INFERIOR IRON

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30043, 30 January 1963, Page 3

INFERIOR IRON

Warning To . Builders BOSden toroughout N6W Zodand using roofing iron manufactured in Japan or England have been warned ♦wowried iron haa coating which ia leas than the nmvioiu&y*KcogQi9ed mini* mumi and builders have been S to make it clear to their cuatemera that tola iron may not laat as Jong as that with a heavier spelter coatins. At a recent meeting at i the eouncQ ot the New Zealand Matter toe director (Mr W. _M. Sommerville) reported that roofing iron was accepted under the New Zealand Standards requirements according to its spelter coating of nlvaniring, says "Construction,’* toe federation’s official journal. The recognised minimum previously acknowledged for housing had been 1.75 oz a square foot “The Japanese material initially imported had a spelter coating of 1.25, which naturally caused a furore in the hardware trade, the majority of which were importing the specified material from usual sources. At least one or two importers committed themselves on Japanese orders for iron with a spelter coating of 1A and the State Advances Corporation had granted a 12 months dispensation for use of thia particular grade to enable the stocks to be used for housing. The trade was not objecting because the material was from Japanese sources, but because it was below toe recognised specification, says the journal. “Members of toe executive council said the standard required of roofing iron should not be lowered to assist those who imported it; the users would suiter in years to come. It waa also reported that some English iron had been imported of the same inferior coating quality aa the Japanese iron. “The federation secretary (Mr J. M. Gibson) said that the Ministry of Works had not relaxed any of its specifications for roofing iron,” the journal says. “The Japanese iron was coming from a source other than that normally used by the hardware trade. Members of the council considered that if the iron proved unsatisfactory in years to come, the blame would probably be laid at the door of the building industry and not where it properly belonged—on the importers, and the State A- rances Corporation for permitting its use.” '