ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Armoury => Topic started by: SirNathanQ on 2014-01-10, 19:15:12
-
Anyone taken a look at this glorious frickin thing? Holy crap it looks good.
My only gripe is the lack of actual ankles on their greaves. Their shaping is very solid for the price, but that rounded off bottom just ruins the greave for me.
http://armstreet.com/store/armor/medieval-western-knights-armor-kit-the-kings-guard (http://armstreet.com/store/armor/medieval-western-knights-armor-kit-the-kings-guard)
-
Wow, that IS real pretty! I'd bet Mikael would take that suggestion and roll with it if you were ordering that harness. Might be something no one else pointed out as of yet.
-
Gorgeous! Yeah, the greaves are weird, they should come down lower and form a saddle over the top of the foot to protect the ankle points. If I was going to nitpick or use it for LH I would swap out the butted aventail for a good one, get a knuckle rider on the gauntlets, and shrink the fan on the knee poleyns. And of course it's covered in etching... which they didn't do yet, it would have to be engraving to be time appropriate. I really love the fabric covered hoop fauld, and the colors they chose on that particular example are really striking. The prayers all over it make it very cool!
-
Yeah, the little details really separate it from say, a harness of your quality, Sir Ian, but it is a real step forward in semi-custom harness.
I'm thinking of getting a piece or two of the harness.
Mainly that fauld.
What I'm considering is a fighting harness, in the central European late 14th century style, and that would be a perfect solution to hip protection.
I already have a satisfactory bascinet, and the arms are covered, so I'd need the cuirass, the fauld, gauntlets, and legs.
I think I would get the Kings Guard fauld and gaunlets/ matching leather covering, and have the rest be more utilitarian items from Armstreet. That way there's no farby etching and it it rather common to see (in the 14th and 15th centuries) harnesses with certain parts decorated Gauntlets, the knee central copp, ect, so I feel the look would be rather historic.
My only issue with that layout is that I can't discern a good way to display heraldry :P
Thoughts?
-
Saw it on FB, I've got a bunch of little nit-picks with it (multiple greaves things as the biggest) - but I was floored by how awesome the leather covered gauntlets and fauld look, and the brasswork too.
Though I must say, I'm upset with this thread; by the title, I thought Sir Nathan had just acquired a new harness.
Sir Nathan, I bet you could ask Armstreet to do that same armor with simple brass trim, no etching/engraving, and the price should come down, too.
-
On AA there was also discussion about the gauntlets not being the proper period and lacking the second plate under the knuckle.
-
The cuirass is also very flat for a Churburg #13 copy. Should be more globose. I would skip those greaves Sir Nathan, they will be wholly incompatible with sabs if you ever wanted to add them. Mikael at armstreet will customize things for you, so I would talk to him first. I think there are better options out there for more historically shaped pieces though.
Here's what a historically correct Churburg #13 inspired harness should look like, just expect to take out a mortgage to pay for it ;-) :
(http://www.medievalrepro.com/Images/Churburg%20Armour%2001%20044%20copyedit.jpg)
-
On AA there was also discussion about the gauntlets not being the proper period and lacking the second plate under the knuckle.
The knuckle rider is a nice-to-have, but it's not incorrect to not have it. Having owned gauntlets with and without, I would say that I would never go back to without knuckle riders.
But I don't see what's not the correct period about those. The original Churburg #13 has hourglass demis on it. That's the only style of gauntlet that goes with a late 14th century harness.
-
his cuffs look like giant bells
-
Yeah, those greaves perplex me. Why they would do them in that style irks me. I mean, Armstreet has clear examples of greaves made in a correct form (as much as can be expected with budget in mind) yet they use that odd style for their nicest harness to date.
The cuirass is also very flat for a Churburg #13 copy. Should be more globose. I would skip those greaves Sir Nathan, they will be wholly incompatible with sabs if you ever wanted to add them. Mikael at armstreet will customize things for you, so I would talk to him first. I think there are better options out there for more historically shaped pieces though.
Yeah, it is rather flat for the type, but I wouldn't consider it truly farby. I'd consider it period, but atypical (which in my book is worse than typical, but better than inaccurate). It does look well made though, and I think in execution it is way better than the other offerings by Armstreet.
I think for the greaves, and the leg harness, I will get a more utilitarian model, and request the greaves from this offering, which I admit still aren't shaped like a good custom greave, but aren't outright farby like the others with the weird cutoff.
I also probably wouldn't wear the harness with sabatons, as I want to retain a Germanic feel to it (in Germany, the effigies indicate that sabatons were entirely optional)
http://armstreet.com/store/armor/exclusive-knight-full-leg-armor-thigh-plates-knee-cops-greaves (http://armstreet.com/store/armor/exclusive-knight-full-leg-armor-thigh-plates-knee-cops-greaves)
-
Also beware that greaves that are not custom fitted will almost always become a hindrance to mobility. An improperly shaped breastplate can do the same. If a BP is even slightly long it will not sit on your waist, it will sit on your illiac crest and be very painful, or it will choke you when you lean forward or look down, or god forbid you fall it can crush your windpipe.
Maxim Suprovich can do more historical lines than Armstreet, and so can Jolly Knight more than likely for a similar price. Here's Jolly's Churburg #13 and I think it looks a lot better. It would also be cheaper in mild steel than that listed price (which is for stainless). I know you know this Nathan, but for some of the folks newer to Armor, one important thing to keep in mind is that historically shaped pieces are not just for Living History snobs, they're safer to wear, because those guys knew what they were doing when they shaped armor. Modern armorers who miss the proper shapes can be making armor that does not function correctly and can injure the person it's designed to protect!
http://jollyknight.com.ua/armoury/product_info.php?cPath=21_28&products_id=108 (http://jollyknight.com.ua/armoury/product_info.php?cPath=21_28&products_id=108)
(http://jollyknight.com.ua/armoury/images/jollyknight0585.JPG)
-
Hey, I'm loving this Jolly knight site. Awesome shaping at great prices! I think I'll peruse the site for kit possibilities.
-
Hey, I'm loving this Jolly knight site. Awesome shaping at great prices! I think I'll peruse the site for kit possibilities.
(in that dark robed pale star wars guy voice)
Yes.... yes.... let the armor purchasing desire flow through you...... good.......
Sir Nathan, sabatons are great! Did you forget about the sabaton-inspired "flying mortschlag of VARF 2013"? Don't you want to do the same? ;)
-
Haha thats funny, I was actually thinking of posting something about this new armor on the site. It so beautiful!
-
It's very pretty, but seems there's not much in the way of back protection.
Ian - what's your take on Armstreet's etched/stainless "paladin" armor?
-
It's very pretty, but seems there's not much in the way of back protection.
Ian - what's your take on Armstreet's etched/stainless "paladin" armor?
It's cool looking, but that's about it :)
It has no historical accuracy at all though. Not a single piece really... it's a mish-mash of different eras, and the individual pieces are not shaped properly to be historical. Etching is also not appropriate for anything short of the renaissance pretty much, it would have been engraved in the late medieval. And of course stainless is not appropriate. I can nit-pick if you want, but overall it's LARP armor, it's not historical at all.
-
It's very pretty, but seems there's not much in the way of back protection.
Ian - what's your take on Armstreet's etched/stainless "paladin" armor?
It's cool looking, but that's about it :)
It has no historical accuracy at all though. Not a single piece really... it's a mish-mash of different eras, and the individual pieces are not shaped properly to be historical. Etching is also not appropriate for anything short of the renaissance pretty much, it would have been engraved in the late medieval. And of course stainless is not appropriate. I can nit-pick if you want, but overall it's LARP armor, it's not historical at all.
Uh oh, sounds like you're talking about my harness - at least mine's not stainless. ;)
I have to say one of the characteristics that is tempting me if I were ever to get a second harness (I can hear Sir James whispering in my ear) as I'm getting older (and lazier) would be if it were a bit easier on the maintenance side. LOL
Yep, understood they're not going for historical accuracy - at least with that harness. So the ornate armors for Henry VIII and Maximillian (i.e., jousting armor) was engraved, rather than etched?
So, coming back to DoK and similar events, how strict are the requirements on armor, etc to participate? Is everything required to be exact recreations of established historical patterns, or (like in my case) are harnesses that may mix/combine elements from different periods generally disallowed, and their wearers tarred and feathered?
Understand may be hard to answer since you've not seen my armor in person, just trying to get a feel for the borders.
-
Uh oh, sounds like you're talking about my harness - at least mine's not stainless. ;)
I have to say one of the characteristics that is tempting me if I were ever to get a second harness (I can hear Sir James whispering in my ear) as I'm getting older (and lazier) would be if it were a bit easier on the maintenance side. LOL
Yep, understood they're not going for historical accuracy - at least with that harness. So the ornate armors for Henry VIII and Maximillian (i.e., jousting armor) was engraved, rather than etched?
So, coming back to DoK and similar events, how strict are the requirements on armor, etc to participate? Is everything required to be exact recreations of established historical patterns, or (like in my case) are harnesses that may mix/combine elements from different periods generally disallowed, and their wearers tarred and feathered?
Understand may be hard to answer since you've not seen my armor in person, just trying to get a feel for the borders.
Maintenance free armor is an oxymoron :)
Etching on armor existed in the 16th century as far as I know, but this is the renaissance. 14th century armor was engraved.
I'm about to go to the gym, so I don't have time to address the DoK requirements specifically, but I will when I return in an hour or two.
-
So, coming back to DoK and similar events, how strict are the requirements on armor, etc to participate? Is everything required to be exact recreations of established historical patterns, or (like in my case) are harnesses that may mix/combine elements from different periods generally disallowed, and their wearers tarred and feathered?
Understand may be hard to answer since you've not seen my armor in person, just trying to get a feel for the borders.
OK. You've asked two questions here, so I will address them in turn.
1. Does the form of the armor at Days of Knights need to be an exact recreation of existing known historical patterns?
No. It does not need to be a slavish reproduction of a proof-positive documentable piece of existing armor. It should not have any fantasy elements though. It should function like real armor, and appear like real armor. Although you don't need to be able to point to a particular manuscript or museum find to document your armor, you shouldn't have any armor that didn't exist in period. For example, there's no such thing as splinted torso protection, or plate gorgets from the 12th century. If you have to say "it's possible they may have had something like this, even though there's no proof" consider whatever it is you're saying that about, unacceptable for use. That's an invalid and illogical way to justify something, and does not pass muster. Now if you have sabatons that don't match the exact piece housed in Chartres Cathedral as made for Charles VI when he was Dauphin of France in the 14th century, that's fine, as long as your sabatons function, they look the part, are made from appropriate materials, and are appropriate for the time period you're portraying. As far as materials go, mild steel and spring steels are acceptable. Stainless steel and aluminum should be avoided.
2. Is it ok at DoK to mix/combine elements from different periods?
No. This is not ok. Everything on your harness should be cohesive and give the appropriate impression of whatever it is you're trying to depict within a reasonable span of time. Reasonable span of time is open for discussion, but a 14th century bascinet with a late 15th century plate harness is very much inappropriate. Things should probably be kept to within a couple decades of each other. Things that are within a couple decades of each other but clearly were never worn together in period would also not be appropriate. This extends to things from varying regions. For example, a highly fluted German gothic harness of the late 15th century wouldn't really have an Italian Armet for a helmet even though these two objects coexisted on the battlefield.
The reason for this is because the goal of Days of Knights is to educate the public on the realities of the Middle Ages as they were. If we start to bend what would have been and what might have been and go beyond the realm of what we know to have been, we begin to perpetuate the myths and fantasy that currently plague the modern public's understanding of the Medieval Era.
One of these myths in particular is that modern folks think of the Middle Ages as one cohesive period of time. They don't grasp that it spanned roughly 450 years from 1066 to the Renaissance at turn of the 16th century. To put this in perspective, Richard III died at Bosworth in 1485, about 500 years ago. William the Conqueror died in 1087, about 400 years before Richard III. To Richard III, William the Conqueror was just as archaic as Richard III is to us! So because of this we don't want to give the public the impression that styles of armor separated in time by 100 or more years would ever have appeared together on the battlefield, because it's just as misinformative and ridiculous as us trying to sell to the public that the modern military uses the same equipment as the soldiers of the Spanish American War.
________________________________________________________
As a general rule of thumb, strive for as accurate as possible. If something is clearly not accurate you should be in a position to explain to the public why it's not accurate and why you made the concession you did so as not to give the impression that what you're wearing is correct to the period if it is not. That being said, it's not about finding what you can get away with. It's about giving it your best shot at authenticity, but allowing for a few inevitable places where we all fall short, while simultaneously not being false to the public.
Here are the 'official' standards from the DoK website. They are a guideline:
http://daysofknightsfrankfort.com/html/standards.html (http://daysofknightsfrankfort.com/html/standards.html)
Everything I've said above also applies to soft kit, not just armor.
-
I like that armor.
-
As far as materials go, mild steel and spring steels are acceptable. Stainless steel and aluminum should be avoided.
Small note on this, I believe stainless mail is generally accepted if it isn't eye-piercingly bright. My mail is all stainless with a blackened coating, and I believe at least Robert the Templar and possible Terrence's was as well. One of the participants had a full stainless steel plate harness; I saw him near the jousters but didn't catch the joust itself, so I'm not sure if he was jousting. I'd call stainless plate the exception, rather than rule - avoid it if you can.
Aluminum seems to be completely out, as it should be. :)
Some things will inevitably come "close" but not "replica". Many people will base their armor off of period effigies or artwork. The harness I'm wearing in my avatar picture is what I wore at DoK in 2012, except I wore a plate gorget instead of mail standard, and had a fauld (darn voiders were out for tailoring and never got done - I felt naked).
Mine is very similar to a harness picture in one of the Eyewitness books; exceptions being primarily my sabatons should be rounded instead of pointed, the greaves/sabatons were a single piece, gauntlet should have a secondary knuckle/forefinger plate, and if I remember right the peascod cuirass has no faulds. I mention that because it's important to stay as close to original source as you can.
BUT - and this is a key but - the harness in that book that mine is similar to, as *many* harnesses in museums and such are, is a composite. That means it is pieces from similar areas and similar styles and similar times that are put together to look like a full suit of armor, although it wasn't all made for the same person or by the same person or even at the same armorer.
-
Small note on this, I believe stainless mail is generally accepted if it isn't eye-piercingly bright. My mail is all stainless with a blackened coating, and I believe at least Robert the Templar and possible Terrence's was as well.
True! My maille is mostly stainless and is blackened like yours as well James.
-
Small note on this, I believe stainless mail is generally accepted if it isn't eye-piercingly bright. My mail is all stainless with a blackened coating, and I believe at least Robert the Templar and possible Terrence's was as well.
True! My maille is mostly stainless and is blackened like yours as well James.
Yes, same with mine as well. I love the fact that it's available in an appearance that doesn't stand out as stainless.
-
I have to say one of the characteristics that is tempting me if I were ever to get a second harness (I can hear Sir James whispering in my ear) as I'm getting older (and lazier) would be if it were a bit easier on the maintenance side. LOL
How did I miss this?? I'm willing to forgive that you don't have a second harness when you start on your third harness. Who says I'm unreasonable? :D
-
So, coming back to DoK and similar events, how strict are the requirements on armor, etc to participate? Is everything required to be exact recreations of established historical patterns, or (like in my case) are harnesses that may mix/combine elements from different periods generally disallowed, and their wearers tarred and feathered?
Understand may be hard to answer since you've not seen my armor in person, just trying to get a feel for the borders.
OK. You've asked two questions here, so I will address them in turn.
1. Does the form of the armor at Days of Knights need to be an exact recreation of existing known historical patterns?
No. It does not need to be a slavish reproduction of a proof-positive documentable piece of existing armor. It should not have any fantasy elements though. It should function like real armor, and appear like real armor. Although you don't need to be able to point to a particular manuscript or museum find to document your armor, you shouldn't have any armor that didn't exist in period. For example, there's no such thing as splinted torso protection, or plate gorgets from the 12th century. If you have to say "it's possible they may have had something like this, even though there's no proof" consider whatever it is you're saying that about, unacceptable for use. That's an invalid and illogical way to justify something, and does not pass muster. Now if you have sabatons that don't match the exact piece housed in Chartres Cathedral as made for Charles VI when he was Dauphin of France in the 14th century, that's fine, as long as your sabatons function, they look the part, are made from appropriate materials, and are appropriate for the time period you're portraying. As far as materials go, mild steel and spring steels are acceptable. Stainless steel and aluminum should be avoided.
2. Is it ok at DoK to mix/combine elements from different periods?
No. This is not ok. Everything on your harness should be cohesive and give the appropriate impression of whatever it is you're trying to depict within a reasonable span of time. Reasonable span of time is open for discussion, but a 14th century bascinet with a late 15th century plate harness is very much inappropriate. Things should probably be kept to within a couple decades of each other. Things that are within a couple decades of each other but clearly were never worn together in period would also not be appropriate. This extends to things from varying regions. For example, a highly fluted German gothic harness of the late 15th century wouldn't really have an Italian Armet for a helmet even though these two objects coexisted on the battlefield.
The reason for this is because the goal of Days of Knights is to educate the public on the realities of the Middle Ages as they were. If we start to bend what would have been and what might have been and go beyond the realm of what we know to have been, we begin to perpetuate the myths and fantasy that currently plague the modern public's understanding of the Medieval Era.
One of these myths in particular is that modern folks think of the Middle Ages as one cohesive period of time. They don't grasp that it spanned roughly 450 years from 1066 to the Renaissance at turn of the 16th century. To put this in perspective, Richard III died at Bosworth in 1485, about 500 years ago. William the Conqueror died in 1087, about 400 years before Richard III. To Richard III, William the Conqueror was just as archaic as Richard III is to us! So because of this we don't want to give the public the impression that styles of armor separated in time by 100 or more years would ever have appeared together on the battlefield, because it's just as misinformative and ridiculous as us trying to sell to the public that the modern military uses the same equipment as the soldiers of the Spanish American War.
________________________________________________________
As a general rule of thumb, strive for as accurate as possible. If something is clearly not accurate you should be in a position to explain to the public why it's not accurate and why you made the concession you did so as not to give the impression that what you're wearing is correct to the period if it is not. That being said, it's not about finding what you can get away with. It's about giving it your best shot at authenticity, but allowing for a few inevitable places where we all fall short, while simultaneously not being false to the public.
Here are the 'official' standards from the DoK website. They are a guideline:
http://daysofknightsfrankfort.com/html/standards.html (http://daysofknightsfrankfort.com/html/standards.html)
Everything I've said above also applies to soft kit, not just armor.
Thanks, Ian - that's a lot to chew on. I do understand the need to set boundaries and to strive for authenticity especially for what is intended to be primarily an educational event.
That said - and I admit you're obviously much more knowledgeable than I - seems to me folks could also keep in mind that surviving examples are not exhaustive, and there are certainly precedents for what appears to be fantasy-inspired or decorative armor pieces, even if worn only ceremonially or intended mostly for display, especially in later periods.
Well, if I'm run out on a rail I guess you can't say I wasn't warned :)
-
I am somewhat guilty of the "Mix and match" stuff, as I reenact the 13th century and I used plate shynbalds and knee cops instead of maille chausses and wore a modified visby coat of plates over my maille. I did read however some of the visby armor dated from about 1290 and was long obsolete and I have seen period art with knee cops and shynbalds of those dating from the 1250s so I think it's fine to use it in the year 1300 like I was doing at DoK 2. Sure both of these were used on higher ranking nobles but my medieval persona is higher ranking anyway due to my quartered coat of arms. I am however working on trying to find a solution for my chausses, already sealed the back with rings now to attach some soles to the bottom so I can put them on. After that I am switching to chausses rather than schynbalds and knee cops, and I am never wearing my coat of plates over my maille again, it was WAYYY too heavy being 16 gauge and having added back plates for SCA combat, i'd need a 20 gauge one with no overlapping plates similar to Joe Metz's one.
-
That said - and I admit you're obviously much more knowledgeable than I - seems to me folks could also keep in mind that surviving examples are not exhaustive, and there are certainly precedents for what appears to be fantasy-inspired or decorative armor pieces, even if worn only ceremonially or intended mostly for display, especially in later periods.
While surviving examples are not exhaustive, for the purposes of living history we cannot just fill in the gaps without historical precedent if we want to be representative of the things we know existed. When surviving examples fail, which they often do for anything pre-15th century we have manuscripts, artwork, effigies, and brasses to tell us what was used. Effigies and brasses are of particular importance because of their level of detail, and significantly lower chance of artistic shortcuts like you'd see in manuscript illuminations and paintings. In the absence of any of that evidence, we have nothing and can't just 'suppose' what would have been.
Think of Living History this way. If you were a professor preparing a lecture for a group of students on Medieval History, would you intentionally teach them things you know to be false, or that you couldn't point to a source document or another historian's work to show that what you're teaching is likely without thorough research? No history professor worth his PhD would tell a group of students "This might have been because it looks cool to the modern aesthetic and it might have been possible." That's what we're doing every time we try to justify what 'might have been,' without any supporting evidence.
There are plenty of examples of fanciful ceremonial armor, like half the stuff Emperor Maximilian made and shipped out to his buddy's all over Europe for example. However, these things while not purposed for the battlefield and quite exotic looking are also functional works of art that most modern armorer's couldn't even hope to duplicate except for a vague outside resemblance. So be very careful if you want a reproduction of something like that for living history purposes because chances are it wouldn't even come close to doing the original justice. There are a few guys out there who have done excellent repros of the Horned Maximilian helm, but they're expensive to say the least :)
(http://www.royalarmouries.org/assets-uploaded/images/source/Full-Horned-Helmet2.jpg)
-
Gareyth, there is always the option of just soft kit, or earlier/simple armor at Days of Knights. I'd say maybe 15% or 20% of the participants are in armor, and the rest are not. Soft kit is much easier to do something historical, as it is cheaper, easy to buy off the rack from a few places, and clothing styles didn't change as much and as quickly as armor styles did (given my limited clothing knowledge anyway).
-
Gareyth, there is always the option of just soft kit, or earlier/simple armor at Days of Knights. I'd say maybe 15% or 20% of the participants are in armor, and the rest are not. Soft kit is much easier to do something historical, as it is cheaper, easy to buy off the rack from a few places, and clothing styles didn't change as much and as quickly as armor styles did (given my limited clothing knowledge anyway).
A good point. Days of Knights, despite its title, is not just about fully armored impressions. The vast majority of people who have participated the last two years do soft-kit only impressions, or just some components of armor as would be seen by a non-noble man-at-arms. I'm going to disagree that clothing styles didn't change as quickly as armor did, because martial and civil style was very much interrelated, especially during the later middle ages (14th and 15th in particular). They often drove each other's change. But it's still much easier to pull off a decent soft-kit.
Historic Enterprises can get you in a very DoK acceptable soft-kit for a couple hundred bucks, cap-a-pie, including accessories. There's also no requirement for an encampment.
-
Good LH intro for the unwashed, thanks Ian. Yes, those Maximillian armors are wild. Saw some of his jousting armor (think it was etched) in Ljubljana last year. He and Henry VIII really went all out. Didn't hurt they could afford to, of course :)
Also appreciate all the helpful comments/excellent input from others as well.
While encampment isn't required, we'd like to participate and I hope if we make an effort to conform as close as possible to guidelines and be ready to highlight and explain where we may fall short that we'll be welcome.
I have gone back to the smiths for their take on this, but given materials, techniques and style I'm going to try and research the range of compatability of my harness with the central european field harnesses of the period it acknowledges.
Any thoughts on that here also appreciated, of course.
-
Good LH intro for the unwashed, thanks Ian. Yes, those Maximillian armors are wild. Saw some of his jousting armor (think it was etched) in Ljubljana last year. He and Henry VIII really went all out. Didn't hurt they could afford to, of course :)
Also appreciate all the helpful comments/excellent input from others as well.
While encampment isn't required, we'd like to participate and I hope if we make an effort to conform as close as possible to guidelines and be ready to highlight and explain where we may fall short that we'll be welcome.
I have gone back to the smiths for their take on this, but given materials, techniques and style I'm going to try and research the range of compatability of my harness with the central european field harnesses of the period it acknowledges.
Any thoughts on that here also appreciated, of course.
If you want, start a new thread on your kit development specifically, give us what you're shooting for as narrow as possible (i.e. what 25 year span you're shooting for, region, status etc), and then we can work from there.
-
Oh, to be younger and svelter - and wealthy!
-
It's the wealth bit. Trust me, I got youth in spades, and I'm no closer to Jeff Wasson harness than anyone else here... :P (expecting the case of Sir Ian, who's wearing one in his avatar)
-
(expecting the case of Sir Ian, who's wearing one in his avatar)
...that took years to acquire...and is still missing pieces :)
Oh, to be younger and svelter - and wealthy!
We've been over this Mark... I can't help with the age or money, but go buy a pair of UDT shorts and come out to Virginia Beach and we'll work on the svelte part! ;)