In article , Jaques d'Alltrades
writes:

Subject: Jane finds her garden:brick wall question
From: Jaques d'Alltrades
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:28:29 GMT

The message
from (BridgeP) contains these words:

Oops! Got a bit ahead of myself there! Old Bob taught me properly, using
matured lime mortar and having the frogs in the bricks on the underside
so water doesn't seep into them and freeze during the winter. Nowadays,
because it's easier and quicker, brickies tend to lay courses with the
frogs upwards. "Oh, that's all right as long as you point them
well....." Pah!

I was taught that it is 'fogs up'. This is in the text books. It
allows more
mortar/brick. 'Frogs down' is the economy method - les mortar.

Nope. You fill the frog with mortar and place a dollop on one end and
lay it, press it into place and trim off extruded excess. Frogs are full
of mortar and can't fill up with water in the case of a broken or poor
bit of pointing.

Modern methods may say frog up. The frog down philosophy was taught me
by a man in his nineties, in the 1950s, but when I lay bricks (which is
seldom) I always lay them that way, and I've never known of any trouble
with what I've put up.

Oh, and the only reason Old Bob wasn't a brickie then was because at his
age he wasn't fast enough, but the firm (Masterbuilder and family) kept
him on, working at his own pace. He was a time-served bricklayer by
trade.

Don't we have any real brickies in this group? I agree that many lay bricks
frog down, because this is quicker and more economical on mortar.

Why fill the frog with mortar if ypou are going to lay it frog down. It cannot
fill with water in that position regardless of how much mortar is on the frog.

I don't want to denigrate Old Bob in any way, but because a professional does
it a particular way does make it the right way. Of course, many new bricks
don't have frogs at all, just holes.

Peter Bridge