Sep 26th 2010 11:20PM There are, indeed, some beautiful pictures here. There's a (most probably) sumptious motor yacht moored nearby; some seascapes; and a gorgeous black cat perched regally -- perhaps disdainfully? -- on a balustrade.
Yes, there are some beautiful pictures here...but none are of the house, inside or out.
BTW: The color of the house (as it comes through in the pictures on my computer screen) is similar to the inside of a butternut squash -- a very orangey yellow, not at all like a Yellow Cab.
Sep 26th 2010 9:48PM The Romans had a saying: "De gustibus non disputandum (est)" -- There's no disputing taste. Modern Americans would put it more simply -- "To each hs own" -- but somehow miss the real meaning of the Latin. To me, this townhouse is beautiful -- over the top a bit, yes, but it was built in 1870. How much of the decor is 140 years old, how much 10 years -- can't say. But a lot appears to be from another age, but crafted by artisans -- as two reviewers have said -- who cared. Why someone would say it displays "no taste at all" is beyond me. I am not overly fond of contemporary design; doesn't mean I don't see the beauty of some. You, sir, may not like this house; it certainly isn't ugly.
Oct 5th 2009 7:58PM Robert,
As the French would say, "Chacun a' son gout," which translates as, "To each his own (taste)."
The car is stunning. (I was going to end that with an exclamation point, but the car doesn't need one. In looks, any way, it is its own exclamation point.)
Feb 20th 2009 4:34AM You say -- quite accurately, that "Maybach hasn't quite matched the success of arch-rival BMW's Rolls-Royce division or the Volkswagen Group's Bentley asset..." Is there any doubt as to the reason? The car has no style, no class, no elan. I don't think its looks even approximate a tricked-out S-class Mercedes, as Chase says. It doesn't have the class of the "S." I'll grant it super luxury. But at those prices, a buyer wants a car that turns heads and makes onlookers gasp -- like the various Rolls-Royces or Bentleys. All the Maybach looks like is a giant lima bean on wheels, just a super luxurious overgrown Camry.
Feb 18th 2009 6:33AM I have one blistering comment about your gallery -- the infuriating pop-up tornado of ads that block the pictures from the galleries. You can't see the photos because of the ads, and you can't eliminate the ads. Get rid of them -- you have too many ads as it is for decent reading.
Jan 30th 2009 11:45AM Gemstones -- How do I love thee? Let me count the colors. There's sapphire, to remind of those beautiful blue eyes...or ruby, the color of blood and fire, hence, of our passion...or emerald, the glowing greens of the grass in Ireland wet with dew, where we sprawled on a blanket and talked and talked about how we felt for each other, and then we (but hush! That's private)...but trumping them all, amethyst. That's my favorite -- imperial purple amethyst. Your nature was imperial, you ruled my heart, and purple amethyst was your favorite gemstone, too.
May 4th 2008 7:18PM "Beams"? What "beams"? I saw one beam. But much of it is nice, beams or no
Feb 6th 2008 3:20PM They are beautiful, but their color isn't truly "purple" -- purple and violet are deep, rich colors. These are a shade of lavender -- a lighter, more pastel branch of the purple "family." What galls me about the hoo-ha-ha is that lavender roses -- not pale watery colored, but truly deep lavender, with a wonderful spicey scent-- have been around easily for more than a quarter century. I know -- they were my mother's favorite rose, because all purples were her favorite color. For her 75th birthday in December 1985, my brother and I gave her 15 lavender roses -- one for every five years (there was no way we could afford 75 long-stem roses). I walked into her home after they had been delivered; the roses had begun to open and were majestic and glorious, while the apartment was redolent with this wonderful, lovely spice scent.
Jan 10th 2008 4:15PM I would like to add one thing -- perhaps the best point this viewer can make: There's an ancient Latin expression, "De gustibus non disputandum..." which translates: "There's no disputing taste." We like what we like, and that's it. Is Picasso better than Goya? Puccini better than Verdi? The Four Freshman better than the Four Tops, and either better than Anonymous Four? I can make a case supporting the ones I like, but -- utimately -- I don't know. I just know what I like. Certainly there ARE standards of excellence -- Olivier's "Hamlet" stands out, head and shoulders, against Mel Gibson's (which is not a bad film). But it still comes down to, I like what I like.
Jan 10th 2008 4:03PM No "Citizen Kane"? Like the man said, it didn't win Best Picture Oscar, losing to "How Green Was My Valley" -- a very fine film, maybe even great, but not in the league of "Kane." Perhaps "Kane" was too strange for audiences in '40/'41, and Orson Welles too much the outsider, esp. compared to "...Valley" director John Ford, who won Best Director. It's like "Crash" -- a good action movie, creatively and grippingly done. But there's no comparison to Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain." In this case, I don't think Hollywood was ready to name as Best Picture a film about two 20th Century cowboys (Heath Ledger and Jake Gylenhaall in magnificent performances) who turn out to be gay, and who struggle with that in the macho environment of the "great western mountains." At least Lee won the Oscar for Best Director, and the screenwriters (incl. Larry McMurtry) Best Screenplay from an Adaption. Oh, well, Hollywoiod always has been known to be narrow-minded -- while the resst of the world lauded "Brokeback" as the finest film of 2005.