq.ft

2. 1/2" soapstone tiles, weight about 9.2 lbs./sq.ft.

3. 1/2" ply plus laminate or 1/2" mel board, weight about 2 lbs./sq.ft. for
the mel, less for ply

Each possible choice presents problems. My preference would be for the
soapstone - even though it is much more costly - because it isn't much more
difficult to work than wood which means I could easily get a flush surface
between it and the wood surround. The problem is the weight...using it,
each table would weigh 150 pounds or more. Not real easy to move to clean
around.

The problem with the granite or mel/laminate is in getting it and the
surrounding surface flush. Can't sand so that means plane/scrape/router
trim, all of which are possible, just a bit of a PITA. There will be a
shimming underlay under the tile so I'd be able to get it pretty close so
the leveling of the wood surround would be minimal. Still, I'd really
prefer the soapstone; maybe I'll do it and just forget about moving them to
clean

I'd really appreciate comments/suggestions from y'all.

Big fan of soapstone as well...if it makes a difference, you might want to check your weights again tho...I don't believe the difference in densities between soapstone and granite is that great (I think your granite number is low)

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:50:20 AM UTC-5, dadiOH wrote:
The problem is the weight...using it,
each table would weigh 150 pounds or more. Not real easy to move to clean
around.

A possible remedy for moving the furniture, is apply felt casters, for hardwood flooring, or vinyl casters, for carpet.

Sonny

On 10/19/2016 9:02 AM, wrote:
....

Big fan of soapstone as well...if it makes a difference, you might
want to check your weights again tho...I don't believe the difference
in densities between soapstone and granite is that great (I think
your granite number is low)

Yeah, and in fact soapstone is a little more dense than granite despite
being softer.

I get something otoo 7.0-7.5 lb/ft2 and closer to 6 for the granite on
checking....

On 10/19/2016 9:01 AM, dpb wrote:
....

I fail to grasp the "why" of the difficulty -- unless the proposed
material isn't uniform thickness, perhaps?

If it is that, or you're just not wanting to use the precision in
setting and cutting a rabbet depth needed, the "trick" to leveling the
tiles in situ would be to drill and tap for leveling screws at the
corners. You can then "tweak" in minute amounts and account for
variations in thickness at heart's content to match whatever is the
finished height of the rail.

I do essentially the same thing when mounting the RAS or chopsaw in a
long bench--support the saw frame on adjusting levelers that can be
locked down so don't have to construct the benchtop itself precisely to
match the saw.

On 10/19/2016 9:51 AM, dadiOH wrote:
I'm about to start on a pair of sofa tables. They are to look like this:
http://tinypic.com/r/2d2c1ed/9

I have three possibilities for the inset black areas...

1. 3/8" black granite tiles, weight about 2.3 lbs./sq.ft

2. 1/2" soapstone tiles, weight about 9.2 lbs./sq.ft.

3. 1/2" ply plus laminate or 1/2" mel board, weight about 2 lbs./sq.ft. for
the mel, less for ply

Each possible choice presents problems. My preference would be for the
soapstone - even though it is much more costly - because it isn't much more
difficult to work than wood which means I could easily get a flush surface
between it and the wood surround. The problem is the weight...using it,
each table would weigh 150 pounds or more. Not real easy to move to clean
around.

The problem with the granite or mel/laminate is in getting it and the
surrounding surface flush. Can't sand so that means plane/scrape/router
trim, all of which are possible, just a bit of a PITA. There will be a
shimming underlay under the tile so I'd be able to get it pretty close so
the leveling of the wood surround would be minimal. Still, I'd really
prefer the soapstone; maybe I'll do it and just forget about moving them to
clean

I'd really appreciate comments/suggestions from y'all.





I'd go with what looks best.

My reasoning:
Little extra effort now, but years of enjoyment later.
Moving for cleaning can be made easier with the appropriate feet for the
floor. Maybe twice a year you have to slide them out.

I'm not sure why one is more difficult that the other to level.

On 10/19/2016 9:25 AM, dpb wrote:
....

I get something otoo 7.0-7.5 lb/ft2 and closer to 6 for the granite on
checking....

And, one last comment the weight...I'm guessing the end result would
be well over 200 lb each with either stone option you've outlined and
that there's not enough bulk in the frame to keep it from sagging
without center supports just as an initial design thought.

I think with time you'd find the weight to be more of a hindrance --
it'll get harder and harder to do anything with 'em as age which just
may be a consideration depending on the house layout and all...not a
deal breaker, probably, just a thought to consider longer-term.

Lastly, what strikes me is that if you were really serious the
soapstone and willing to invest the money, I'd talk to a local cabinet
shop and see if they couldn't either fabricate on site or order in thin
veneer tiles instead of the full thickness. For the table top that
would not be subject to heavy loading or (presumably) impact, with
proper backing a much thinner piece of material would be more than
strong enough and cut the weight significantly. "It's only money!"

wrote in message
...

Big fan of soapstone as well...if it makes a difference, you might want to
check your weights again tho...I don't believe the difference in densities
between soapstone and granite is that great (I think your granite number
is low)

I checked again, you're right. I was looking at kg; pound weight is about
5.4 lb/sq.ft.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 10/19/2016 9:02 AM, wrote:
...

Big fan of soapstone as well...if it makes a difference, you might
want to check your weights again tho...I don't believe the difference
in densities between soapstone and granite is that great (I think
your granite number is low)

Yeah, and in fact soapstone is a little more dense than granite despite
being softer.

I get something otoo 7.0-7.5 lb/ft2 and closer to 6 for the granite on
checking....

I got the 9+ for soapstone by weighing a few of the tiles I last used
(recently).

"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 10/19/2016 9:25 AM, dpb wrote:
...

I get something otoo 7.0-7.5 lb/ft2 and closer to 6 for the granite on
checking....

And, one last comment the weight...I'm guessing the end result would
be well over 200 lb each with either stone option you've outlined and that
there's not enough bulk in the frame to keep it from sagging without
center supports just as an initial design thought.

There are beefy center supports.

I think with time you'd find the weight to be more of a hindrance --
it'll get harder and harder to do anything with 'em as age which just may
be a consideration depending on the house layout and all...not a deal
breaker, probably, just a thought to consider longer-term.

I'm 83 now. Which is why I'm worrying

Lastly, what strikes me is that if you were really serious the
soapstone and willing to invest the money, I'd talk to a local cabinet
shop and see if they couldn't either fabricate on site or order in thin
veneer tiles instead of the full thickness. For the table top that would
not be subject to heavy loading or (presumably) impact, with proper
backing a much thinner piece of material would be more than strong enough
and cut the weight significantly. "It's only money!"

I have been unable to find any source for thinner tiles. It isn't even all
that easy to find soapstone vendors that sell tile, most are focused on
slabs. However, skinnying them down is a distinct possibility, wouldn't be
all that hard on my drum sander. AAMOF, I've done just that with Saltillo
tiles - soft but way harder than soapstone - when I needed thinner pieces.
Thanks for the input.

"Sonny" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:50:20 AM UTC-5, dadiOH wrote:
The problem is the weight...using it,
each table would weigh 150 pounds or more. Not real easy to move to
clean
around.

A possible remedy for moving the furniture, is apply felt casters, for
hardwood flooring, or vinyl casters, for carpet.

Unfortunately, that isn't possible in our case because all the floors are
Saltillo tile. I had to work out a leveling mechanism so that I'll be able
to keep them from rocking. Thanks for the idea though.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:51:07 -0400, "dadiOH" wrote:

I'm about to start on a pair of sofa tables. They are to look like this:
http://tinypic.com/r/2d2c1ed/9

I have three possibilities for the inset black areas...

1. 3/8" black granite tiles, weight about 2.3 lbs./sq.ft

2. 1/2" soapstone tiles, weight about 9.2 lbs./sq.ft.

3. 1/2" ply plus laminate or 1/2" mel board, weight about 2 lbs./sq.ft. for
the mel, less for ply

Each possible choice presents problems. My preference would be for the
soapstone - even though it is much more costly - because it isn't much more
difficult to work than wood which means I could easily get a flush surface
between it and the wood surround. The problem is the weight...using it,
each table would weigh 150 pounds or more. Not real easy to move to clean
around.

The problem with the granite or mel/laminate is in getting it and the
surrounding surface flush. Can't sand so that means plane/scrape/router
trim, all of which are possible, just a bit of a PITA. There will be a
shimming underlay under the tile so I'd be able to get it pretty close so
the leveling of the wood surround would be minimal. Still, I'd really
prefer the soapstone; maybe I'll do it and just forget about moving them to
clean

I'd really appreciate comments/suggestions from y'all.





I'm seeing custom glass - perhaps etched - price it out here -

https://elitecustomglass.com

My rough estimate ran to ~ $ 350. ...
.. per each 12 x 72 piece !
Yikes.
... it would look nice, though.
John T.

On 10/19/2016 11:30 AM, dadiOH wrote:
....

I have been unable to find any source for thinner tiles. It isn't even all
that easy to find soapstone vendors that sell tile, most are focused on
slabs. However, skinnying them down is a distinct possibility, wouldn't be
all that hard on my drum sander. AAMOF, I've done just that with Saltillo
tiles - soft but way harder than soapstone - when I needed thinner pieces.
Thanks for the input.

That'd work but be wasteful of material...I was thinking of a custom
fabrication starting with the 5/4 cabinet stock on hand. Essentially,
it's a resawing operation. Actually, with a carbide blade if you had a
sufficient bandsaw you might be able to do it with the existing tiles
altho that's getting a little on the marginal side to expect, probably.

"dadiOH" writes:

"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 10/19/2016 9:02 AM, wrote:
...

Big fan of soapstone as well...if it makes a difference, you might
want to check your weights again tho...I don't believe the difference
in densities between soapstone and granite is that great (I think
your granite number is low)

Yeah, and in fact soapstone is a little more dense than granite despite
being softer.

I get something otoo 7.0-7.5 lb/ft2 and closer to 6 for the granite on
checking....

I got the 9+ for soapstone by weighing a few of the tiles I last used
(recently).

Although one might argue that lb/ft2 is not a precise unit of measurement as
weight is a function of mass(volume), not area. Given that the tiles referred
to in the OP had different thicknesses, lb/ft3 is the proper unit of
measurement for comparison.

On 10/19/2016 12:41 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
....

Although one might argue that lb/ft2 is not a precise unit of measurement as
weight is a function of mass(volume), not area. Given that the tiles referred
to in the OP had different thicknesses, lb/ft3 is the proper unit of
measurement for comparison.

Excepting we had the square footage to be covered not the volume of the
total tiles. Hence, to get a total weight we needed the weight/sq-ft.
of the tiles(*). That measure includes the thickness of the material
implicitly so it's perfectly accurate (or at least as accurate as the
overall weight and dimensions will allow).


(*) Or, equivalently, he could have told us how many tiles he was going
to use and the total weight of an individual tile.

On 10/19/2016 11:23 AM, dadiOH wrote:
wrote in message ...
....

I get something otoo 7.0-7.5 lb/ft2 and closer to 6 for the granite on
checking....

I got the 9+ for soapstone by weighing a few of the tiles I last used
(recently).

Can't beat empirical evidence...

I was recollecting using ~20 lb-psf for computing cabinet supporting
structure requirements, etc, and backed it down to 19 as being, I
thought I remembered, closer to actual for most material. Those were
5/4 slabs, of course. The 9 would seem to be on the high end of the
weight range but not ridiculously so (and I'm certainly not going to
argue with your scales ). 9*2*5/4 -- 22.5 or 10%

"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 10/19/2016 11:30 AM, dadiOH wrote:
...

I have been unable to find any source for thinner tiles. It isn't even
all
that easy to find soapstone vendors that sell tile, most are focused on
slabs. However, skinnying them down is a distinct possibility, wouldn't
be
all that hard on my drum sander. AAMOF, I've done just that with
Saltillo
tiles - soft but way harder than soapstone - when I needed thinner
pieces.
Thanks for the input.

That'd work but be wasteful of material...I was thinking of a custom
fabrication starting with the 5/4 cabinet stock on hand. Essentially,
it's a resawing operation. Actually, with a carbide blade if you had a
sufficient bandsaw you might be able to do it with the existing tiles
altho that's getting a little on the marginal side to expect, probably.

For me, the chance of that working would be zero.

wrote in message
...

I'm seeing custom glass - perhaps etched - price it out here -

https://elitecustomglass.com

My rough estimate ran to ~ $ 350. ...
.. per each 12 x 72 piece !
Yikes.
.. it would look nice, though.
John T.

That's a much more vigorous YIKE even than that for soapstone tiles which
are $10 each. Plus freight. Freight was about $200 for 33 tiles.

On 10/19/2016 8:51 AM, dadiOH wrote:
I'm about to start on a pair of sofa tables. They are to look like this:
http://tinypic.com/r/2d2c1ed/9

I have three possibilities for the inset black areas...

1. 3/8" black granite tiles, weight about 2.3 lbs./sq.ft

2. 1/2" soapstone tiles, weight about 9.2 lbs./sq.ft.

3. 1/2" ply plus laminate or 1/2" mel board, weight about 2 lbs./sq.ft. for
the mel, less for ply

Each possible choice presents problems. My preference would be for the
soapstone - even though it is much more costly - because it isn't much more
difficult to work than wood which means I could easily get a flush surface
between it and the wood surround. The problem is the weight...using it,
each table would weigh 150 pounds or more. Not real easy to move to clean
around.

The problem with the granite or mel/laminate is in getting it and the
surrounding surface flush. Can't sand so that means plane/scrape/router
trim, all of which are possible, just a bit of a PITA. There will be a
shimming underlay under the tile so I'd be able to get it pretty close so
the leveling of the wood surround would be minimal. Still, I'd really
prefer the soapstone; maybe I'll do it and just forget about moving them to
clean

I'd really appreciate comments/suggestions from y'all.


Probably the easiest and less stressful is to NOT have the wood frame
the same height as the stone. I would have the stone slightly recessed.

On 10/19/2016 2:02 PM, Leon wrote:
....

Probably the easiest and less stressful is to NOT have the wood frame
the same height as the stone. ...


And where's the fun in that!!!!???

On 10/19/2016 1:32 PM, dadiOH wrote:
wrote in message ...
On 10/19/2016 11:30 AM, dadiOH wrote:
...

I have been unable to find any source for thinner tiles. It isn't even
all
that easy to find soapstone vendors that sell tile, most are focused on
slabs. However, skinnying them down is a distinct possibility, wouldn't
be
all that hard on my drum sander. AAMOF, I've done just that with
Saltillo
tiles - soft but way harder than soapstone - when I needed thinner
pieces.
Thanks for the input.

That'd work but be wasteful of material...I was thinking of a custom
fabrication starting with the 5/4 cabinet stock on hand. Essentially,
it's a resawing operation. Actually, with a carbide blade if you had a
sufficient bandsaw you might be able to do it with the existing tiles
altho that's getting a little on the marginal side to expect, probably.

For me, the chance of that working would be zero.

Are there any good custom cabinet shops locally? I'd think they could
either make them for you from some of their ordinary stock or have a
vendor who would do so. Of course, the custom work might be more than
the budget would stand so the waste of the stock from the off-the-shelf
tiles thru the sander would still be less overall investment.

I've not looked at any recently, but there certainly has been
improvement in the laminate appearance over the years; have you done any
actual visual inspection of current choices? There is, of course,
despite the superficial appearance that others probably would never
really notice the factor of knowing yourself what is the actual material
and that's not an insignificant factor to consider I'll grant.

I just have some concern for a furniture piece vis a vis a kitchen
cabinet top or even island. But, your call of course...

"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 10/19/2016 1:32 PM, dadiOH wrote:
wrote in message ...
On 10/19/2016 11:30 AM, dadiOH wrote:
...

I have been unable to find any source for thinner tiles. It isn't even
all
that easy to find soapstone vendors that sell tile, most are focused on
slabs. However, skinnying them down is a distinct possibility,
wouldn't
be
all that hard on my drum sander. AAMOF, I've done just that with
Saltillo
tiles - soft but way harder than soapstone - when I needed thinner
pieces.
Thanks for the input.

That'd work but be wasteful of material...I was thinking of a custom
fabrication starting with the 5/4 cabinet stock on hand. Essentially,
it's a resawing operation. Actually, with a carbide blade if you had a
sufficient bandsaw you might be able to do it with the existing tiles
altho that's getting a little on the marginal side to expect, probably.

For me, the chance of that working would be zero.

Are there any good custom cabinet shops locally?

Don't know, never had need for one, I've always made my own stuff.


I've not looked at any recently, but there certainly has been improvement
in the laminate appearance over the years; have you done any actual visual
inspection of current choices?

If I used laminate, it would be a matte black. But you're right, there are
lots of nice looking laminates now.

I just have some concern for a furniture piece vis a vis a kitchen cabinet
top or even island. But, your call of course...

I've made all sorts of furniture over the years. About the only thing I
haven't made is a chair; assorted stools, yes, chairs no, haven't had the
need.

On 10/20/2016 1:17 PM, dadiOH wrote:
....

I've made all sorts of furniture over the years. About the only thing I
haven't made is a chair; assorted stools, yes, chairs no, haven't had the
need.

That part I knew; I was just concerned the weight of this piece as
proposed being "over the top" from a practicality standpoint going forward.

But, again, it's your call, I've said my piece...

"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 10/20/2016 1:17 PM, dadiOH wrote:
...

I've made all sorts of furniture over the years. About the only thing I
haven't made is a chair; assorted stools, yes, chairs no, haven't had the
need.

That part I knew; I was just concerned the weight of this piece as
proposed being "over the top" from a practicality standpoint going
forward.

Actually, I am giving serious consideration to skinnying down soapstone as
per your suggestion. Not all that many to do, I could even attach them to
the ply subbase and send the works through the drum sander as one piece.
Wasteful, true but a viable solution.

But, again, it's your call, I've said my piece...

Appreciated and thanks.

On 10/20/2016 3:11 PM, dadiOH wrote:
....

Actually, I am giving serious consideration to skinnying down soapstone as
per your suggestion. Not all that many to do, I could even attach them to
the ply subbase and send the works through the drum sander as one piece.
Wasteful, true but a viable solution.

Likely so, I'd be curious whether a local shop could fabricate what you
need reasonably, though...which was all I was suggesting a local do; the
stone work (providing, of course, there's one there who does actual work
other than scribe countertop to a line). There was one in Lynchburg,
VA, years and years and years ago we used to use in the old Federalist
area revival that we "imports" to the area started when we were just
getting out of school and couldn't afford much but these old run-down
mansions and near-mansions could be had for near nothing if you were
willing and able to put in the work needed...

But, again, it's your call, I've said my piece...

Appreciated and thanks.

No problem, will be interested to see what finally come up with (and if
you are still ahead after buying the forklift to move it from the shop )

On 10/19/2016 8:51 AM, dadiOH wrote:
The problem with the granite or mel/laminate is in getting it and the
surrounding surface flush. Can't sand so that means plane/scrape/router
trim, all of which are possible, just a bit of a PITA. There will be a
shimming underlay under the tile so I'd be able to get it pretty close so
the leveling of the wood surround would be minimal. Still, I'd really
prefer the soapstone; maybe I'll do it and just forget about moving them to
clean

How thick is your frame stock? From the photo it looks thicker enough to
consider the following:

Make your frame a bit wider and rabbet the inside of the frame stock
before you miter it as a ledge for the tile, or tile plus substrate.

Easy to set a dado blade or router bit to the precise thickness of the
counter top material (+ any substrate), and not that hard to get the
dimensions right.

Can be done on scrap, with no loss of project stock; and mitering the
pre-rabbeted stock is a piece of cake, and easier to fuss with the fit.

That how I have done a number of glass table tops:

https://goo.gl/photos/V5izdQMnP9becYHk6

And a very similar method used he

https://goo.gl/photos/xft2NZwtk2Qxpp9V6

And of course the popular trivet used the same method:

https://goo.gl/photos/RJ9JgmwzoYk3uShR9

Contrary to others, I have learned to appreciate not having the tile
flush, or below the frame, but about 1/8th higher than the frame surface.

IME, that higher reveal looks more appealing (see the trivet above) ,
more forgiving of small discrepancies, and much much easier to clean.

Just another idea to consider. YMMV ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
https://www.facebook.com/eWoodShop-206166666122228
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 6:50:20 AM UTC-7, dadiOH wrote:
I'm about to start on a pair of sofa tables. They are to look like this:
http://tinypic.com/r/2d2c1ed/9

I have three possibilities for the inset black areas...

1. 3/8" black granite tiles, weight about 2.3 lbs./sq.ft

2. 1/2" soapstone tiles, weight about 9.2 lbs./sq.ft.

3. 1/2" ply plus laminate or 1/2" mel board, weight about 2 lbs./sq.ft. for
the mel, less for ply

Each possible choice presents problems. My preference would be for the
soapstone - even though it is much more costly - because it isn't much more
difficult to work than wood which means I could easily get a flush surface

Soapstone is lovely, because it washes clean (but doesn't have a distracting glaze).
Albemarle greenstone is a local variety in Virginia...
If 'twere my project, the tiles would go on a plywood back, and each whole panel would
lower into a wooden socket. Just cut the right cardboard shims to make the top level and
flush with the woody bits. No need for attachment, gravity always works.

dpb wrote:
On 10/19/2016 2:02 PM, Leon wrote:
...

Probably the easiest and less stressful is to NOT have the wood frame
the same height as the stone. ...


And where's the fun in that!!!!???




LOL

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
On 10/19/2016 8:51 AM, dadiOH wrote:
The problem with the granite or mel/laminate is in getting it and the
surrounding surface flush. Can't sand so that means plane/scrape/router
trim, all of which are possible, just a bit of a PITA. There will be a
shimming underlay under the tile so I'd be able to get it pretty close so
the leveling of the wood surround would be minimal. Still, I'd really
prefer the soapstone; maybe I'll do it and just forget about moving them
to
clean

How thick is your frame stock? From the photo it looks thicker enough to
consider the following:

I'll probably make it 3/4 or thereabouts. No thinner, maybe thicker.

Make your frame a bit wider and rabbet the inside of the frame stock
before you miter it as a ledge for the tile, or tile plus substrate.

Yep, that was the plan...rabbet, ply or other shim on top of the main ply so
tile sits at same level as bottom of rabbet.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=4jp0df&s=9

Contrary to others, I have learned to appreciate not having the tile
flush, or below the frame, but about 1/8th higher than the frame surface.

Agreed, makes life easier and I like the look too. However, with tile, it
rather depends upon the tile edge; if rectified (square) I wouldn't want it;
if beveled, fine. With soapstone, one can easily bevel or round the edge,
not so with laminate and I wouldn't want to do so with granite.

With laminate, one could get that effect - sort of - by edge banding the
laminate with thin - 1/8, say - wood which is easy to get flush,
rounding/beveling the banding then insert in frame. I guess I could do the
same thing with granite with a rectified edge.

Actually, it wouldn't be all that hard to get granite flush enough. With
the rabbet, it will be very close. I had plannrd to leave about 1/8 between
it and the wood frame and fill that void with black silicone or other caulk
so any minor height differences would be alleviated via the caulk.

I may decide on the granite even though my preference would be
soapstone...no need to skinny down the soapstone to reduce weight and
considerably cheaper. That last is important at the moment because we are
in the middle of replacing 70 squares of tile roof, close to a years income