Obviously, we don't need worm castings from the POV of soil structure, because they are very fine and reduce aeration/drainage. Micro-organisms in container media aren't necessary for healthy plants, and their populations are notably influenced by other cultural factors to the point where they are often boom or bust. So, lets look at them from a nutritional POV, and leave lots of room for any discussions that might not agree with what I say. I think it would be a good idea to first define what our goal is when we provide supplemental nutrition to our plants. I've thought about that, and this is what I came up with and saved for use in conversations like this: Whenever we discuss what is or isn't an appropriate part of the methodology we use to make certain our containerized plants get all the nutrients essential to growth and good health, we would probably first want to be sure our objectives are on target. It's difficult to argue with the idea that our focus in supplying supplemental nutrition to our plants should be on ensuring all the nutrients plants normally assimilate from the soil are A) IN the soil and available for uptake at all times, B) in the soil in a favorable ratio - that is to say in a ratio that mimics the ratio at which the plant actually uses the nutrient, C) at a concentration high enough to ensure no nutritional deficiencies, yet still low enough to ensure the plant's ability to take up water, and the nutrients dissolved in that water won't be impeded (by a high concentration of solubles in the soil solution). At this point, you (used collectively) can accept these premises as worthy goals or argue against them. If accepted, we should then necessarily examine our efforts at supplementation in the light of whether or not our efforts bring us closer to or limit our ability to see the goals implemented. YMMV, but I'd be interested in how to improve on what I said. What's in worm castings? What nutrients? The fact is, we don't know. We have no idea what they supply, or how much of any particular nutrient they supply. Their contribution to any increases in soil biota populations would only serve to break down the soil faster than it would normally break down w/o them. How then, do we know if we are limiting our ability to reach our goal. We need control over what we supply, and plants are best served when the ratio of nutrients in the soil are matched as closely as possible to the ratio at which plants actually use those nutrients. IOW, WCs don't supply anything you can't get from a well-made fertilizer that provides all the essential nutrients in a favorable ratio. The fact is, in light of the goal, they have as much or more potential to be limiting than beneficial. Changing topics ....... I think if you rearrange your thinking about your starting point for building a better soil so it's more like: Start with a ______ (fill in the blank with a coarse material or materials that ensure you can actually amend what you start with). If you start with potting soil, how can you amend it? You'll need to add well over 50% of other coarse materials (like pine bark) to get it to a point where you can water correctly. If you have more than 50% bark, didn't you actually 'start' with bark; or, maybe the better question is, wouldn't it then be a bark-based soil instead of a soil based on whatever potting mix you're using as the filler? I suggested a goal for nutritional supplementation, so how about a goal for the quality of your soil? From my perspective, an appropriate medium is a medium that allows us to water to beyond the point of saturation, at will, so we're flushing the dissolved solids (salts) that are present in tapwater and fertilizer solutions; this, w/o the plant having to pay the penalty of reduced root function, or perhaps wrecked root health, due to those prolonged periods of soil saturation after watering correctly. All the dissolved solids in tapwater and fertilizer solutions are left behind and accumulate in soils whenever we're forced to water in sips, which is commonly employed as a strategy to help avoid the sogginess that limits root function and wrecks root health. It's important to realize that a healthy plant is not possible w/o a healthy root system. If you have established goals that include healthy and attractive plants, it's critical that you have a plan to avoid the limitations imposed by over-watering and an accumulation of dissolved solids (salts) in the soil solution. Not every grower fully understands the dilemmic issues associated with inappropriate soils that force the plant to pay a vitality tax resultant of an unhealthy amount of water being retained for extended periods when we water correctly – which is to say, when we flush the soil to limit salt build-up. On one hand, we have the potential for over-watering, and when we act to avoid it by offering dribs and drabs of water here and there, we have high salt levels to deal with. It's easy to see how we all might benefit from use of a soil that allows us to water so we're flushing away excess salts without limiting our plant's vitality via waterlogged soils. You can see that getting to the point where you can water correctly w/o problems is a worthy goal. I should also say, there are ways to get you to that point w/o a lot of difficulty, just by employing some simple methods/arrangements that force excess water from the soil. Al

Worm tea may not be marketed as a fertilizer but it certainly IS one, just as compost or manure teas are a great organic source of plant nutrients. The big bonus with worm castings is the excellent array of trace elements it contains. And for any containerized or seasonal plants, the "weekly weakly" program is entirely justified - ALL nutrients must be provided from outside in the case of containerized plants and routine supplementation is typically suggested for seasonal plants to maximize flowering or fruiting in their short growing season. You would drown the plants before you would come anywhere close to overdoing with worm tea. Here is an example of the percentages and composition of nutrients and minerals in vermicompost and by translation, in worm tea. ⢠Organic Carbon 20.43 -- 30.31 % ⢠Nitrogen 1.80 -- 2.05 % ⢠Phosphorus 1.32 -- 1.93 % ⢠Potassium 1.28 -- 1.50 % ⢠Carbon : Nitrogen 14-15 : 1 % ⢠Calcium 3.0 -- 4.5 % ⢠Magnesium 0.4 -- 0.7 % ⢠Sodium 0.02 -- 0.30 % ⢠Sulphur Traces to 0.40 % ⢠Iron 0.3 -- 0.7 % ⢠Zinc 0.028 -- 0.036 % ⢠Manganese Traces to 0.40 % ⢠Copper 0.0027 -- 0.0123 % ⢠Boron 0.0034 -- 0.0075 % ⢠Aluminium Traces to 0.071 % ⢠Cobalt, Molybdenum Present in available form The above is approximate only, noting that all vermicompost is different because the composition does truly depend on the type of feed you give to the worms. But the above table does show the range of nutrients available in this product and confirms its position as an excellent source of plant nutrients, aka a fertilizer.

I have given my nieces their initial every year for a dozen years and can't always find vintage. etsy. You will always be able to find vintage initials on etsy. I agree with Chispa. It depends on the item and if I really want it (perfect for my space, could use in more than one place in the home, functional as well as pretty). Ok, I have to take back the functional part since I tend to mostly buy vintage/antique accessories just because. The things I have probably over paid for, but was happy to overpay, were things I had seen (online or in magazines), searched for (online and locally), and finally found (locally, traveling or online) - at a price I felt comfortable paying.. and didn't think was over the top. They had to be in good shape (not falling apart or damaged). A case of RH vs Antique. They have os de mouton wing chairs, on sale for $1185-1580. (regular $1395-1860). I had been searching for a pair of antique os de mounton arm chairs. Decent shape. Didn't care if they needed recovering since I would rather. I finally found a set of four, and luckily the shop owner was willing to divide. I purchased a pair, found the perfect fabric at bargain price (reg $27 a yard, and I got 4 yards for $27) yet it cost me $700 to recover both (included removing the back which was red leather, so they had to redo the webbing). Total for the pair, I spent about the same as one RH chair regular price. I'd much rather have an antique or vintage piece. I can justify the recovering expense since I will never recover them again. Getting the fabric at a bargain helped offset the cost of the chairs and recovering (at least in my mind). The chairs turned out great, they bring me joy every time I see them and they are comfortable to sit in. Even the cats enjoy them. I don't live in a "no touch" zone. So while I may not want to pay $900 for stone finials (value thing, like Chispa), I don't mind paying $900 for something else. Here is a link that might be useful: my os de mouton chair saga

Agree with Sam that balanced & complete fertilizer like compost is best. Compost contains trace-elements which deepen the colors, better than molasses or kelp (I tested all 3). My neighbor grass is DEEP green, thanks to 1/2 compost and 1/2 soil for his lawn, that was done many years ago, when he stripped off the pale-grass on very alkaline clay to get his driveway bricked. My policy in this forum is total honesty, same with Sam and Jim. I post daily pics of my roses, and DATE them. I post pics of failed experiments. Jim posted his sister's rose dropped all leaves from BS, versus other 100% healthy roses that he has. I left other forums since there are too many control-freaks and ego-freaks telling people what to do, without sharing about their own garden, or post any pics. Or folks would post only their best pics., taken during spring, and argue rather than testing any products. Grace: Back to your question "if this was your garden what would you do??" I would strive for balance, rather than applying any particular nutrient. Take Epsom salt, I already tested that in 2011. My soil is super-high in magnesium, but I dunked cut-blooms into vase with Epsom salt. Too much of one thing isn't good: blooms wilted sooner, Radio Times' scent went from fabulous to sewage. That's the OPPOSITE of your observation regarding Epsom salt (magnesium sulfate). That proves too much of one thing isn't good. The problem with Epsom salt is the salt-content. Calcium, be it lime, sulfur, or gypsum will BLEACH out the color of blooms. I tested all 3, and the biggest damage came with sulfur: earthworms are killed instantly, plus sulfur zap all other beneficial insects and bacteria which control pests. In my 2 decades of growing roses with 80+ varieties, only one rose came down with Rose Rosette Disease (RRD) .. that was Grandma's Blessing shrub, a multiflora-parentage which likes acid. Since my soil pH is 7.7, I applied sulfur twice to that in spring. When the pH drops, less calcium and potassium available, which means THINNER tissue, and more susceptible to pests' invasion, be it aphids or RRD mite. Sulfur at 49% sulfur and 11% calcium: kill earthworms, kill beneficial bacteria that fix nitrogen, and make tissue-thinner, more susceptible to RRD. I get the same result of wilted leaves, thinner leaves when I drop the pH of my alkaline tap-water with vinegar. Early this spring I saw RRD on Pink Traviata, a French Meilland rose, at Cantigny Park. That was the first time in 20 years of frequent visits to that park. Also saw tons of sulfur granules scattered on the ground. At first I thought it was gypsum, but upon closer inspection, it was sulfur. I also brought a sample of the rose park's soil to test its pH. That chunk was coated with sulfur. In red-cabbage juice, the chunk of soil turns pink instantly (very acidic), but upon 3 hours soaking, the inner-alkaline-elements of the soil chunk was released, and the final result was alkaline, around pH 7.4. Folks who recommend sulfur don't confess to how many RRD roses they have. Where's honesty to help others? I agree with Sam on compost for DEEPER colors. There are many things that provide magnesium in a balanced ratio with other nutrients. Take alfalfa meal, NPK 2-1-2, pH 5.8, it has magnesium. Take cocoa mulch, NPK 3-1-4, pH 5.4, that has lots of magnesium, plus many trace elements. Take wheat bran, balanced NPK, plus lots of magnesium. Any greens would be high in magnesium, esp. mint leaves. There's an organic rose grower who harvest mint, just to mulch her roses. Mint is very invasive in my high-magnesium soil. All of the above magnesium-source BEAT Epsom salt, with zero salt, plus trace elements in a balanced nutrients. Confirmation on Epsom salt taking away the scent came from SteveinAustralia, who e-mailed me in HMF to tell that he applied Epsom salt to his roses, and the scent went away on Valencia. Before apply any stuff to roses, I always test with cut-blooms in the vase first. I put cut-blooms with calcium citrate, I expect the scent to be lessened, but it stayed strong, plus lasted longer in the vase. Epsom salt has 10% magnesium and 13% sulfur, neutral pH. Epsom is an inorganic salt, and after my disaster using salty kelp to deepen the bloom's color, I don't recommend anything salty. Also the 13% sulfur is an acid, which balances out the 10% ALKALINE magnesium. Folks also argue that gypsum is neutral pH with 22% calcium and 17% sulfur, but when gypsum is used along with acidic rain (also supplies sulfur) .. the double-dose of sulfur, from gypsum, plus acidic rain, caused thinner leaves, and roses breaking out in black spots. It happens so many times, that I use dolomitic lime (has both calcium and magnesium) for roses that like it alkaline (the ones with dark-green leaves). My soil test showed that I'm barely adequate in calcium. Sulfur, as in rain water (pH 5.6), or decaying organics bring down the pH and UNLOCK nutrients in soil, which account for better scents. The reason why Epsom salt DID NOT work in improving scent in a vase was I used that with my alkaline tap, pH 8.6, so sulfur was neutralized, and the only effect left is alkaline magnesium.