Here is one more piece of evidence. Earlier, I posted this scan of an image that I found in Taylor's Guide to Trees. It shows the cones of the Deodar Cedar.
A couple of day ago I was out during one of our (too rare) sunny periods and I took another good look at the tree in question. Lo and behold, up on a high branch, I spied some cones that I had never noticed before. I've never found one like them on the ground under the tree either, but here they are.
I think the existence of these cones pretty much seals the deal. I really had never noticed them before.
Here's what Taylor says about Cedrus deodarus:
A tree, up to 150 ft. (45 m) high in nature, reaching 80 ft. (24 m) as usually cultivated. Branch tips, including the leader, generally pendulous. Leaves dark bluish- or grayish-green, nearly 2 in. (5 cm) long, not very rigid. Cones 3-5 in. (7.5-12.5 cm) long, reddish brown. One of the most graceful of all evergreens. 'Shalimar', 'Kingsville', and 'Kashmir' are the hardier cultivars, possibly in descending order. Himalayas. Cones throughout the year...Thanks, Susan. I really hoped the tree was a Lebanon Cedar after you explained the status attached to those particular conifers. But a cedar from the Himalayas is even more exotic-sounding, don't you think?
Now that that is done, what about this tree? I think of it as a Sapin bleu, or a Blue Spruce. Is it?
The tree in Taylor's Guide that most resembles this one is the Colorado Spruce, Picea pungens. Actually, I'm pretty happy calling this one by the names I mentioned above, whereas the Deodar Cedar was truly unidentifiable to me until this week.
And if we get this second tree a name, I have still another one to ask about!