I finally found this page after lots of searches at usps. To my interpretation of what it says, bubble mailers do count as letters/flats if thin enough and are only subject to the .17 non-machinable rate (why else would they need the .17 cents still if all non-machinables were all parcels). This quote sounds like an exact description of a bubble mailer to me..."Items mailed in large envelopes cannot cause more than a 1/4-inch variance in thickness, to within 1 inch of the edges of the envelope. The outer edges of the mailpiece (up to 1 inch) are not considered when measuring variance in thickness." Here are a few more excerpts and link(note last one about securing small things like she mentioned earlier...) "Are items sent at First-Class Mail flats rates (large envelopes) required to be flexible and "uniformly thick"? --Yes. Large envelopes must be flexible (cannot be rigid) and uniformly thick. Items mailed in large envelopes cannot cause more than a 1/4-inch variance in thickness, to within 1 inch of the edges of the envelope. The outer edges of the mailpiece (up to 1 inch) are not considered when measuring variance in thickness. Also, envelopes must be rectangular-in-shape and the maximum thickness (at the thickest point) is 3/4-inch. A large envelope that exceeds any maximum physical dimension (length, height, or thickness) is classified and priced as a package (parcel). Bulky items placed in padded mailing bags generally will not qualify as a large envelope." "Is there still a nonmachinable surcharge for First-Class Mail? Yes. The nonmachinable surcharge applies to all First-Class Mail single-piece and presort-rate letters (up to the 3.5 ounce maximum weight), and is 17 cents." "Are large envelopes (flats) subject to a nonmachinable surcharge? No, since large envelopes now have their own price structure (flats prices); the nonmachinable surcharge will not apply." "What is the definition of "uniform thickness" for flats? If a flat is not uniformly thick, would it have to be mailed as a parcel, or NFM? All flats must be uniformly thick so that any bumps, protrusions, or other irregularities do not cause more than 1/4-inch variance in thickness. The outer edges of the mailpiece (up to 1 inch) would not be considered when measuring variance in thickness. Also, if the contents are significantly smaller than the envelope, wrapper, or sleeve, they must be secured to prevent shifting of more than 2 inches within the mailpiece. Flat-size pieces not meeting the uniform thickness standard must be mailed as either Not Flat-Machinable pieces or as parcels." What do ya think??? This quote is the hard one..."Bulky items placed in padded mailing bags generally will not qualify as a large envelope." I think the key is "Generally will not" not "WILL not" Here is a link that might be useful: usps ratecase faqs

Pam, Small oaks will grow rapidly once they get established, and the smaller they are when you start, the less time it takes for them to get a toehold and shift into passing gear. Just yesterday evening, my wife and I were sitting on the front porch admiring the row of oaks I planted alongside the driveway, back in 1995. Most of these were 1-2 yr seedlings, either ordered from OIKOS, or grown from bur oak acorns I had collected from the farm we moved from in MO - none were over 2 ft tall. The bur oaks, in particular, look GREAT! They're well over 15 ft now, and have that handsome branch structure that looks good all year round - even when they don't have leaves. Except for their lack of significant fall color, they're tough to beat as a tree with 4-season interest. Every once in a while you can find an unexpected treasure, even at K-Mart! A couple of years back, the one in town here had some really nice containerized bur oaks, about 3 ft tall - and some nice Shumard oaks(though they were mis-labeled as water oak, Q.nigra).

Hello, Miss Judy, how are you? I have a couple of 'MULTI-BLUE' clematis growing up through 'ALOHA', who is a climber but is strong enough to be a self-supporting tall shrub. In the early spring, I simply prune the clematis down to a set of flowering buds since it blooms on new wood and pull out the vines from the rose. Not a good deal at all... It looks absolutely gorgeous when in bloom...those big blue clematis flowers with the salmon-pink rose blossoms. I grow lots of clematis, including the integrifolas...I think the key is that the rose would have to be tall and strong enough to support the clematis. Also..make sure you are combining great color combos. One I would NOT advise planting with roses is 'LADY BIRD JOHNSON'. She's so, so beautiful...but she demands her whole trellis and is quite the space hog and is overwhelming. 'BETTY CORNING' is also huge, mine is grown as a self-supporting shrub. 'PRINCESS DIANA' would be a good choice'....she's a sweet pink and is delicate...wouldn't overwhelm. -terry

Hi Maureen I've been thinking about this for some time now and I'll tell you what I did a few years back to get an inexpensive trellis. Went to home depot and bought firring strips, about 10 of them, don't think the cost was over $20. Hubby put the strips length wise and crosswise, using either nails or good strong twine. We left about 2 foot on the bottom to be sunk into the soil. I used this trellis for sugar snap peas, and now have it out of the vegetable garden and its being used for clematis. Hope that give you some idea of what I mean, :) Alberta