The house is charming and the paint job you've done on it really makes some of the special details pop. I especially like that you've painted the foundation to go with the scheme and think viewing the "before and after" shows what a lovely and dramatic difference it makes. Actually, there's nothing on the house that I'd like to see covered with plantings. I like everything. There are no blank spaces begging for "help." But like any structure, it needs some larger plantings at a distance to give it that framed/connected-to-earth look. Using one of your photos, I'll offer these suggestion: A) The conifer at the left, while right now doesn't look that bad, I can easily see that as it grows it's going to dominate the space. In order to keep access to the entrance, you'll be forced to limb up the tree. I don't think that in itself is a horror (as some others surely will,) but eventually, the tree will overwhelm the house and seem out of place. Seems like you'd be so much better off to replace it promptly with a smaller flowering tree... something along the lines/size of a redbud or Magnolia soulangeana. It would present a better picture now and for decades longer than the existing tree could hope to do. B) The house has much charm, but the lattice at the steps looks cheap and entirely from a wrong era. I'd replace it with just plain boards painted with the foundation/trim color. C) Given that the Weigela has already halfway turned itself into a tree form, I'd finish the job and make it look much more tidy. Also, I doubt that there is anything behind it that needs hiding, so why hide it? A multi-trunk tree form would give a more open look and "invite" viewers to see what's beyond. (I would not THIN trunks, but remove any that fall outside of the desirable cone-shaped profile.) A different picture (I'm not showing here) suggests that the Weigela would enjoy being placed in a half or quarter-circle shaped bed (depending on how you tie it to the yard) of low/medium ht. groundcover/perennial, for ease of maintenance as well as appearance. D) A marked blemish on the entire scene is the poor quality grass adjacent to the road. Oceandweller made suggestions about it, too, and I agree with him (?) completely. It the turf was in tip top shape, the house would look even much more special and expensive than it already does. If grass is not feasible adjacent to the roadway, then I'd consider a brick walk that abuts the pavement, but serves primarily as a "frame" for the yard, just to dress up the view. Unless there's a real need for a walk there, I'd opt for the grass repair first.

Sylvia THANKS for your suggestions, I have already post my pictures there and in the ´Name That Rose´Forum. I will take into account the other sites you mentioned! ;D Wesley THANK YOU too for your words, I owe you so much for the knoledge you share with me!. THANKS a lot my friend and please keep in touch!. Warmest regards from B.A, Mariano

Yes, that could be important! Central Texas...and I can't describe the growth as far as shrub or climber as it is in a pot (but it is very profusely leafy though it is quite small still.) Saw it today at a small nursery that sells antique roses and David Austins from Chamblees, but a customer gave it to him and he doesn't know what it is. It's an hour from me but I go that way often enough that I'll stop by sometime and take a photo if need be...but the leaves coming out right under the buds and blooms seemed unique enough I'm hoping that will trigger some ideas.

Jane - thanks for the tip about Therese Bugnet. Mine bloomed for the first time this year, and they look a good bit different from mystery #3. I checked and to my surprise, the canes are pretty smooth throughout the length, which I'd never noticed before. Here's a sample Therese bloom - she is nicely fragrant but she seems too double to be #3 and too dark pink to be #1, not to mention that little stripe on the petals: I do have an additional photo of pink rose #2, which is my biggest puzzle. It is looking very double with Austin-like clustering and cupping of petals. Sorry the picture is a bit blurred, but you can see how double it is, and it's more of a carnation pink than the hot pink of the others. It's looking like a dead ringer for Blessed Child if it had more fragrance, though Emmanuela de Mouchy is a possible one though it looks a little darker pink especially on the reverse, and it's supposed to be fragrant too. If it is an Austin, Geoff Hamilton is a definite possibility, but it's supposed to be thornless and this is the one with thorns. If it had more fragrance, I could go with Mme. Ernest Calvat, but this mystery one is pretty dead to my nose. Radio Times would also be an option, if it had more fragrance. So my best guesses would all be fragrant or thornless from the Rogue Valley roses so far, and that doesn't yet fit this rose. Of course, I might not be able to smell the fragrance, but I'm usually pretty good with Austins and Hybrid Perpetuals and Bourbons. I think my working guess is Blessed Child with fragrance I can't detect, but I'd welcome other ideas! Cynthia