All purple roses are listed as mauve... The closest in color on your list to Fragrant Plum is Royal Amethyst... I don't grow this one... Melody Parfumeé is also close in color in the beginning, but only at a point, then it fades to be close in color to Neptune... so it's basically a bi-color bush at that point... It would match Lady X in color, but the bush does get tall and is very vigorous... Heirloom is hands down the best medium purple for those that spray... Others love Angel Face but I always liked Heirloom better... Intrigue is one of the best dark magentas... I have Shocking Blue and Love Potion as my medium purples, however, they are taking their sweet time in getting established so I can't recommend them as yet... For my lilac purple I have Neptune and love it and recommend it. It's 40 years older than your Lady X... and a little more 'blue' Another lavender I have and recommend is Cotillion (Perfume perfection) but it also takes a while to get up to speed, and the bunches of blooms are small, not HT form... Ebbtide is low and slow... The couple of dark magenta fading to purple blooms are gorgeous, but it would be several years before you would have an entire bush in bloom... Midnight blue is a round ball of constant bloom, dark dark purple, beautiful color. Blooms fade fast to black and should be removed daily, but right now there are about 50-100 per bush, so I don't mind. I have 5 of these bushes... Purple Heart is a sweet bush, the color of Intrigue and Burgundy Iceberg, but the blooms are very fragile... The bush gets wider than Intrigue, and the bloom form is more OGR than HT form WS2000 has dark crimson blooms but a lot of complaints about the bush being a crab. I don't mind because the fragrance is so perfect... and the flowers, the blooms are breathtaking... I can't say anything bad really about the 3 that you are considering... If you were to buy them already growing from a local nursery so that you could see them and smell them that would be a good thing...

I understand this thread is nearling a year old...but sorry to bump it up, I think its important for people to read. It seems I read more often now threads of unhappy people paying their "designer or drafter" 1,2,34K+ dollars and getting horrible plans that can not be built in return as well as many wasted days and headaches. I think bumping this thread up might give people a second thought on architects vs other options. Like any professions, there are greats and duds. Just bc you hire an architect doesnt make them perfect instantly. However there is a much better chance vs a drafter for sure. Do your homework, ask for examples of past work and references. My opinion, and what I emply on a daily basis of an architect is and does for their client: 1. client's needs are #1. They are paying you, you suggest what is best for them. They should be able to trust you to find a design that fits their needs, budget, style, lot, local codes, etc. They also rely on you to assess claims contractors make or review change orders. I review every single change order that comes up, researches the "true" price of it, and decide if it is needed, too high, etc. Alot of times this will be a "scope" contract, or how far you want the architect to go with your project. Designing, drawings, code review, and bidding is one thing. Construction administration is another. I think anyone hiring an architect should keep them onboard throughout the project. Contractors can be like car mechanics...they could attempt to sell you a 2x4 for the price of an I beam. 2. listen, listen, listen. They should listen to what you say, and make it come to life while offering up design suggestions for efficiency in the plan, construction, etc. Listening is extremely important, even down to the tiny details. When we start a new project, we take them through 3 meetings of "design developement". We go over everything from construction types, room requirements and sizes, casework requirements, products and materials, even down to floor finishes and trim types. We do a drawing, present it, revise it, etc etc until it is correct 100%. 3. suggest products and materials to best suit YOUR needs, NOT what the builder gets the best discount on. They should know about new technologies, employ energy efficent designs and construction methods, etc. I have a friend who's builder brainwashed him into thinking they had a "super high efficient house" and paid more for it. They got 2x6 walls with r-19 fiberglass batt insulation (clear wall more like r-11), builder grade vinyl windows that leak 2 years later, and a goodman 90% efficient furnace. In Iowa? Please, that barely meets code. Had I known him then, there would have been many changes I would have recommended. 4. They should know that is going on in your local code. The arch should submit plans to the city for approval. If they need engineered outside of what the city requires from an arch, then they should do that as well. 5. They are a professional with a lot of money and time invested into their degree. My bachelors of arch required 5 years of 21 credits each semester, followed by 2-3 years of interning under specific categories, and then 9 exam tests. but as mentioned, designers can be just as good, and for less money. As the owner, its your job to call around, do checks on past projects, drive and look at their projects, meet with them to discuss your ideas to get a feel for their interactions, etc. Sometimes we are expensive and certinaly not needed. But more times then not, it can be well worth your money. basically the list can go on. but you get the idea

I thought I was done here, but feel the need to come back for clarification, and another beating, because I know that no matter how I try to explain away what I totally screwed up saying, the backlash will continue. Thank you, Les. There's one person who understands what I meant by all of it. 1. If you were offended by the post, I am truly apologetic, because I didn't mean to offend. I should have chosen to put more of a separation between the 'unwavering' comment and the "opinion and objective" comments. The only part that I truly meant to refer to 'staunch republican' was was the unwavering part, and that was only a MINOR reference, and not intended to provoke political commentary or debate. I shouldn't have said it at all because... FWIW, I've never heard the term "bleeding democrat" but only "staunch republican." I was ignorant, and I thought it was a "coined phrase" like a metaphor that people used generically to mean "unwavering in general," and had I realized that it was not something you "just say," I certainly wouldn't have used it at all. I never EVER intend to insult anyone, or their beliefs/affiliations. Ever. Commentary on my sister's personality should have not been implied to refer back to the (R) comment, which again, was stated out of ignorance in using the phrase. 2. For the record...and who really cares...up until recently, I WAS a registered Republican, but, like Les, wanted the ability to vote for who I thought was the best candidate, so changed to undeclared status. More often than not, I do vote (R). I never meant to lump all Rs or Ds into a category. If anyone fits the mold of "unwavering," so be it. I applaud your willingness to take a firm position and defend it. 3. Nicole- going back to item #1, again, sorry for not putting more space between the comments, because you now have formed your own opinion based on my ignorance, and having added your own emphasis to the statements I made (and how they were presented), only fueled that fire. Ref #2 above regarding being biased and unable to be objective; I like to think that being undeclared gives some justification that I truly CAN be objective, because I DON'T sit on one side of the fence or the other. Because I can see both sides of most issues, I find it very difficult when trying to "choose sides." And for what all that is worth, I'm sorry to have caused such hate & discontent on the forum. I may stick around; I may not, but wanted to sincerely apologize for the disruption.

My sympathies to you, Cube... yah, we all have a tendency to sell our souls to the devil for companionship, what the heck, that's how things work.. i think some men are encouraged by other men that this is cool way of talking.. (maybe to themselves, but they forgot we don't care to hear their editorial comments!)... my ex had a mild form of the same and he was SHOCKED that a colleague had gently ribbed him for being a sexist becuase he didn't think he was.... so if more guys would nudge each other to say "hey, that's NOT cool".. maybe it would happen less.. I get annoyed if I'm talking to a man and his eyes are roaming to every woman who is passing.... message I get is taht they are not listening to me... sometimes I will say something like "is everything ok? you seem distracted"... it's rude behavior.... a small amount of it, ok, i can also be distracted by things passing in the foreground, but it can get really distracting if you are trying to talk to someone who is totally distracted! The way I once handled a situation -- I had been told that if I was as pretty as this particular celebrity, then my guy would have bought me ten of the same type of cute baseball hat as she was wearing... I was shocked... I told him I expected the hat in the mail ASAP.... he never made another such remark again.. (it never worked out between us....and I don't feel bad about it).