The 'reel' problem with these mowers is cutting height. The normal 3" height is way out of range for a reel. When people were maintaining lawns like putting greens at 3/4" height, the reel was king. Reels scissor-cut the grass, which is great, but the grass just lies there unless you use a grass catcher. Those of us with a few years behind us can remember well the raking and sweeping that followed using the reel mower whether push or power. So, since you probably want to cut at 3" or higher and make the clippings go away by mulching, I'd say the reel is out. Plus, the gum balls will jam it every time. BTW, come to the 24th St. stage (on Atlantic) on May 26 and see me back up the Platter/Coasters/Drifters Memorial Day show. I'll be the one with the sax.

I have both a Brill and a Scotts classic, and they both have their own advantages and disadvantages. For sure, I wouldn't use them on a big lawn (my house sits on slightly less than 1/4 acre). For the purposes of comparison, here's a rundown if anyone is interested in either mower. AFAIK, the sunlawn is similar to the Brill Maneuverability: The brill is much lighter than the scotts, and the rollers on the Brill make turning around obstacles much easier than the Scotts with the wheels. However, the Scotts is a bit easier to stay in a straight track because of this. Also, I find the Scotts better for hills, because the Brill is so light, the cut is compromised especially when going uphill or cutting sideways along a hill (where the wheels are slightly "lifted" up due to the light weight and slow the blade down). Advantage: for flat lawns with many obstacles, the Brill. For hilly lawns with no/few obstacles, the Scotts. The Blades: A lot of hype is touted with the contact free blade system of the Brill (and Sunlawn) over the scissor contact type blades of the Scotts (and many other traditional reel mowers). Yes, the Brill is much easier to push around when "not cutting grass", but when you are actually mowing, the difference is very little in the force required (and I'd attribute the difference to the narrower cutting width of the Brill). I also find I need to adjust the Brill once or twice a season for optimum performance (not the 4 years or whatever they claim) though it is very easy to do. There is also a good reason the Brill only has a maximum cutting height of 1.8": the cut quality suffers at its highest setting (in unevenness), but cuts awesome at the lower settings. I guess the blade needs to dig in lower where the leaf blade is stiffer and doesn't cut as well when the grass is longer and "floppier" You also need to maintain a decent speed when cutting with the Brill to get the best cut. The scissor blades of the Scotts are much less dependent on height and mowing speed than the Brill in getting a good cut. I'm not sure about sharpening interval, as I have only had the scotts a few months, but it is still cutting great. So, in my opinion, the contact free blade system might have an advantage in sharpening interval (with easy adjustments now and then), I prefer the cut of the Scotts overall, unless you are cutting short (under 1 1/2 in), where the Brill is probably equal. The dreaded wheel lines of the Scotts: Yes, you notice the lines, but they are less pronounced the shorter the cut, and depending on the grass type (I hardly notice them on my front lawn which is KBG, whereas it is more noticeable in the back with the KBG, fescue and rye mixture even at the same cutting height) The Brill with it's rollers has a much less noticeable track, and in fact due to it's slightly less quality cut (compared to scissor blades), looks more "natural", or like the lawn hasn't been cut recently (but nice and even, not that the lawn hasn't been cut!) So, I think neither is better than the other, it depends on your conditions. For a lawn with few obstacles and turns, but has hills, I'd recommend the Scotts even though it is heavier. For flat lawns with a lot of obstacles and curves and only minor grades, "and" you always cut shorter than 1.8", the Brill would be good. I'm glad I have both, as my lawn is in between the conditions that would prefer one or the other (some hills out back, flat in front, some obstacles and curves). If I only could have one, I would pick the Scotts mainly due to the higher cutting setting available. I will be pulling out my Brill when it gets cooler and am cutting shorter. As for my lawn, I get many good complements from the neighbors, who all use power rotary mowers, and some who even have sprinkler systems ( I use oscillating sprinklers when needed, and fertilize organically 90% of the time)

Thanks for the tips, I'll see what they have at the nursery. Allentown is mostly zone 6, with occasional zone 5 winter conditions, but not every year. It seems the weather is not necessarily getting warmer per se with global warming, just more erratic. But I do know there is zone creep going on, so I probably can safely say I'm in zone 6 nowdays. I haven't seen many yellow ones around here, but it's a relatively new cultivar isn't it? Pink delight gets really big. So it seems that size DOES matter, at least height wise. Maybe that's why ho hum clethera gets ignored. Seems like a plant called "pink delight" would be tailor made for me, lol! But as you can see below, my garden is really small and tight. I'd put the plant just to the right of where those white dasies are in the picture. Daisies have been transplanted, and a dwarf japanese white pine is waiting to go in the back corner of the yard. The little white buddelia looked great in that spot, but was just ho ho hum in flower, and no scent and no butterflies.

It's been a couple years since I had mine sharpened. Back then the only person in BR was Ronald Bernard ... 225-272-9683. If he's not still doing it try contacting K&D hardware. Here is a link that might be useful: K & D hardware