The "April gold" of the title are blooms of forsythia and daffodils in the spring, which for the regular GLH reader is a hint that this is one of her books about someone formerly well-to-do who is dealing with a financial crisis and reconnecting with the everyday beauties of life. Add in Hill's descriptions of domestic life and how to improve it, and that's a story line I never get tired of.
I do, however, get a little tired of her patronizing attitudes toward the poor and uneducated. While on the one hand Hill's Christian characters do recognize that every life is worthy before God, they're still keenly aware that the educated and gracious are somehow better than the uneducated who've "never been taught right manners." They never say so, but there's still an elitism to some of her books that bugs me. It is not a racist thing -- in this book, for instance, she has Irish character on both sides, and she's done the same in other books with black people -- but she is quite definitely defending a more intellectual and introverted type as the ideal. Part of that may be that social attitudes were changing; she is defending a Victorian ideal in a world that was actively shunning introverts in favor of an ideal that was more extroverted, boisterous, and, frankly, crass than the type that had been admired up past the turn of the nineteenth century.
And, as others have said, there's nearly always someone rich to "rescue" her characters from a fate where they're actually doing pretty well on their own. I think there is a sense where she subconsciously wanted to have a Christ character who takes the main characters to heaven in the end but for me much of the appeal of her books is seeing her characters cope with difficult situations with style and grace, and watching them improve their own lives and the lives of others through service.
But, for all my gripes, GLH's books have been comfort reads for me since I read my first one when I was twelve or thirteen, and this one ticks a lot of my check list. Her prose is workmanlike and her plots either predictable or chaotic (she was a "seat of the pants" sort of writer, and when her editors weren't on the ball things could get wonky), but if you like where she's at, she provides a sense of satisfaction few others offer.