"Startling lack of reading material, though I guess that is not surprising when her use of books is solely decorative." We don't have many books but I read a TON. My reading is either library books, which are in nightstand drawers or baskets in the living room, or I read on a Kindle or iPad. My husband doesn't read at home because he reads so much for work and he also works 60+ hours a week. Sadly, he just doesn't get pleasure out of reading at home these days. I hope no one would come into our home and assume something negative about us because they don't see loads of books. "I didn't know until reading this thread, that they have no TV--it seems to me that to say, "We're too busy, smart, morally superior, etc., to watch TV, but support us by watching our TV show," is the height of hypocrisy. Sorry if that's too negative." The TV thing came up during an interview (in BHG or Country Living Magazine or similar), when they were asked if their family watched their own show. They said they don't watch their own show at home because they don't have a TV. They didn't go into their reasons for not having one. I don't think not having a TV makes them morally superior, even if they do have a TV show. Because they have a show, they must now start watching TV?? That seems sort of silly, doesn't it? I don't know them, and I don't currently watch their show, although I saw the first season. I think it's surprising and a little sad that this group continues to bash them week after week. Hasn't it pretty much all been said?

I think that whole look has jumped the shark. It all looks the same, as so many of her houses do. It's mostly white, turquoise, with weathered woods and black iron accents. The look is still prevalent in the mid-market level, but I'm starting to see some changes at the industry level. Indigo shades are big now, and warmer tones are being desired. I see a lot of deeper paint shades in the shelter publications, and brown leather sofas are still being purchased. I've seen the Magnolia furniture line in person. It's ok, perfectly fine, but not fantastic. Expense is relative to the person making the purchase, but I don't think it's expensive, though I'm sure the name is factored in. It's not furniture that I would call forever furniture, but then that's not what the new buying generation wants. So I would say that she has given the market what it wants; her look at a price affordable enough that you wouldn't mind passing it on and buying something new in a few years.

There is something unusual about this house. I do not see any chimneys. A house of this size built 150 years ago would have had several chimneys. This one has no visible chimneys in the front part of the house. There could be an unseen one at the rear, but that would not have lent itself to heating the front part of the house with conventional heating stoves. This leads me to believe this house is maybe no older than 100 years and had a central heating plant, likely steam radiators or hot baseboard radiators. There would be one chimney in back. I wasn't able to examine this property in detail. I photographed from the road. Architectural trim details is consistent with those of 100 to 150 years ago. The house has been updated. It has been wired for electricity and the roof looks newer but may be consistent with the original roofing. If the roofing is copper, it could be very old; Galvanized steel roofing can last 75 years, A typical life is 50 years. Several of the attic windows are boarded up. Likely, this place had been used as a rental or to house a sharecropper. What caught my attention was it imposing size, the fact that it was yet standing, the unusual gables, and the feeling that it had once housed a happy family plus maybe a hired hand or two.

OK, tomorrow or next chance you get, try to shoot it from directly in front and avoid as much of the foliage as possible. The only thing I can say for sure at this point is the shutters have to go.