It's been nearly a week since I questioned the authenticity of a before and after photo that Marshalls used to illustrate the effects of algae growth on porous sandstone.
In normal circumstances I wouldn't really give a toss about an image being slightly manipulated to prove a point. But in this case, things are different.
The reason? In this particular case, Marshalls had previously gone to great lengths to lecture? educate the market by saying that 50% of sandstone sold in the UK isn't fit for purpose.
Marshalls were challenged on Twitter to name those suppliers who were selling not fit for purpose stone. They declined, saying: "We are not naming suppliers, but we are telling people how to tell technically good sandstone from bad."
OK, Marshalls may well be right, maybe 50% of stone being sold isn't fit but they way in which this message has been delivered leaves so much room for speculation as to which suppliers are selling dodgy stone.
It is akin to telling passengers on a sinking ship 'jump on my lifeboat, one of the others has a leak'.
Back to that photo. The irony isn't lost on me. In one breath the market is being told that others may not be playing by the rules and the next minute, those making the claim have been found not upholding standards, in this case questionable authenticity.
Asked whether the photo was faked, Marshalls public relations department avoided answering the question directly but did say: "We have not faked this issue, it is 100% genuine as are both the before and after pictures of the stone. Only the surrounding items have been added at the homeowners request (so the pots and the bench) as they did not want their house to be identifiable. These items are not stone, therefore they are not relevant to the issue."
Of course the items that were introduced into the image are an issue because they have changed the dynamics of the overall scenario.
It is easy now to think that the walls, trees and pots in the photo have contributed to the algae growth because they've impeded airflow and light - conditions that are and ideal breeding ground for fungi.
Garden writer, Helen Gazeley commented: "Mocking up part of an image does tend to make you wonder about the veracity of the whole thing, which is one reason it might be better not to do it"
Putting the photo additions to one side, Marshalls say that the two images (of the patio) were taken 5 months apart.
I asked, again on Twitter, what other stone companies thought about Marshalls Stone Standard?
Two suppliers responded. One - asking not to be identified - told me (dubbing the whole affair 'Photogate') that they would very much like to comment - as indeed, they thought, that other suppliers would like to too - but it would be difficult to without saying anything negative.
But Brett Landscaping responded directly on Twitter, saying: "@LandscapeJuice All stone paving products sold in the UK have to pass EN 1341 standard for CE Marking so not sure what #stonestandard adds"
Comments