Thanks! We are very happy with the way it turned out. We were walking that fine line between wanting the bathroom to look nice (opens to the FR) and not wanting to spend a fortune on a guest bathroom. The top edge of the "curb" (the curved part) is the pan, the front part is tile (cut pieces of the shower wall tile). mydreamhome, I use a Mr. Clean Magic Eraser on the shower pan and on our Toto cast iron bathtubs when the no-slip grips start to look grungy. I had called Kohler about using it when we got the receptor and got their okay, and I think I did the same with Toto. Lysol Basin, Tub, and Tile cleaner (in the aerosol can) works pretty well, too for regular cleaning (I only use it in the tubs and the shower pan, not on the walls since we have natural stone border tile in all three bathrooms), but when the grips themselves are dirty, Magic Eraser does a better job (quicker and less elbow grease!).

I was so excited when I received my Kohler Kathryn cast iron shower receptor until I learned it was made in China!!! But if you visit Kohler's webpage, they indicate all their cast iron products are made in Wisconsin. I sent back the pan. Everything I've ever purchased that was made in China didn't last. The shower pan looked great but I'm sure in one year, the finish will start failing. Has anyone else experience the "Made in China" with great success with more than a few years?

I used a 60x32 20"h tub with fairly thin sidewalls for a recent remodel, and though it's a bit more of a step into it, I don't find it that much more difficult than with shorter tubs (i'm 5'8"). It's easily worth it to have a deeper tub IMO, and it's good for showering too because the floor is wider, longer, and flatter than in most 5' tubs. I wouldn't fret about resale value; people moving into a small house may not have kids, or the kids may be over 8 y.o. who can usually climb into anything. Or the new owners may want to rip out a tub in favor of a shower. Changing to a shorter tub costs almost nothing compared to the cost of the house, so I can't imagine someone not wanting to buy it because the tub is too tall. I bought enough extra wall tiles so that if a future buyer wanted a shorter tub or a shower, it would be easy to retrofit one without having to retile the whole wall because the tile didn't come down far enough.

Somanyquestions -- I like the contrast of a white sink with black soapstone and frankly I just like the old-fashioned look of a drop in cast iron sink. I like that big roll of white enamel that's hard to clean over! The silgranit sinks are beautiful, I will admit, and probably a lot easier to keep looking clean. As for the radon issue, I know quite a bit about both radon and radiation. In fact, I recently installed a pretty significant radon mitigation system in my house. And I would be concerned about adding something (e.g., a "hot" granite) that would add to radon levels. But frankly I doubt that a sink made up of ground up granite and plastic (my idea of what silgranit is!) is going to be any kind of problem. And, I doubt much of the granite is either. Of course, the fact that say over 99 percent of granite is not a problem does not prove that the other remaining percentage is also not a problem. The world is not black or white; it's more complicated. I'm banking on the idea that most granite is not a problem and that the silgranit sinks are made of some sort of run-of-the-mill stone. Of course, time and time again we find out that corporations have not considered the health impacts of various materials that are used in our houses and put into our food. I'm not sure why most people on this forum either fall into "the sky is falling" category of worrying that all granite is dangerous OR the people who are just nasty and think that worrying about radon is stupid. If you don't think that smoking is good for your health because statistically speaking a large portion of cigarette smokers will get lung cancer, you wouldn't want to expose yourself to radon either. On the other hand, if you think that "nobody has ever proved" that an individual person contracted lung cancer from smoking or any kind of cancer from any kind of radiation (nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power emissions, medical) because you refuse to look at the epidemiological (population-based) evidence then you're just a hopeless anti-science person. Why the anti-science people have to be so nasty is really beyond me to understand.