daninthedirt: I agree about the misleading phrasing. The way it's usually explained, it seems like your plants will die a horrible death if they don't get seven hours of sunlight. In fact, while you got 40 cherry tomatoes, more sunlight might have gotten you 60. Who cares, unless maybe you're selling them to try to pay the rent. I get zillions of cherry tomatoes from plants that grow to a length of ten feet on the west side of a house. They don't get any direct sunlight at all until 1pm. Done this for a decade. I would point out that Lady Luv got 40 cherry tomatoes total from 3 plants. Sweet million is the kind of variety that should pump out hundred of tomatoes per plant, i.e., known for excellent productivity in adequate conditions most of the time. I pick 40 cherry tomatoes every 2 days from one cherry tomato plant and 40 cherry tomatoes every 4 days from another. Neither are hybrid cherries known for great production. I would expect more robust production with more sun, but I put my cherry plants there because I know my larger tomatoes wouldn't do nearly as well there. I do agree that most advice defaults to try to provide for optimal production and also is heavily slanted toward beefsteak types. But I don't know anyone that would claim that tomatoes, especially cherry tomatoes, will die or refuse to produce ANY fruit in lower-light-than-optimal conditions. In fact, I often see people advising those with sunlight issues in their gardens to grow cherry tomatoes precisely because they seem to need less sun to produce a non-disappointing amount of tomatoes. I think if one has the impression that people are saying you can't grow anything in less than optimal conditions, one might not be hearing the advice correctly or may be getting advice from a not very experienced gardener. And I also agree that, if getting a handful of cherry tomatoes is an acceptable outcome, and the fun of growing them is reward enough, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The same with other practices such as fertilizer, fungicide, pesticide, etc. All of it boils down to being informed enough to have accurate expectations and then accepting the effort vs. outcome ratio. But I think it should be a natural expectation that people will try to direct newbies to optimal practices where possible--not because they're trying to be exclusive or snobby but because they want newbies to get good results.

jodi_in_so_calif , I had to google map Petropavlovsk, Russia b/c my Grandparents were Russian immigrants and I'm all about learning about anything Russia, And GEEZ! That town is truly in the middle of nowhere. Why were you there? (And post more pics!) Pat (mother's maiden name Zarachovich)

Thank you! It reminded me of Montana. Just showed my DH. We must come visit your lovely state one day. Diana

I saw a lot of kitchens like #3, and have even seen a couple of #4s, although 4s as you said were not mainstream. I agree with you that we have pulled WAY back from this kind of Esthetic, but not really from the Ideas behind either of these kitchens. #1/2 acknowledges the colonial revival with it's "board" doors and brass pulls and tole light fixture. The original floor was Amtico weathered brick or colonial brick layed parquet style, in white. The table is colonial revival in distressed pine with thick midcentury captains chairs. #3 kitchen, also colonial revival takes most of these elements to the level of cliche. Brick is applied in non-structural fashion, scallops are applied to the range hood and the window sills rather than any cabinetry piece. The colors are based on the (now disproven) colonial Williamsburg colors, and the wallcovering is not something that looks colonial at all, it is composed of pictures or vignettes OF pictures that are of colonial things. Kitchen 1/2 suggests, kitchen 3 rams "COLONIAL" right down your throat. You can't miss the point. Kitchen 4 while never mainstream in its sum total has a lot of popular elements all combined. We have foil wallpaper, we have bright primary colors, we have a suggestion of trelliage, we have harvest gold, we have walnut. All of these thing are very 1970, and in this case they are all together. We have pulled way back from this sort of palette, but the insistence of getting each "important" element all in place is the same. So the white kitchen generally must have it's white subway tile, often with its feature area, and if it has an island it generally must have it's feature lighting, and it must have it's "hardware as the jewelry of the kitchen" Often all metal finishes must match. The floor should be wood, and dark, but not "too" dark. The transitional kitchen must have granite, and a stone backsplash with feaure tiles in metal or glass. The floor is porcelain that has to coordinate with both the granite and the stone of the backsplash. There isn't anything wrong with any of these things but there is a strict formula, and a great deal of pressure, self-iinflicted or otherwise to Fit It All In. Deviate from white subway tile, or the granite with movement (if that's what's called for); from stainless appliances, or from a full backsplash altogether, and it will often get treated as if you've taken leave of your senses. So my point between 1/2 and 3 ,4 is that while 1/2 is a kitchen of it's era, it was never trying to emcompass Every Last Element that made it 1969 colonial revival, 3 and 4 were desparately trying to fit it all in. And I think a lot of kitchens now are going to suffer the same fate because they are trying to fit it all in. They are either white or brown, not harvest gold or psychedelic but it's the same thing in a different era.