Those reading this thread grow plants in media that range from sticky, extremely water retentive, and low in oxygen when they are saturated, to media that remain friable (uncompacted), highly oxygenated, and hold NO perched water when they are completely saturated. We cannot simply blame poor plant performance on watering habits, as I illustrated upthread. Neither, can we consider plant/water relationships without considering the media. When we blame poor plant performance on over-watering, what are we saying? On one hand, we might be saying that we are applying too much water to the soil, but is that really accurate? I don't think so. I think it's much more accurate to say the soil is holding too much water. Doesn't this then, shift the responsibility for root rot issues and poor plant performance to the media instead of the hand controlling the water can? The argument might be raised that all you need to do is water less - problem solved .....right? Not so fast. What happens when we water less, in small sips? Salts accumulate in soils from the fertilizers we apply and, as this happens, plants have increasing difficulty absorbing water and the nutrients dissolved in water from the soil. This is stress, and it assuredly affects the plants vitality and diminishes potential growth. Yes, you are able to work around this issue of accumulating salts by eliminating them from the soil with thorough flushing - frequently, but that is a time consuming process and several extra steps. Since the reason you need to flush the soil is because it is too water retentive in the first place, flushing it places the plant at risk for root rot - unless you take still additional steps to make sure that doesn't occur - like depotting the plant and placing it on newspaper over night so the water saturating the soil can be wicked into the newspaper and evaporate. So it sounds good to say it's a watering issue, and not a soil issue, but we can clearly see that it is not a watering issue. Lets look at the other end of the soil range for a moment. Consider a soil with particles that are large enough that the soil holds no water between soil pores. The descriptive terminology would be that it 'holds no perched water'. You can water this soil every hour of every day, yet it holds no water between it's particles. It does. however, hold plenty of water INSIDE the particles - water plants can easily access as they need it. As the plants access this water, their roots are totally surrounded by plenty of air - even immediately after you water to saturation. Even if you water again 10 minutes later, all the water drains from the pores between particles and air returns to the entire volume of soil. How do we need to treat plants in the heavy soil? We need to water them carefully, because if we over-water the soil remains saturated, anaerobic (airless) conditions prevail, and root function/metabolism suffers, the plant is stressed and grows with reduced vitality. While, and because we are watering in small amounts to prevent soil saturation, salts are accumulating and additionally stressing plants. This occurs in every planting you cannot water properly because the medium is too water-retentive. How do we treat plants in the porous soil? We water them until about 10-15% of the water we applied comes out the drain and move on to the next plant - no worries - repeat in a few days. From what I offered, it's easy to see that soils and watering are inextricably related, and that it is actually the SOIL that dictates how you are able to water. Roots die when subjected to saturated (anaerobic) conditions. They don't all die at the same time; they die incrementally with the finest of roots - the workhorses - dieing first, larger roots following finer roots as the length of exposure to anaerobic conditions increases. This process begins quickly, even if you can't see it, within hours of watering, and doesn't stop until the water in the soil is used up and air returns to the soil. At that point, the lost roots begin to regenerate. This is very stressful, and extremely expensive to the plant in terms of energy outlay. The energy the plant must put into root regeneration would have went to blooms, fruit, more leaves, branch extension, or an increase in biomass. It simply is bad for the growth process. These problems are entirely eliminated in soils at the other end of the spectrum, so 'no', we cannot so easily say that it is over-watering that causes these issues when in fact, they are directly related to soil choice. Heavy (water-retentive) soils are convenient and readily available everywhere, and there are the strategies I touched on to help you cope with the difficulties encountered when using them, but the price of convenience, as you see, is often measured in plant vitality. Al

You could try looking at the Chatsworth site which has lovely (and expensive) columns, and IIRc also has some info on sizing and styles. One thing to keeep in mind is that the columns should be fatter than you may think. Our modern eyes are daily assaulted by skinny little twigs that pass for columns in "classically"-styled houses in subdivisions that don't look able to bear the weight of what's above them. (Never mind that modern building techniques make it possible.) For a column to be successful it must look as if it could carry the load visually. The other thing is that columns, especially taller ones, really need to have some entasis to them, or an optical illusion makes then seem too skinny. Entasis is a subtle fattening of the colum at the middle height which counteracts the optical illustion and makes the column look well-proportioned. Another thing is that it's important to have pilasters set against the elevation of the house at the back of the porch, matching up (but not necessarily matching in style, for instance you could have rectangular pilasters with round columns) at least the corner columns on the front. Otherwise the whole thing looks slapped on and not integrated with the building. If you want to read about the classical dimensions of columns (at least as interpreted by neo classical styles in the 19th c here in the US), I recommend Asher Benjamin's book. (Practical House Carpenter????) I can get the exact title if you'd like to look it up. It's a Dover reprint these days; your public libray may have a copy. Also, before you abandon your present ones (even if they are in bad shape) you might consider repairing them. I think there may be publication for sale at John Leeke's webpage (www.historichomes.com) that deals with column repairs. Columns are frequently in need of restoration as they are exposed to a good deal of weather stress. There are some installation techniques that can help you mitigate it going forward. HTH, Molly~

Here are the new Permacast porch columns, installed this afternoon. I had ordered them on Aug. 13th, and waited and waited and then told they were on a two week back order. Finally they came in and then waited a week for the lumber yard to deliver them to my house. Called contractor twice but he never returned my calls. I found out this morning that he had been on vacation in Colorado! Good thing he called, I was going to give him the rest of this week and then I was finding someone else. ha. I think the columns look great. NO pitts, NO cracks, No seams. I was going to hire a painter but since they look so good and contractor didn't even recommend sanding, I'm going to do it myself. The only thing is they didn't countersink the screws that went in under the caps. Some were sunk better than others but he said he was afraid to tighten too much for fear the material would crack. I suppose I can fill them over with a bit of caulk before I paint. Probably be the only person who notices. Anyway thought I'd post an update. So far, I'd recommend this product to others. However, we'll see after painting how well the paint holds up to weather,ect. Thanks for all the input while I made my decision.

Tea cats, that second light is the right shape. What I am looking for is that shape, a little more exaggerated maybe (larger aspect ratio of top to bottom) and instead of glass on the top part, that would be solid black. Ideally the lights would have a pier base and be raised on "spider" legs. I'm still looking for a photo I can post. Ann's, I have filtered throuh all the big sites like Lamps Plus and Lighting Universe, also individual companies like Savoy, Progress, Murray Feiss, etc. Those mission lights are nice, outside playing, but they're not the traditional lantern type I am trying to find. Kitchendetective, I had checked Carolina Lanterns and was really surprised not to find exactly what I was seeking. Had not looked at Bevolo until you suggested that one, but they don't have what I am looking for either. I am flummoxed! Many of the post lamps look oddly ecclesiastical ---to me, anyway :) some of the tops of the lights look like flat squashy black velvet vicars' caps and others are bizarrely like birettas and mitres. Mtn, those lights are fab! At this point I am still thinking I am going to find perfect ones somewhere for about $300 (or less, as long as I am fantasizing). I really do not want to spend $800 x 2 although I guess if I found something absolutely perfect, I could talk myself into it. Oakley....you need ESP....then you could have warned me about those roses :( We have two at the front of the house that are doing really well, although they look messier than the other varieties of knockouts, but the other 24 .... Meh.