Anyway, that's all very interesting but my real point is something else. This repair and others similar that I have done in the last few years make me realise that drystone doesn't just look nice. It can also be the cheapest and most sensible way to make a repair. Other quotes on this job advocated a wall behind of breeze block and mortar with a front of mortared stone. In other words, two walls with associated drainage to stop water pushing them over and much labour at much cost. Drystone can be more cost effective than a block wall with stone veneer to retain a bank. It is free draining so there is less labour and no future trouble on that count, there is only one wall required so there is less labour on that count, and there is no mortar so its a greener option to boot as enormous amounts of energy are used to make cement. What's more, if ever you need to move it to extend the house you won't need a JCB to pull it out, you can take it apart by hand and rebuild on the new line.
Built right it will retain any bank, even a very tall one,
such as this one of 7 feet that I built in Gartocharn. Its predecessor was a double wall of breeze block with a stone veneer in front that collapsed after only 20 years, swept away by a build up of water one wet autumn a few years ago. The one before that apparently fell down too. I don't know why that one fell, but some poor building along with the water build up did for the one I saw. It seems to me that freedraining drystone was always the best solution to retain this bank. I thought the structural engineer that I built this one for was pushing its ability to transfer weight too far when he built a deck and timber summer house on top but he was, and two years later still is, unconcerned.