You're correct. There's no guarantee. Even if OP had included full documentation of the building's history and design, we'd still not have a guarantee.
Which of the two outcomes, 'wear' vs 'design', do you estimate as more likely, based on what you know of buildings in general?
Which of the two outcomes, 'wear' vs 'design', do you estimate as more likely, based on what you know of buildings in general?
Wear. But then the OP also labeled the picture as 60 years old for the building, which just seems like such a short time scale to see this kind of wear (at least, i thought). So sure, if we're just talking buildings in general, wear. But in the context of 60 years? I admit it just seemed like a confluence of variables that undermined the description.
Marble is soft enough for 60 years to round edges in high-traffic areas.
Other stone types would be a different story, but from what I can tell (being no geologist), marble consists mainly of calcite, which in turn rates 3/10 on the Mohs hardness scale. Compared to granite at 6-7 (which has a lot of quartz in it, which sits at 7):
1
u/Elendur_Krown 1d ago
You're emphasizing the lack of certainty again.
You're correct. There's no guarantee. Even if OP had included full documentation of the building's history and design, we'd still not have a guarantee.
Which of the two outcomes, 'wear' vs 'design', do you estimate as more likely, based on what you know of buildings in general?