I agree with you, also the book I mentioned places the beads in a later time period than Franchini. the link is to the Picard page showing various examples of the same (picture is of one of the beads in the link). Also there are several examples pictured on the inside cover of the Picard book:
"Volume VI, Millefiori Beads, 88 pages with 68 full color plates featuring over 3000 Venetian beads traded in Africa,Introduction on the history of millefiori work by Jamey D. Allen"

I thought when I first saw this post from Degumay Sareh that this was a very early, modern era, venetian bead, possibly with Franchini canes. The image is not very clear but the colour palette and general appearance are similar to illustrations from the book Miniature di Vetro: murrine di vetro 1838-1924 by Giovanni Sarpellon. In particular there is a picture (556) of a paper weight with rosetta cane decoration which looks similar though the text states that similar paper weights have been produced in Venice since the 1400s. Possibly the first modern era tubular millefiori beads (553) are shown (8 beads) though they were probably never commercially produced.

The book talks about the revival of the art of glass making in Venice after it had almost disappeared in the early 1800's. In particular it deals with the 19th/20th century production of figurative canes depicting animals, portraits, flowers, buildings etc. The procedure for producing figurative canes develops from chevron/rosetta and latticino through concentric complex millefiori to figurative canes. Franchini produced canes made up from more than 160 simple canes.

The development of the modern millefiori bead would seem to date from no earlier than the 1830's and more probably from the 1840's.

On a slightly different but related subject, has anyone heard of "bandiera beads"? They are round or oval millefiori cane decorated beads found in Ethiopia. Each bead is decorated with a variety of different cane slices and tends to have fairly abundant base glass showing between the incompletely marvered (is that the term?) slices. I have been told that they are earlier than other millefiori beads by someone whose opinion I respect. They also look to me to be earlier.

it looks very similar to image 31 from Sarpellon's book. The text says in relation to the image that the main use for these rosetta canes were as chevron beads but that they are also found enclosed in small spheres of clear glass (cristallo) or as vessels/jugs (brocchette). Very few of these objects are known and they are usually dated between the 15th and the beginning of the 16th centuries.

Image 31 is referred to as a bead containing fragments of rosetta cane and gold leaf and is dated to the end of the 15th century. It was found in the Venice lagoon.

Franchini produced a giant bead (88mm in diameter) image no. 555 which also has some similarities though it uses a much greater variety of millefiori murrine (mostly not rosetta)and trailed decoration. Unlike Degumeh's bead and the Peruvian bead, none of the millefiori murrine are used longitudinally.

Does anyone know whether it is permissible to photograph and post an image from a published work? Is it necessary to get the permission of the copyright holder/s?

The bead doesn't have "layers"—but rather has scattered random millefiori decoration—forming it's own layer, on the base and below the clear exterior.

In early Venetian millefiori beads, there is some congruency between their star canes and the canes for early chevron beads. But it is more than merely counting layers. And the millefiori beads have more variety (in their canes) than do corresponding star canes used in rosetta/chevron beads of the same time.

Jamey

... of the image of Degumeh’s bead and Carl’s link which shows a comparable bead. The caption for this bead reads “Venetian wound glass bead. Pieces and fragments of 7 layer chevrons embedded in clear glass.
Found in Peru.
Billy Steinberg collection 23mm x 21mm”

And close observation in an attempt to identify a bead perhaps.

Hi Brian,

As I remarked here recently, I have looked for, found, and documented more specimens of early Venetian millefiori beads than anyone else in the world—having pursued this since 1980.

I believe I saw the first such bead to be recovered in Peru by a professional archaeologist, who had no idea what it was—though I recognized it from the description over the phone, and high-tailed to Los Angeles to see it (in a slide). Unfortunately, that bead was misplaced and was never published. It was nearly ten years later that the beads—such as from the Steinberg collection—circulated and were privately sold. I have handled and photographed all of these beads, as best I know.

I have documented early Venetian millefiori beads from West Africa, Peru, England, Holland, and Israel. I own the Israeli specimen—and it's different from any others, but still well within keeping for congruency with early rosetta beads.

I WILL answer your questions, and thereby make a visual presentation here in the near future. (Nevertheless, please understand I HAVE shown these beads in the past here, and published them elsewhere!) In the meantime, generalizations that you have read are not necessarily wrong, but do not tell much of the story, vis-a-vis aspects such as "layer number in canes used in early Venetian millefiori." I have the bigger picture. The phrasing that suggests "pieces and fragments of 7 layer chevrons" were used in the decoration of these beads is a convenience to make a point. But it is technically inaccurate. I aim to be technologically precise and accurate. While there are some beads that have chevron beads, or pieces of them, as decorations, these particular beads typically do not.

Jamey

any (quick) tips on locating the beads in question on BCN. As I said I'm looking forward to seeing any information on the subject and particularly yours if and when you have time.

I asked this question in a previous post in the thread but I'd like to take this opportunity to ask it again and to address it to you in person.

Does anybody know anything about "bandiera beads", an early(?) manifestation of modern era Venetian millefiori? Available but difficult to find now in Ethiopia? They were very popular with buyers for the Japanese market and presumably nearly all ended up in Japan?

Hi Brian,

I don't know this name at, in the context of beads. But what surprises me are the details of the story. Early Venetian millefiori beads that traveled to Ethiopia, but wound up in Japan (?). It all seems very unlikely.

How did you happen to hear this tale?

"Bandiera" is Italian for flag. Since the Italian flag—the tricolore—has bands of red, white, and green, we might expect such beads to have something like this (or the colors of other nations' flags). Lots of Venetian beads have multicolored trailed lines that resemble Italian (and other ) flags—as well as patterns I call "banners" that look like small flags or pennants. While these are composed from multi-colored elements, the work is not millefiori work (though it might be mistakenly said to be that).

It's very curious........

Jamey

I visted Addis Ababa twice, late 90s and early 00s, and saw a few bandera beads the first time I went. They were being offered for sale at, if I remember correctly, 10 dollars each which I thought was too expensive especially as there were lots lamp worked beads and a few islamics available. I think the dealers mentioned on that occasion that they had customers from Japan who were happy to pay their asking price.

The second time I went I had decided to buy some banderas but had real trouble finding any. I eventually found some with a dealer called "Shifta" who had a shop fairly close to the centre. "Shifta" means robber, in Amharic I guess! He had about 5 and I chose only two of them as the price had gone up to 15 dollars each.

While I was in Addis on this occasion I met an Englih guy based in Paris and an Italian guy based in Venice who were also buying. They were on business while I was in the fortunate position to be there because it's close to Saudi Arabia where I worked and you could find cool beads and silver. It's also close enough to Yemen to combine visiting both.

I asked Andrea about bandera beads and he told me that he never bought them as he would be unable to sell them in Europe for the price they were being sold for in Ethiopia. If my memory serves me he confirmed that the market for them was in Japan and said that they were older than your ordinary millefiori. Interestingly there weren't that many ordinary millefiori and there were no tubular millefiori. As I mentioned before the great majority of the Venetian beads were a limited range of lamp work beads, lots of "skunk", but by sifting through you could find some unusual colour variations or different patterns. Lots of Czech beads as well, though again lots of quantity but limited variety.

I thought the fact that they were called "bandera" rather than bandiera was significant as Italian is still quite widely spoken in Addis. Clearly they are "flag" beads but in Spanish or Portuguese! Or maybe it's just a common mispronunciation of "bandiera".

Anyway, unlikely as the whole story may seem I returned home with, among others, two bandera beads.

Unfortunately I was so intrigued by, or perhaps, fell in love with these round millefori that when I had the opportunity of buying either a load of kiffas or a load of round millefiori at the same price, I went with the millefioris. When I was buying them I knew that they weren't bandera beads (they were from West Africa) mainly because they were mostly slightly smaller, didn't have base glass showing between the murrine and on closer examination nearly all had cadmium selenium reds and yellows (imho and limited experience).

Anyway I still like these beads (just as well) and I still have my two bandera beads which I would love to post pics of but unfortunately I put them together with the round millis! So I can no longer be 100% sure that any bead in my collection that I identify as a bandera bead is really from East rather than West Africa.

However, I do feel fairly confident that I can distinguish between the two kinds. I remember seeing a bead on David ----'s site African Trade Beads that I would identify as a bandera bead and from his description he also felt that it was different enough from normal round milli's to single it out. From memory, he noted that the murrine were not completely marvered into the bead base and that base glass was visible round the murrine. Oh, it was also cheaper than the beads I bought in Addis!

You may have noticed that I go in for long and rambling when it comes to posts. Hope that doesn't overly irritate.
Brian

Hi Brian,

Well, it's an interesting story, all around.

I am assuming that "the Italian guy" and Andrea are the same person—and I presume this is Michel's partner (Andrea Turchetto), who travels to Africa to bring old beads back to Venice. Michel and Andrea are both exceedingly nice and knowledgeable beadmen.

Some small advice related to terms. "Tubular" implies more than just a shape. It implies a manufacture. A drawn bead is "tubular," because it's derived from a longer tube of glass (a cane). A wound bead is not "tubular," but rather "cylindrical."

I will be curious to see the bandera bead(s) sometime, when you can show them to us.

Be well. Jamey

sometime yesterday evening and started using it. Thanks again Jamey for your interest, I really appreciate it and have the greatest respect for your experience and above all else for your willingness to share it. Terminology however can be intimidating!

I was pleased enough with my tentative identification of Degumeh’s bead to want to share it .

It’s turns out that it is not an early modern millefiori bead from the first half of the 19th century but a precursor to those beads produced 4 or 5 hundred years earlier! As Sarpellon points out with regard to the example he shows.

For me, the point is that my understanding of the development of Venetian beads has taken a step forward.

I knew, thanks to the work of interested and enthusiastic bead lovers and researchers not least Mr Allen, that rosetta canes and beads have been produced since the late 1400s. I also knew that most of the millefiori beads in circulation were produced in the 20th century. I knew from Sarpellon’s books that millefiori cane, which is a development of rosetta and latticino cane was reinvented by Domenico Bussolin in 1838 in imitation of ancient glass.

Sarpellon says that by the end of the 1700s the glass industry in Venice was close to extinction due to the fierce competition from glassmakers in Bohemia, Stiria and Carinzia. For example latticino in blown glass was no longer produced. However cane for bead production both with and without holes was still relatively vital.

Cane for bead production without holes could have been used either for producing “strica” (see below) or for lampworking.

The only polychrome and or non circular canes with holes ie bead canes that were in production were “strica” and “angolari”. Strica were canes that had longitudinal coloured lines and angolari were monochromatic polygonal canes.

These two canes and the resulting beads sound like, in the first case drawn striped beads some of which could have been heat rounded and, in the second case, Russian blues.

This presumably means that all? millefiori cane decorated beads (as opposed to rosetta cane) are either ancient Greek and Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, early medieval (Germanic tribes, Vikings)
or post 1838 and more likely post 1850.
What I still don’t have a very clear handle on is what the earliest large scale and increasingly large scale millefiori beads look like. In other words I’m looking for a mental millefiori time line between 1850 and the first appearance of millefiori on dated sample cards.

There are two clear differences between the 1900s millefiori beads and three Italian renaissance examples (Degumeh’s, the Sarpellon illustration and the bead in the Billy Steinberg collection). The 1900s beads are covered completely or in part with murrine which are marvered into the base glass but not covered with a layer of clear glass and they use millefiori and/or rosetta cane.

The renaissance examples use only rosetta cane and are covered in a layer of clear glass.

The first beads produced by the 19th century pioneers, Bussolin, Bigaglia, Franchetti etc appear use both rosetta and millefiori but appear to have a thin layer of clear glass. They were not produced in commercial quantities. They appear to tend toward a darker colour palette, like the renaissance beads.

Presumably there are intermediate stages in development from the earliest 19th century beads to the flood of 20th century millefiori beads. Is it possible to identify them?

Two further question for anyone who has bothered to read this far.

Giorgio mentions the earliest known dated sample card “that of Giorgio Benedetto Barbaria who donated a splendid sample card of his production to the Austrian Franz I in 1815; this sample card is kept in Technisches Museum in Wien, and two partial pictures are to be found in "Glass Beads from Europe" by Sibylle Jargstorf, Schiffer Ed., 1995, pages 60-61.”

Are there any millefiori or rosetta cane decorated beads on this card?

Which are the earliest dated sample cards which show millefiori and/or rosetta cane decorated beads?

I suspect they are from the end of the 19th century but hope not.

Anyway, I quite enjoyed this little voyage towards my own slightly clearer understanding and hope that sharing it might be enjoyable, provoking, productive for others.

I welcome comments, discussion and disagreements in the interests of my education.

Oh, by the way Domenico Bussolin died in penury, having had to rely on the charity of a group of glassworkers who gave him a little each month to live on. Giovanni Battista Franchini on the other hand went mad. All that time and effort trying to produce portraits in glass 3cms in diameter using tens of different skin tones. All to produce a cane 12cms long. And nobody appreciated it at the time!

Best wishes to all, most especially to David and Joyce and Joyce and David :) for making this possible and to Jamey for sharing his time and (despite his protests) expertise.

Hello,

The earliest millefiori that we know is #360 on the Venetian bead book in the British museum (circa 1850/1865). Here is a not very good picture of it.
It is scattered with slices of blue and green rosetta cane over a trail decorated bead.
We have a very similar bead on the cover of our millefiori book as #29.
So far we have not seen others, but it might come someday.
JP

John is showing the exact bead I referred to earlier, from the Venetian Sample Book in the British Museum (formerly at a smaller satellite museum—The Museum of Mankind—when I photographed these samples in the early 90s).

So this is the bead I would have shown too.

The colors of the star canes are like conventional modern star canes, as used for making rosetta beads, except that the conventional "red" layer, placed between two white layers and overlaid by cobalt blue (or green in some pieces), here is an opaque light purple or lavender color—this feature making the bead unique in my experience (I say with considerable surprise).

I will endeavor to show my photo of this bead, as I promised, when I can format a scan.

Jamey

hello Jamey
thanks for pointing out the very unusual purple layer, also the cross looking core of the canes is not the regular circle
Hopefully you have a better picture to show the details
JP

I will make a point of seeing this when I'm next in London.

It certainly gives an idea of what, at least one kind of, early modern millefiori looks like.

and vii are unfortunately the only books from your series I don't have here.

However, while looking around I noticed that the sample cards shown in Lois Dubin's original "History of Beads", the famous "gold,ivory, palm oil,slaves" cards, are from the Moses Lewin Levin 1865 series.

So easy to read the information, so difficult to assimilate it! "History of Beads" must have been the first book I read about beads but it still hadn't registered with me that the sample cards were so early.

I was so taken with the image that compares "sulaimani" beads with glass imitations that I started looking for them, eventually finding them in Pakistan on a carpet buying trip.

The millefiori bead is not on any of these four cards. Are there other cards or just individual beads in this series?

hello
the bead in question is on the Venetian Bead book, not on the Levin cards
The book and the cards have been very well documented in "Glass beads" by Karlis Karklins
I will try to show latter some millefiori that maybe from that time frame
JP

Unfortunately I don't have the Karklins book. I understand from what you have said that the Venetian Bead book is in the British Museum and from the same period as the Levin sample cards?

Brian

Hi Brian,

I believe there were two editions of Karlis' book on the Levin Catalogue, both published by Parks Canada, and both now out-of-print. The second one, of course, was a revised and more-desirable version to acquire and own.

Nevertheless, Karlis' most recent work related to this topic is a very decent article that was presented in Beads Number 16, for 2004 (though published a couple of years later). This is the same issue that has my article on the Carroll Report and the history of glass-beadmaking at Venice—so it's a worthwhile publication to have—and you can still buy it. See the link below.

Be well. Jamey

and your information regarding it and the "Beads" article are precious. Tx

Here are some bottles of mine with face canes for comparison to the Franchini canes.

since everything since the invention of the wheel could be considered a copy and variation of something done previous, Franchini copied the ancient bead makers and brought the art of picture canes to its absolute zenith in the history of the art at that moment in time. Others have done well with the art also. I wonder if the makers of the articles with the more recent face and picture canes were attempting to copy Franchini? I don't recall seeing an assortment of Franchini "trade beads" but there are numerous examples of the more recent faces appearing on all types of beads. Also I think the faces on the beads are some incredible works in their own right, "poorly" just doesn't describe these little works of art. Until the past few years there have not been any glass artists that could compete with even the "poorly" "copied" examples and even these modern versions are lacking the character of some of the varieties on the perfume bottles and beads.
Just my opinion....

I think you are correct Thomas.
To say that all face cane bottles and beads are poorly copeid examples of Franchini is not fair.

This can be said for those items that are being presented as Franchini. I think this was the point Jamey was trying to make. In their own right many of these older canes are great works of skill even if they don't compare to Franchini and can be appreciated as such.

Wayne

My statement was in no way to be taken to imply the newer faces are Franchini canes, as I said, Franchini was the master, not many come remotely close. Any who pass their items off as having been done by Franchini when they are not, are either badly misinformed or outright crooks!
PS I'll take a dozen beads or perfume bottles any day (right price of course)

Hi Thomas,

People have rendered the human form, and its various parts since the original creation of art (and beads), via several techniques—not the least of which are painting and sculpture.

The sculpted manufacture of head and faces evolved into the glass-arts of the Eastern Mediterranean by 500 BCE (+ or -), and were displaced by millefiori images just a few centuries later. Egyptian canes from the Roman Period represent the best efforts to depict humans and gods pictorially, though the beads of that time are not their best efforts—which can be found in larger canes, supposedly used in revetments (architectural features mounted on walls).

Venetians were exposed to Roman Period glassworks ate at least two critical times—these being the mid-15th C., when they devised their own versions of mosaic-glass works (and invented rosetta beads, as well as millefiori); and in the mid-19th C. when they revived this work in-earnest (though it had not entirely disappeared, in the meantime).

I think it's possible that Franchini was inspired by Roman Period glassworks, and possibly even beads—but I don't recall that this was frankly stated. But glass historians say there was a lot of hubbub at Venice when ancient mosaic-glass was recovered in Rome, and shown to Venetians—who immediately wanted to try their hands at making similar products. So, at both times, these inspirational events changed the nature of glassworking at Venice, and created new artistic paradigms.

I'm not here to say say that the work of people who came soon after Franchini are terrible (!).

Far from it. My point has been merely to say that these works are inferior to the work of Franchini—and that it is visually possible to SEE that, and to distinguish between them. And this helps people understand these issues, and to not be fooled into accepting and/or buying a later inferior piece as a "Franchini" piece. As an artist, I also share my opinion that most of the pieces created after his death—whether they use his canes, or if they use later simpler canes, are inferior pieces—IN AN ART SENSE. However, anyone who likes these items, likes them. But their increase in prestige and value, that is based upon a false notion that these were made by Franchini, is mistaken and misguided.

From the 1960s into the '70s, Roman Period mosaic-glass (or millefiori) face beads became very prestigious items to own. Scientific American did a great pictorial and well-researched article on them—as did Robert Liu when he began publishing The Bead Journal. I know for a fact that these beads were rare and not easily acquired—and people were astounded that they might cost as much as $150. each (!). Now, the routine price for such beads varies between $3,000 and $5,000 each. and this has come about because of the cultivated popularity of the genre, as well as avid searching (rifling?) through antiquities to find and sell them.

By the 1980s, a new shift in glassworking began to occur, when studio artists took up beadmaking, and began to replicate the products of antiquity, as well as arty modern beads (by which I mean the products of Venice and Czechoslovakia). And it was inevitable that these artisans would do exactly what everyone else in this field had done before them. They COPIED beads as fast as they could master the technology. And then, people who studied with these artists went out and did the same thing—and a movement was born. By 1993, mosaic-glass face beads had been made, and the Society of Glass Beadmakers was established. (I'm thinking of Brian Kirkvliet first, followed by Loren Stump.) But these people are much more likely to have copied Roman Period glass, rather than to have had any exposure to and inspiration from Franchini. But it was still a few years away that anyone was successful in evolving away from cartoony faces, and toward making actual portraits. Isis Ray has been very successful at making reproductions of Roman Period Egyptian plaques (the faces that are more complicated than those found on beads). And lately, an artist in Berkeley, CA has done remarkable work—her name being Emiko Sawamoto—whose work so impressed me that I asked her to participate at the IBBC in Istanbul in 2007. There are others, of course, but I don't know that anyone has equaled, let alone surpassed, Franchini, yet.

Nevertheless, MANY new mosaic-glass pictorial pieces surpass the work that I characterize as being derivative of Franchini's work—the pieces made soon after his death, that are found on "perfume bottles" and the like (just as Franchini's canes were used after his death), that were made BECAUSE his work remained in the public eye, or was brought to the attention of the public again.

And that's just my opinion.

Jamey

I like very much murrine by Antonio dei Rossi. Some of them can be seen at the following link:
http://www.mostlyglass.com/dei_rossi,_antonio.htm
Giorgio

... Dei Rossi's cold working "composite" technique with Franchini's hot lamp work.

they both use the same methods

I think Franchini made his murrine by lamp working in order to produce polychrome canes which he subsequently used to produce more complex canes. The difference is that he hot worked all stages. I am relying for my information on the Sarpellon book mentioned in a previous post in this thread. It quite possible that I have misunderstood.

Sarpellon distinguishes the techniques used by Franchini and his precursor, the reinventer of the millefiori technique, Bussolin who produced his canes at the glassmaker's furnace. The technique used by Dei Rossi is different again and is more like making a cold mosaic of glass canes to make the complete image.The canes are not fused until they are taken to the furnace.

Franchini did the same cold bundling for the individual parts that were then heated and pulled and then added to other bundles already done, then reheated and pulled again, I think that is why he went crazy at the end of his life!

... that he was heating the canes with an oil lamp rather than an oven? And that as you say, he was making canes that he then used to compose more complex canes rather than composing the whole image then fusing it. I am, in any case, well beyond the limits of my experience here, and relying on my understanding of the writen descriptions of processes which I have never seen.

Hi you two,

Composited canes, as I have characterized them, have two different approaches. In one—the bundled rod method, tiny sticks of glass (very thin rods or canes) are composed to form an image, are tied around their circumference, carefully heated, then fused at a high temperature, and finally drawn (pulled) to miniaturize the design. In the second method, there are also individual preformed parts, but they are fused together and added-to. When extremely complicated canes are being made, the latter is almost required, in order to get the detail desired. Plus, lots of details are derived from hot-working the elements—adding a strip of glass and tooling it into the desired conformations. This work is not strictly "rods composed together," and is performed with semi-molten glass in a heated state.

Franchini made individual features for his faces—such as eye canes, nose canes, mouth canes, etc., and eventually fused them together to compose the whole face—including also details like hair and clothing, and the all-important "background."

I duplicated all this, when I worked with Fimo in the 1980s and '90s, to create similar types of constructions—which I was able to do because I already understood these techniques.

A third method, that I also consider to be closely related to compositing, is the "hot-strip" technique, used at India. They don't use much (if any) in the way of preformed rods, but rather rely upon making, shaping, adding and reconforming trails—taken directly from a crucible. (Consequently, we have a very good parallel to the differences between "furnace-wound" beads and "lampwork" beads—the latter being derived from preformed elements. ) In India, they have two tools (one larger than the other, but both similar), that are like trowels—that are used for tooling the parts of the cane gather.

The most common beads we see in the marketplace that are derived from this work are the Indian copies of chevron and rosetta beads—that they have made since about 1985.

All of this composite work contrasts with the other cane manufactures, typical of Venice, that demand creating a gather that is hot-worked from its inception, involves layering (of other colors of glass) onto the base, and (in the instance of molded cane patterns) may be tooled via the use of an open dip-mold (such as what is now called an "optical mold" by today's glassworkers). Certain figural or semi-figural elements, usually found in the centers of mosaic-glass canes, are probably derived from a small gather that is tooled-to-shape. (I'm thinking of patterns such as the popular "rooster"—that could just as easily be a "duck," "gondola," or the letters "V" or "C.")

Needless to say, any hot-worked cane-gathers may be further elaborated by the inclusion or addition of preformed elements. As such, I characterize these as "hybrid canes" in my classification system (as shown in the article posted here). I also include, as hybrids, composited canes that have been made from hot-worked layered (and/or molded) elements.

As far as I know, to this day, there is still no cane-molding practiced in India. However, the Chinese have molded canes in the Venetian style since around the 1920s or '30s—and continue to do this—as we all know (!).

I hope this sheds some light.

Jamey

I have read your post with interest and I will read it again more closely as it is difficult (for me) to assimilate all your information.

It is so easy to miss things and to misunderstand!

The father and son dei Rossi's live on Torcello, I believe (if I'm wrong, it's Burano - definitely not Murano or Venice). But good luck trying to see them (in the flesh)! I have one portrait cane slice that I'll photograph when I'm home. I also have a real Franchini - just one little portrait cane, authenticated by Luigi. I'm sure I'll have difficulty photographing them because I'm just not very good at it. But I'll do my best.