Kathy, your superior photography skills have made my garden look better than the reality! )You should have seen me that morning, I was 5 steps ahead of her, furiously deadheading daylilies!) Thank you for your kind words. The begonia is indeed Art Hodes (good eye Eden). The green in the center of the large pot is fuchsia 'Professor Henkel' just starting to bloom. The large-flowered daylily is 'Joyful Journey', the next one down is 'Always Afternoon', the next is one of the 'Candy' series (I've misplaced the daylily map at the moment) and I think the peachy one is 'Fairy Tale Pink'. The green & white hosta is actually 'Whirlwind' - you had the whirly part right! Loving the pics from Deanne's too, just wish I could smell that brugs! My Charles Grimaldi brugs don't have buds yet. I loved Deanne's secondary cocktail lounge, it was on a hill overlooking her terrace garden. Just lovely!

That depends. I don't think that glitter enhanced ceiling texture sprayed grotto style over vertical surfaces, let alone on a ceiling was ever in good taste. There is really nothing done with any sense of quality in the entire house. It's worse than the pictures. I agree though, there is a tendency to do things so they look current, but a fair amount of "current and updated" is not in good taste. Even in these forums. It looks okay now because it is current and popular, but not necessarily because it looks good--if you know what I mean. But if you remember the split level house I posted a few weeks back with the high 1950s-60s baroque interiors, I didn't have much bad to say about that house. It was a taste of the vulgar sort even it's day, but it was very well executed for what it was, and I think there is always a place for that. And that house was built and furnished as such, which is also different. (This is the trashy, wannabe version of that--and done in the "wrong" house, so to speak. )This was probably a typically Federal period house when this was "modernised". It may not have been in great shape, but those houses were generally victims of benign neglect for most of their lives, which is why there is a fair amount of original detail to be seen today. (In houses that were left alone even though they were "dated".)

I collect books with interesting covers and have been known to buy a new copy of a book because it had a better cover than a different edition of the same book. I also have a stack of old pulp novels and a few romances with covers ranging from stunning to "what on Earth is going on here?" weird or ridiculous.

One way to evaluate the quality and safety of any canning publication is to look for USDA approval in the forward, does he/she make reference to or show a working knowledge of the guidelines and or the science involved in canning, does he/she offer only acidic food recipes like jams and pickles, or include low-acid pressure canning foods as well, and look at his/her credentials. Food science training? Great! Personal blogger and cook? Maybe not so great. ;-) There are many so-called canning books published that one shouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. Not saying this is one of them as I don't know. Just take the time to evaluate carefully before using. Dave