Only you know if the cabinets bug you enough to spend the kind of money on them that it would take to make them the color that you want. But expecting any manufacturer to do anything after 6 years is unreasonable and ridiculous. There's not a chance that after 6 years of wear and tear that any cabinet maker will ever change those doors and drawers out. And no, they won't take them back and spray them either without charging you almost the same that they would for new doors and drawers---which is pretty much industry standard cost. That's actually MORE work than finishing the doors was in the first place. And it wouldn't take care of the face frames. If you want to have them professionally sprayed by a painter that knows what he's doing, then expect to spend 3-7K on the project. And it won't be a factory finish. But it will be easier for you to touch up with "regular" paint than a factory finish will be.

yes...yes, that's it! Not the tiebacks, but the medallions!!! Hmmm, I did have the correct name, couldn't find them, though...thanks for the links! ajsmama-Yeah...I have FD's leading out to the pool from the master (double FD) and from the familyroom (single FD with a panel or whatever it is called on either side...so a triple pane, I guess you would say. I am planning on doing a simple bar across the top with a simple set of panels/drape (very casual, i already got one set at Pier One) that will be used only at night...our back yard is very private but i am the type...i NEED to be able to close up the house...I get creeped out at night with the blinds open! The FD in the dining room...well, i want to dress them up a bit, but I also want to be able to close them if I want! Maybe some treatment in conjunction with the medallion thingys would be best. Thanks for the links and info, all!

First, if you are going to see some real estate people, I would not let them know that you are entertaining another offer. I would also indicate that you are interested in a fast sale. Although, there are a lot of good and honest realtors out there. They all have a vested interest in getting your listing and are going to want to appeal to you somehow. If you let them know you are entertaining another offer, you exponentially increase your chance of getting sold on unrealistic expectations. Second, I am going to go all finance and accounting on you here. While I respect the opinions of many others who have commented here, as a finance guy I look at money differently. The biggest way is that for most finance and accounting people we see a huge difference in money today vs. the promise of money tomorrow. This is known as the time value of money. Since I work in numbers let me throw some at you. We are going to assume a few things here: (1) that the property will somehow be maintained with funds either from you, or distributed to you when finalized, and will run around $200 per month. (2) I am going to assume insurance at $800 per year (low for a vacant house.) (3) I am going to assume 1% property taxes. Given those numbers, the real cost of you keeping the house is $600 per month. That sounds reasonable and not that bad. However, if we now throw in the value of having $400,000 in cash today that we can stick in an investment we get (a) using the historical stock market rate we get an additional $2,667 per month, (b) using the 4% bond or mortgage rate (if you owe more than $400,000 on your current home) we get an additional $1,333 of real cash in your pocket every month. Added to the fact that you are going to have $25,000 in additional costs with a realtor, it will not take long at all to completely destroy any upside. Even if the house is worth $450,000 you are wasting $2,000 per month in hopes of making $13,000 more. For the sake of complete disclosure, if the people who want the property came back to me with an offer of $375,000, assuming the house is worth $410,000, I would take it. You are still only getting $10,600 less than you would get with a realtor and you are getting it today. To be fair. I would take it even if the house is approaching $425,000, because the upside (the additional money you can make) is not worth the risk (the chance you will make less.) Plus money today is better than the promise of money tomorrow.

I think this is one of these things that should have a "post-game analysis" of sorts. I don't mean to be critical, but this will be analytical and it may help someone else who builds a house in the future. The idea here is nice, and the essentially linked windows are similar to a true palladian window, with the tall window in the middle and subordinate windows on either side of a height equal to the bottom sash...fine. But you've kind of backed yourself into a design corner because these particular windows need to be covered, and yet you don't want to cover them too much, or all the time. A palladian window in an 18th or 19th c house would be treated like this: The walls would be thick enough that shutters would fold over the small windows and fold back into shallow pockets in the jambs when you wanted them out of the way. The larger window would be elaborately draped because of the curve or possibly mostly left bare,depending. If you were to design this over again---or if your architect does do this again in another house---a peak that was wide enough to allow a single rod or top mounted treatment that was wide enough to cover all three windows completely should be one thing considered, or more room for shutters to be folded back would be another, a shorter or differently proportioned window in the middle another. I think that windows are often designed as if they can all be left uncovered because nobody's windows need to be covered for privacy or light control. And really the opposite is true. Almost Every window should be designed if it will need to be covered for privacy or light control, and if it doesn't great, but if it does you are not faced with several less than ideal options and possibly some really awkward options but no perfect options.