I have Decora cabinets that so far after 11years look fabulous. I did the Arlington Cherry and find them just as superior as the higher end brands I am looking at for my new home currently under construction. I will say that the hinges are terrible but the condition arised well after the warranty expired. Mine are stained cherry and I am totally satisfied with them. I would order again if the color I desired was available.. I was talking to a friend who says that the painted Decora made in Haymarket Va seems to be a " bad " batch in her opinion. She mentioned patch chipping after only a few years, also after warranty. She mentioned her sisterin law had the same problem with the same manufacturer in Va. I am in Va but did not find where mine came from years ago.

Decora is only slightly more expensive than a mid price point cabinet. On s scale of 1-10, it might be a 7. However, that door style, or one with similar detailing, will be expensive in any cabinet line. It would be a 8.5-9 in any line. It is a reverse raised paneled solid center door with several complex details. It's also a mitered door rather than a stick and cope. It is also a poor candidate for a painted finish for most people's expectations. All cabinet doors show the inevitable movement of wood that translates into separation of paint at the joins. Mitered doors offer a longer seam area at the cross grain juncture between wood that moves in two different directions. That translates into a much more noticeable join line and paint crack at that join line. Most manufacturers would be require that you sign a waiver of understanding about that normal wood behavior. If you want to keep costs under control, pick a veneered recessed center panel stick and cope door with a minimum of detailing. A "modified shaker". Paint is an 12-20% up charge. Glazing is too. On top of paint. Keep it simple, and you may be able to work Decora into your budget. They are a really good value for someone who aspires to do an upper end looking kitchen without the upper end price.

For reference: Ideal Particle Sizes In a perfect world, the mineral fraction for use in the gritty mix would range in size from 1/10 - 5/32" (.100 - .156", or 2.5 - 4.0mm). The bark fraction would be slightly larger to allow for some breakdown over the life of the planting ........ from 1/8 - 1/4 is about ideal (.125 - .250" or 3.25 - 6.25mm). For the 5:1:1 mix, bark particle size should be from dust to 3/8". (0 - .375", or 0 - 4mm), with most of the bark ranging in size from 3/16 - 3/8" ( .188 - .375", or 4.8 - 9.5mm). The perlite should be on the coarse side - something like the all purpose or super coarse shown below. How Gran-I-Grit is graded: starter: 1/16 - 3/32 inch (1.6 - 2.4mm) you can sub #1 cherrystone/quartzite if available grower: 3/32 - 3/16 inch (2.4 - 4.8mm) you can sub #2 cherrystone/quartzite if available developer: 3/16 - 5/16 (4.8 - 8.0mm) you can sub #3 cherrystone/quartzite if available turkey: 5/16 - 7/16 inch (8.0 - 11.0mm) turkey finisher: 7/16 - 5/8 inch (11.0 - 16mm) Is the Coco coir can do as a replacement .? or anything else that I can try? I've done some testing of coconut products as replacements for peat and pine bark, coir and CHCs respectively, and was entirely underwhelmed by the results. I wrote about it: Peat vs. Coir Sphagnum peat and coir have nearly identical water retention curves. They both retain about 90-95% of their volume in water at saturation and release it over approximately the same curve until they both lock water up so tightly it's unavailable for plant uptake at about 30-33% saturation. Coir actually has less loft than sphagnum peat, and therefore, less aeration. Because of this propensity, coir should be used in mixes at lower %s than peat. Because of the tendency to compact, in the greenhouse industry, coir is primarily used in containers in sub-irrigation (bottom-watering) situations. Many sources produce coir that is high in soluble salts, so this can also be an issue. Using coir as the primary component of container media virtually eliminates lime or dolomitic lime as a possible Ca source because of coir's high pH (6+). Gypsum should be used as a Ca source, which eliminates coir's low S content. All coir products are very high in K, very low in Ca, and have a potentially high Mn content, which can interfere with the uptake of Fe. Several studies have also shown that the significant presence of phenolic allelochemicals in fresh coir can be very problematic for a high % of plants, causing poor growth and reduced yields. I haven't tested coir thoroughly, but I have done some testing of CHCs (coconut husk chips) with some loose controls in place. After very thoroughly leaching and rinsing the chips, I made a 5:1:1 soil of pine bark:peat:perlite (which I know to be very productive) and a 5:1:1 mix of CHCs:peat:perlite. I planted 6 cuttings of snapdragon and 6 cuttings of Coleus (each from the same plant to help reduce genetic influences) in containers (same size/shape) of the different soils. I added dolomitic lime to the bark soil and gypsum to the CHC soil. After the cuttings struck, I eliminated all but the three strongest in each of the 4 containers. I watered each container with a weak solution of MG 12-4-8 with STEM added at each watering, and watered on an 'as needed basis', not on a schedule. The only difference in the fertilizer regimen was the fact that I included a small amount of MgSO4 (Epsom salts) to provide MG (the dolomitic lime in the bark soil contained the MG, while the gypsum (CaSO4) in the CHC soil did not. This difference was necessary because or the high pH of CHCs and coir.) for the CHC soil. The results were startling. In both cases, the cuttings grown in the CHC's exhibited < 1/2 the biomass at summers end as the plants in the bark mix. I just find it very difficult for a solid case to be made (besides "It works for me") for the use of coir or CHC's. They're more expensive and more difficult to use effectively. The fact that some believe peat is in short supply (no where near true, btw) is easily offset by the effect of the carbon footprint of coir in its trek to the US from Sri Lanka or other exotic locales. That's the view from here. YMMV Coir Study: https://sites.google.com/site/plantandsoildigest/usu-crop-physiology-laboratory/coconut-coir-studies If your bark has a large fraction of fines, you might be able to do without the peat fraction; or, you might be able to screen off some of the coarsest bark particles and use that combined with Seramis for a succulent or tree soil. I would do without the peat before I'd use coir as a replacement if at all possible. If you do use coir, try to limit it to less than 10% of the mix o/a. Would you mind sharing with me, what's the use of garden lime? It's available in huge packets. Not sure if I need that much as my scope of use is just a couple of pots Bark and peat are rather acidic. Lime added to the substrate helps to neutralize the acidity and raise pH to a more favorable level - say around 5.0 - 5.5. Also, it's not unusual for fertilizers to be formulated without Ca or Mg, macro-nutrients essential to normal growth. Garden lime serves as a long-term source of these elements when substrates are limed with dolomitic lime. No matter how you proceed, you'll need to be sure your plants are getting all the essentials and pH levels arent something the plant can't deal with. One of the issues with using significant volumes of coir in substrates is the face coir's high pH precludes use of dolomite as a source of Ca/Mg. Al

I've always thought Decora was a bit high priced...but last time I priced them out was in the 80s....and a small job about 5 years ago. I don't know anything about BSC. Shiloh and Showplace are good mid-priced brands if you have access to them.