Ok I am SORRY lol. I am roflmao you all. When I wrote the barefoot thing, you know how the saying goes....barefoot and naked. Well I did not want to say naked. Cause that is not something I would post. Then when I was ironing, I went over what I had posted and the NOTHING was WORSE lol. I realized what I had done lol. Karyn I would remove the chairs and put even more out there lol. I am thinking on building SHADED areas for the brugs next year. again sorry about the nothing. Ria did not meant it to come across like that. Me and my german again :-(

Location is very local. From the point of view of a suburban area, there are always streets that are more presitigious. Sometimes it is immediately apparent so that an out of town buyer can see the lots are a little bigger, the houses a little bigger or more intereting architecturally. Sometimes the out of town buyer is at a disadvantage because what makes the street more presitigious is not obvious to the casual observers, yet locals will pay more for a house on that street. I remember when we were looking in our area. One of the more desireable areas had Dutch Colonials that were a little older and a little more casual looking than other areas. This was a deliberate look and people found them very desireable although they did not appeal to me. DH when driving through asked me if this is one of the poorer sections! LOL In another case my sister lives on the main line in Philadelphia. She paid about 200k more for a smaller all stone house on the MOST prestigious street in her town than she received on a larger half stone house a couple of blocks down ON THE SAME STREET! and she was not downsizing! She had to explain why the new house cost more and it really was all about local perceptions. Us out of towners just did not get it (and still do not, I liked her old house better) In some areas prestige is not a factor so then a quiet street or convenience or a nice view become a factor. Bottom line, location is the one thing you cannot change so you have to be satisfied with it before you buy

My take on it is this is a lot of hype with some truth to it in better growing conditions, handling, etc. Root stock can make a difference. I just ran across an academic paper online the other day that was comparing the effects of different root stocks on juicing oranges, and based on their photos alone the difference in color and consistency of the juice was easily visible. Having said that, as I mentioned in another thread the other day, it is important to match root stock with local conditions, a root stock that performs well in western high calcareous soils may perform poorly in low pH sandy and sandy loam soils on the gulf coast and vice versa, this is before even considering disease resistance. As to the old line Washington Navel bit, I think it is 100% hype, Washington Navel oranges themselves are a relatively modern variety dating to the 1800's (likely a sport from about 1822 in Brazil and 1870 in the US), with some of the original US parent trees still surviving. (google Parent Washington Navel Orange) Also see http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/45/4/523.full

It began with the spring-flowering trees and shrubs. The display was magnificent, with nothing like it in memory. It followed through with peonies (though a week of hot weather was a spoiler). Roses did not really participate, since the winter had taken its toll. Though the winter was severe, the cold was protracted, and the spring here (unlike north of here) did not have the fluctuation of last year. Indeed, there were no freezes after early April. Eagerly, we anticipated what this would mean for the daylily season. The first signs were clear. June was not abnormally hot, and while moisture was greater than normal, it came so as not to spoil a lot of blooms. Stepping out in the morning, I was greeted with overwhelming abundance. One could tell already with earlier bloomers such as Lava Flow. Flowers were large, scapes well budded, colors intense, and form consistent. Going into peak, the weather warmed a bit, but not the tropical temps experienced last year at peak, when it was unbearable by 10 a.m. It was a heady experience. I took far too many pictures, as I felt the need to somehow capture the splendor. Many plants that hadn't shown themselves well for years had shot up and showed what they could be. This year showed that water, water, water is to daylilies just as location, location, location is to real estate (well, location matters with daylilies too). Some did not join the party. A few were mediocre, more like a typical year. Some were downright party poopers, having a bad year in the midst of plenty. Splotchiness was a problem with some cultivars that were relatively clean last year (in one of the worst years in recent memory). Some were down in the foliage while others were shooting up. Severe heat arrived mid-July after peak. Then later came dryness. The late season was dismal. Lates in general here are subject to dryness, heat, and sometimes cold nights. We had all of them. How does one sum it up? Well, there have been reports of bounty from all over. On this forum recently, someone in MA reported a stellar year. John Picard in Maine said it was his best year in two decades. Similar reports of a great year in North Carolina and PA. Michael Boumann (Missouri) reported a bumper year in seeds. But a bad year at Crintonic Gardens in northern Ohio. Michigan also unclear. This was the best year here in recent history, coming after a terrible year last year. But I don't hybridize, and I am not into lates. I would rate it an 8.5. Perfect? No, but many weeks it was pretty damn close. I would be delighted to see it repeated next year.