Pick ONE.

Is there any regional precedence or does the style of the house support this? When I lived in Cincinnati every old house and apartment building had rough-cut limestone foundations. Most then transitioned to brick at the first floor. There was however usually a limestone belt course to create a transition. Brick sitting right on top of stone can otherwise be difficult to detail well. Also, since your brick and cultured stone may be very different depths and have different installation details, you will need to talk to your architect or builder about how they plan to handle that. It would be no good to have the brick stick out past the stone, or to have the stone glued onto the brick ledge so it is very proud of the brick.

As for the samples you have photographed. I would not put any of those together. If you have settled on that brick, I would skip the stone.

I've seen many houses with brick and stone and they are beautiful!!

In the photos your brick is reading yellow.. it may just be the lighting. Are you using bright white sand and mortar? That will brighten it up. I prefer the contrast of white/light brick and a deep dark stone. I think the other two stones are a bit too busy. I also think the less variation/ in color the less manufactured the stone looks. Simple = more lux/sophisticated

Liv this is an exterior pic I have used for inspo.

Well...since you asked...generally speaking, brick plopped on top of stone often doesn't work well togethe, especially without a belt course to separate the two dissimilar materials.

That is true in the Op 's case as the pictured materials are not harmonious with one another.

If if it was my house I'd pick one material and stick with it. Or I'd change the major wall material to wood or stucco.

A brick house on a stone foundation is one of the most common things in the world. It wasn't that long ago that almost all house foundations were stone, so there wasn't much choice. Generally they look great, in both Federal and Victorian houses.

It must be some odd modern notion that they don't go together.

That said, the OP's examples don't look very good-- the foundation stones need to look like a foundation, not modern stone veneer-- ie substantial. Either fieldstone or cut limestone or granite can look good, depending on the house style.

I would never use a fake stone that looks as fake as in the first post. It’s way too permanent to save a buck. I’d get real stone veneer (thin cut real stone) if full size stone isn’t an option.

Thank you everyone!

Older homes which used both stone and brick look natural and inviting because they use the materials in an authentic structural fashion.

And the chosen materials are harmonious.

That is seldom the case with modern tract and builder's houses where "lick and stick" materials are juxtaposed with little regard for an honest use of materials.

And then there's the architectural style of many of these houses which was not created with such a mush-mash of materials in mind during the design.

Too often the the mixture of materials appears as an afterthought to the desig...more's the pity!

It must be some odd modern notion that they don't go together.

It's an odd modern notion because they are never combined together elegantly like the example you posted. Nowadays they are pasted on as ornament and not to look like part of the foundation.

Liv, show us what you are describing as a "watertable". Its not a term I've seen used to describe one kind of masonry above another kind.

I'm not sure that's what the OP is calling a water table.