Flying Fish by gak1965 - FINISHED - Model Shipways - 1:96

[gak1965]

Hi all. I was hoping to reach out to the collective wisdom of the FIsh and McKay clipper ship builders out there. Having finished fabrication of the starboard side chain plates for the fore mast has me thinking that I will soon be able to start running shrouds, and I find I often need to spend a few days staring at plans to understand everything that needs doing properly. Usually the shrouds are pretty straightforward, but this time the plans do not make much sense to me, so hence my questions to you all.

 

Take a look at the segment of the plans below showing the lower shrouds for the main and mizzen masts:

 

 

Most of it makes sense. For example, looking at the main, we have 5 different size deadeyes (16", 12", 9", 6", and 5.25") that are reduced to the three supplied deadeye sizes supplied with the kit (3/16 for the 16", 1/8" for the 12, and 3/32 for the rest). Fine. But the rest of the numbers make no sense to me at all. 10.5" shrouds on the main with 1.5" ratlines (right side of the image just over the shroud lanyards)? 8.25" shrouds with 1.5" ratlines on the mizzen (right side of the shrouds, halfway up)? That can't be right, those are the sizes of mooring lines on aircraft carriers, not shrouds on a clipper. The lines arranged side to side would cover more than 1/2" on the model at the top. And at scale a 10.5" line would be 4 times the diameter of the largest line that comes with the kit.

 

I must be missing something here. Open to any suggestions as to where I have gone astray, or thoughts around 'typical' shroud sizes on McKay clippers.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

George K

 

[Rick310]

George, I’m not sure but I think the sizes given are the circumference and not the diameter.  I need to check the plans when I get home.  I think on plan 4? There is a conversion table

Rick

[gak1965]

2 hours ago, Rick310 said:

George, I’m not sure but I think the sizes given are the circumference and not the diameter.  I need to check the plans when I get home.  I think on plan 4? There is a conversion table

Rick

That makes sense. 10.5 inches in circumference is a 3.4 inch diameter which is 0.035 inch at scale, against a .028 largest diameter thread provided with the kit.

 

I knew something was off in my read of the plans.

 

Thanks!

 

George K

Edited April 29, 2022 by gak1965

[Rick310]

Glad to help. Lord knows I need all the help I can get!

Rick

[ClipperFan]

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/News/BDA/BDA(1851-11-04).html#:~:text=This is the fourth clipper,vessels%2C or to one another.

 

Flying Fish construction details from Duncan MacLean's incredibly detailed description of her at launch. Included is a description of the exact diameter range of standing rigging on the ship herself. He also mentions that iron was used for the shrouds. Anyone wanting precise construction details of many of McKay's Clippers can find them in Lars Bruzelius's website.

[gak1965]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/News/BDA/BDA(1851-11-04).html#:~:text=This is the fourth clipper,vessels%2C or to one another.

 

Flying Fish construction details from Duncan MacLean's incredibly detailed description of her at launch. Included is a description of the exact diameter range of standing rigging on the ship herself. He also mentions that iron was used for the shrouds. Anyone wanting precise construction details of many of McKay's Clippers can find them in Lars Bruzelius's website.

Yes, Lars' site is a great resource. The numbers  from there and the plans definitely match up, although you need to know (as I do now) the the dimension being listed for the ropes are circumference not diameter. 

 

I assume you mean iron for the futtock shrouds? That is consistent with the plans and I approve since it's way easier to make them out of wire 🙂 than string.

 

Regards,

George K

 

 

[ClipperFan]

George K, Yes, I'm sure it meant futtock shrouds. What appeals to me the most about the Boston Daily Atlas articles are the precise dimensions given for pretty much every major detail of each ship. For instance, in the case of Flying Fish heights are listed for her bulkheads: 16" fancy rail, 4 & 1/2' main bulkhead, etc as well as  exact distance of each mast from each other. Since it's unlikely Duncan MacLean crawled all over each vessel to get these measurements, it's not hard to conclude these specs came from the shipyard itself. 

[Rick310]

No doubt, I just went back and re-read the McLean article.  A lot of good info there.  It’s been awhile since I read it and each time I do, something else jumps out to me ie, the fancy knees.

[ClipperFan]

Rick310 one other important spec I pay attention to is the ship's 'backbone' usually being about 9' for McKay vessels this size. It's critical, since all three masts mount directly to this structure. We discovered that the masts of Glory of the Seas were 4' shorter than they should have been. Don't confuse this with the keel, since it's only a fraction of the components which comprise the backbone. Read the highly detailed description of Stag Hound for the most exhaustive description of each item which comprised her backbone. 

Edited May 1, 2022 by ClipperFan
Grammar correction

[Rick310]

ClipperFan,

absolutely

[gak1965]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

We discovered that the masts of Glory of the Seas were 4' shorter than they should have been.

 

This intrigues me. Do you mean the estimate of how much the spar projected from the deck was 4 feet shorter than you thought (caused by thinking that a spar of length n was stepped further vertically in the hull)? Or something else?

[ClipperFan]

I used the same specific component measurements to determine Glory's backbone, which came in 4' higher than published in the Clipper Ship Captain detailed ship's lines. This also moved the height of all three masts up 4'. 

[ClipperFan]

Rick310 

From Boston Daily Atlas, December 21, 1850: 

description of components which comprise the backbone of Stag Hound:

(1) keel in 2 depths combined with the shoe moulds: 46" (3'10")

(2) floor timbers on the keel mould: 14-16" (1'2"-1'4")

(3) 3 depths of midship keelsons combined mould: 42" (3'6")

(4) hold stanchions, form a rider across the keel are: 10" square

 

Including their depth and the mouldings of the floor timbers, she is nine feet through "the back bone."

 

Using the same methodology, the components for the back bone of Glory of the Seas come in at 11' consistent with Sovereign  of  the Seas.

 

 

[gak1965]

Well, I've reached a couple of milestones, although for whatever reason it was a much longer slog than was consistent with the actual technical/physical complexity of the task. So, the first milestone is that the chainplates are finally complete. As I mentioned before, the cuts in the channels for the plates were aligned to the plans so that the plates themselves should align with the path of the shroud or backstay. Because that means that getting the 'bolts' to align properly will require that each plate have a custom length, I put tape where I wanted the upper bolt to land, and drew a line on the tape where the lower bolt should sit. I then fitted the stropped deadeye with the plate, bent the brass as needed and marked the 'bolt' locations with a pin vise, drilled out the holes with a (power) hand drill, and opened it up further with a pin vise. This opened the hole wide enough without mangling it. You can see the 31 chain plates (11 fore, 11 main, 9 mizzen) in the photo below, with three sizes of deadeye and three different chainplate materials.

 

 

(Also the tape, which had to come off before I mounted them onto the hull).

 

After that, I glued each plate in place in the channels, and on the hull, covered the edge of the channels with a pre-painted black wood strip, and drilled the holes in the hull where the nail that represents the bolt would sit. The nails were then glued into plates. As mentioned before, the upper backstays are quite narrow, so rather than drill holes, I glued the plate to the hull, glued a short segment of similar diameter blackened brass below it, in line with the path of the plate to represent the preventer, leaving an approximately 1 mm gap with the chain plate. I then drilled holes above and below the "preventer" and glued the nails in. Here are some photos:

 

 

 

There are imperfections, but working ships had imperfections. That's my story, and I'm sticking with it. 

 

I also installed the irons on the jibboom and mounted it on the ship. It has the necessary holes drilled for the various lines that will eventually grace it, and the eyebolts that are representing the endpoints of much of the standing rigging on the bowsprit and jibboom.

 

 

Finally, the extra brass arrived from Model Shipways, and I've put the bands on the lower fore and main masts. They need only the bolsters on the tops and I can paint them white, and start thinking about installation. Here are three (not particularly good) views of the ship to date. The first from above showing the lower masts, the second showing the whole ship up to the bowsprit, and the third, a (poorly lit) view of the whole ship.

 

 

 

So, I still have some work on the main deck (tie down the ship's boats, build 4 ladders, attach the forward bell, blacken and install the belaying pins in the pin rail, but we are pretty much starting the transition to rigging, which is pretty cool.

 

One question for the cognoscenti. According to the plans, it appears that many of the connections between the bowsprit and the hull are mediated by hearts, rather than bullseyes or deadeyes.  Shrouds and backstays seem universally to use deadeyes. On the Niagara the bowsprit standing rigging was a mix of deadeyes, bullseyes, and hearts. I assume that there was a reason for these choice, curious if anyone knows why.

 

As always, thanks for looking in and for the likes!

 

Regards,

George K

 

 

 

 

 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

George , lovely milestone. one suggestion though. probably too late but it would be a bit nicer if deadeyes iron braces were a bit thinner. otherwise she is beauty  

Edited May 15, 2022 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[ClipperFan]

George,

Thanks for giving us such a painstakingly detailed explanation of your creative process, addressing this particular step of your build. I can understand why this was a slow developing facet of your Flying Fish construction. Your methodical approach requires much patience, knowing that the end result achieved can only be done so by not rushing things. It shows too in the finished product. One suggestion about lighting for your photos. Raising your light source above reflective surfaces should get rid of the harsh bounce back in these particular pics. Then having your lighting in front of your subject matter should avoid creating backlighting (which is great for Bella Lugosi dramatic effect in horror films). I really appreciate seeing overall pics of a complete model, as well as including the entire lovely long bowsprit. As far as your question about the use of hearts in rigging, have you consulted any of the rigging books on that topic? Masting & Rigging:The Clipper Ship & Ocean Carriers by Harold Underhill. Then there's the new bible on Clipper Ship construction: The American Built Clipper Ship 1850-1856 Characteristics, Construction, Details by William L Crothers. Finally, maybe our master builders EdT and Rob Wiederrich can give you their insights.

[gak1965]

6 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

George , lovely milestone. one suggestion though. probably too late but it would be a bit nicer if deadeyes iron braces were a bit thinner. otherwise she is beauty  

Yeah, the plans suggest 2 different sizes of iron plate and I had two sizes of brass, one that was 3" at scale, and the other 6" at scale. Using the 3" was probably too small for the shrouds and 6" too large. I don't have tools to mill the material to a smaller size and couldn't find intermediate sizes online. So, I decided to go slightly too large but retain the different sizes of plate.

 

The deadeyes themselves are also off a bit. There are something like 5 or 6 different sizes mapped to three sizes in the kit, so some of the mizzen deadeyes are too large and some of the ones on the tops are going to be too small.

 

One of the reasons I'm thinking about doing Discovery at 1:64 is so I don't have to deal with some of those choices, the 1/32"/0.5 mm spacing in commercial wood,  brass, deadeyes, etc. is 2" then. Easier to get things properly in scale.

 

Regards,

George K

 

[BrianK]

Looks wonderful George! I like your narrow chainplate trick. I will borrow that one!

 

BrianK

[gak1965]

Well, some progress on the lower masts. The fore and main were mostly constructed, but not painted or any additional details added. The mizzen needed the ring of belaying pins, which is the next item I worked on.  I marked out the relevant circles on a piece of appropriate thickness wood from the kit, drilled a pilot hole and then used a conical grinding bit in my dremel to make the hole. I then drilled out the holes for the pins, and finished the outside with a sanding bit. It was the only way I thought I could make it without having the whole thing break into a million pieces when I drilled the holes for the belaying pins. As it was, it split in two, but a little glue and we were back in business, as seen below:

 

 

Next up was to paint the lower masts. I started with some Tamiya flat white from a spray can to get a base on the pieces, followed by brushing on Tamiya flat white to get good coverage. Unfortunately, I ran out of paint, so I've only done the fore and mizzen. The photo below shows the mizzen and the main, and you can see the difference between the spray only and the final look (the unpainted portion of the mizzen will be out of sight).

 

 

Oh, while i was waiting for paint to dry I mounted the ships boats on the main deck house (the mast is not yet attached, and it's an optical illusion that it is facing forward).

 

 

I then spent some time on the foretop. After painting, the holes for the futtock shrouds and fairleads had to be reopened. In addition, the plans indicate that the tops had an iron band around the curved edge. I made this with some black, 24 gauge steel wire, bent to shape on the edge of the top, and leaving the holes for the futtock shrouds uncovered (so basically there were 5 pieces of wire, each between one of the 6 holes). The futtock shrouds were  made from 1/8 deadeyes (the closest I had to 10" at scale) and black 32 gauge wire, anchored onto the futtock band using a large eyebolt. Here is a picture of the mast from the starboard:

 

 

And a similar shot showing the mast top from above, with the 'iron band')

 

 

Finally the same shot of the whole ship, but with the focus on the deck, rather than the mast top.

 

 

Next up are the rest of the mast tops and futtock shrouds, and the belaying pins. Then the topgallant masts and I can start putting some shrouds in place.

 

As always, thanks for the likes and encouragement.

 

Please have a good Memorial Day weekend, however you choose to mark it.

 

Regards,

George K.

 

[Rick310]

Looking good. Since I’m behind you in the build, l’m trying to learn from your experience.  The masts and tops look great!

[ClipperFan]

George,

Thanks for your progress report. It must be a little frustrating to run out of paint in the midst of a project. Two observations. The lower mizzen mast appears to be a 'solid stick' compared to the main and fore masts. The Buttersworth piece shows the mizzen built similar to both fore and main. I may be jumping the gun and you might be planning to complete to mizzen. If so, my apologies.

Lubbers openings on McKay's vessels were larger than those on your tops. Here's a picture of Glory of the Seas from 1913. If you look closely at her tops, those lubbers holes are about twice the size of your model's. 

Edited May 29, 2022 by ClipperFan
grammar correction

[gak1965]

The description of the Fish's masts (which I know you've seen) says that "Her fore and main masts are fished on every square, and closely hooped, and the fishes extend two feet below the lower deck partners. No ship belonging to this port has such massive lower masts." There is no mention of

 the mizzen, which I presume is why Ben Lankford ultimately went with a stick mast.

 

The Butterworth painting does show a fished mast, and the China trade painting shows sticks with hoops on all three masts. Would it have been common to put hoops on a stick mast? I don't recall seeing them on the Pacific photos of Glory when it had switched from but to stick masts.

 

It is probably possible to open up the lubber's hole a bit before I seat the mast. The holes were defined by laser cut pieces and are between 1.5 and 2 feet on the short side at scale which are narrow, but I don't have very good reads on the actual size of such a hole. Do you know if the tops in the photo are the original ones or added later?

[ClipperFan]

16 hours ago, gak1965 said:

The description of the Fish's masts (which I know you've seen) says that "Her fore and main masts are fished on every square, and closely hooped, and the fishes extend two feet below the lower deck partners. No ship belonging to this port has such massive lower masts." There is no mention of

 the mizzen, which I presume is why Ben Lankford ultimately went with a stick mast.

 

The Butterworth painting does show a fished mast, and the China trade painting shows sticks with hoops on all three masts. Would it have been common to put hoops on a stick mast? I don't recall seeing them on the Pacific photos of Glory when it had switched from but to stick masts.

 

It is probably possible to open up the lubber's hole a bit before I seat the mast. The holes were defined by laser cut pieces and are between 1.5 and 2 feet on the short side at scale which are narrow, but I don't have very good reads on the actual size of such a hole. Do you know if the tops in the photo are the original ones or added later?

George, from the many images of Glory I've seen, it appears like these are her original tops. Here's another scene of her in dry dock from a lower starboard bow view. The lubbers holes are more visible in this one.

As for the mizzen mast of Flying Fish, I reread the publicist's description and you're right. Only fore and main are described as being fished. Not only that but according to specs included, her mizzen was only 26 1/2" in diameter, slimmer than her 18' 28" bowsprit. 

Finally, I've included a rare stern scene of Glory docked in Alaska. The large rear coach house actually curves gracefully to accomodate dual catwalks which surround both sides. I estimated they're 5' wide and stay consistent from front to rear of the house. Since your foundation appears to be the sole part of your particular coach house, I felt you might appreciate knowing the actual configuration of this section of McKay's vessels.

[gak1965]

26 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

George, from the many images of Glory I've seen, it appears like these are her original tops. Here's another scene of her in dry dock from a lower starboard bow view. The lubbers holes are more visible in this one.

 

Finally, I've included a rare stern scene of Glory docked in Alaska. The large rear coach house actually curves gracefully to accomodate dual catwalks which surround both sides. I estimated they're 5' wide and stay consistent from front to rear of the house. Since your foundation appears to be the sole part of your particular coach house, I felt you might appreciate knowing the actual configuration of this section of McKay's vessels.

 

 

Thanks for the info.

 

My carriage house also curves toward the stern although I don't think it leaves perfect catwalks. Whether it is too narrow forward or too wide aft, I don't know. I think it's about 5 ft forward and 3.5 to 4 ft aft. The Fish is smaller than Glory and might have been tighter as a result.

 

I'll see how much I can file away on the tops without endangering the fairleads. 1:96 ca be unforgiving at times.

 

George K

 

26 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

 

 

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, gak1965 said:

 

Thanks for the info.

 

My carriage house also curves toward the stern although I don't think it leaves perfect catwalks. Whether it is too narrow forward or too wide aft, I don't know. I think it's about 5 ft forward and 3.5 to 4 ft aft. The Fish is smaller than Glory and might have been tighter as a result.

 

I'll see how much I can file away on the tops without endangering the fairleads. 1:96 ca be unforgiving at times.

 

George K

 

 

George, the last thing I'd want is for you to damage any portion of your model while trying to improve scale accuracy. Looking at how large Glory's lubbers holes are leads me to believe part of the top frames must have been metal to reinforce strength. 

[Rick310]

George, you bring up a very good point about the mizzenmast. The butters -worth painting clearly shows a fiished mast with hoops.  The China trade paining Definitely shows hoops on the mizzenmast but fish are questionable. I believe I read somewhere that singlestick masts we’re hooped sometimes to give them extra strength.  So The dilemma is do you make the mizzenmast similar to the fore and main mass with fish or do you fish only the main and foremast but hoop all three masts?   My thoughts right now are to fish the main and foremast but put hoops and all three masts as both buttersworth and the China trade painting show hoops on the mizzenmast. Could it be artistic license that buttersworth depicted the fish on the mizzenmast?   Interestingly the China trade painting doesn’t show fish  on the either the main or the foremast, a detail that seems to have been omitted.

The model of the flying cloud at the Boston Museum of Art does not show fish on the mizzenmast although the fish on the main and foremast are very difficult to see so I could be mistaken.

Does anyone out there have any ideas?

[gak1965]

3 hours ago, Rick310 said:

The model of the flying cloud at the Boston Museum of Art does not show fish on the mizzenmast although the fish on the main and foremast are very difficult to see so I could be mistaken.

Does anyone out there have any ideas?

My assumption has always been that you use built masts when getting solid masts of the correct diameter is too expensive. As @ClipperFan points out, the mizzen is narrower than the bowsprit. I'm going to guess and say that McKay could get 2 feet diameter solid masts but 3.5 feet was becoming prohibitively expensive due to more than 2 centuries of logging around Boston. The photo of Glory in Alaska (where finding big trees would be less of an issue) with a fished main, and solid fore and mizzen would seem to bear this idea out. Given that, and the fact that the description of the fore and main (but not the mizzen) mentions fishing, I think I'm going to go with a solid mizzen.

 

The iron hoops are more open to question. In a straight pole, I would think that the hoops would be useful in preventing the mast from failing due to forces acting along the axis of the mast (i.e. downward forces that would tend to split the wood fibers apart) and not forces that are applied parallel to axis of the mast (i.e. forces from the winds on the sails). If there are proper engineers out there, please correct me.

 

Both paintings have value to get the proper look of the ship, but both have issues.  Butterworth, for example, removed all of the deadeyes from the shrouds and backstays, the China Trade painting doesn't have the masts that are known to be fished, but has hoops. Actually, calling them issues is a bit harsh, in both cases, I'm guessing they worked.quickly and/or from sketches because they didn't have photos available, and so inaccuracies crept in. But they are both models in a sense, artistic representations of more complex real things.

 

Ideally, an engineer tells me if my supposition about the utility of the hoops is right or wrong. Barring such information, I think I'm going to go with solid mizzen, no hoops given that the photos of Glory's masts don't show them when they are poles and not built.

 

it's fun, kind of like a detective story to go with the construction.

 

Warm regards,

George K

 

 

[gak1965]

2 minutes ago, gak1965 said:

My assumption has always been that you use built masts when getting solid masts of the correct diameter is too expensive. As @ClipperFan points out, the mizzen is narrower than the bowsprit. I'm going to guess and say that McKay could get 2 feet diameter solid masts but 3.5 feet was becoming prohibitively expensive due to more than 2 centuries of logging around Boston. The photo of Glory in Alaska (where finding big trees would be less of an issue) with a fished main, and solid fore and mizzen would seem to bear this idea out. Given that, and the fact that the description of the fore and main (but not the mizzen) mentions fishing, I think I'm going to go with a solid mizzen.

 

The iron hoops are more open to question. In a straight pole, I would think that the hoops would be useful in preventing the mast from failing due to forces acting along the axis of the mast (i.e. downward forces that would tend to split the wood fibers apart) and not forces that are applied parallel to axis of the mast (i.e. forces from the winds on the sails). If there are proper engineers out there, please correct me.

 

Both paintings have value to get the proper look of the ship, but both have issues.  Butterworth, for example, removed all of the deadeyes from the shrouds and backstays, the China Trade painting doesn't have the masts that are known to be fished, but has hoops. Actually, calling them issues is a bit harsh, in both cases, I'm guessing they worked.quickly and/or from sketches because they didn't have photos available, and so inaccuracies crept in. But they are both models in a sense, artistic representations of more complex real things.

 

Ideally, an engineer tells me if my supposition about the utility of the hoops is right or wrong. Barring such information, I think I'm going to go with solid mizzen, no hoops given that the photos of Glory's masts don't show them when they are poles and not built.

 

it's fun, kind of like a detective story to go with the construction.

 

Warm regards,

George K

 

 

 

On the other hand, because the mizzen has a Spencer mast there would be no problems with catching the hoops when raising the spanker.

[ClipperFan]

6 hours ago, gak1965 said:

My assumption has always been that you use built masts when getting solid masts of the correct diameter is too expensive. As @ClipperFan points out, the mizzen is narrower than the bowsprit. I'm going to guess and say that McKay could get 2 feet diameter solid masts but 3.5 feet was becoming prohibitively expensive due to more than 2 centuries of logging around Boston. The photo of Glory in Alaska (where finding big trees would be less of an issue) with a fished main, and solid fore and mizzen would seem to bear this idea out. Given that, and the fact that the description of the fore and main (but not the mizzen) mentions fishing, I think I'm going to go with a solid mizzen.

 

The iron hoops are more open to question. In a straight pole, I would think that the hoops would be useful in preventing the mast from failing due to forces acting along the axis of the mast (i.e. downward forces that would tend to split the wood fibers apart) and not forces that are applied parallel to axis of the mast (i.e. forces from the winds on the sails). If there are proper engineers out there, please correct me.

 

Both paintings have value to get the proper look of the ship, but both have issues.  Butterworth, for example, removed all of the deadeyes from the shrouds and backstays, the China Trade painting doesn't have the masts that are known to be fished, but has hoops. Actually, calling them issues is a bit harsh, in both cases, I'm guessing they worked.quickly and/or from sketches because they didn't have photos available, and so inaccuracies crept in. But they are both models in a sense, artistic representations of more complex real things.

 

Ideally, an engineer tells me if my supposition about the utility of the hoops is right or wrong. Barring such information, I think I'm going to go with solid mizzen, no hoops given that the photos of Glory's masts don't show them when they are poles and not built.

 

it's fun, kind of like a detective story to go with the construction.

 

Warm regards,

George K

 

 

 

George,

Every time Glory of the Seas had solid lower masts, there were no iron hoops. Out of curiosity, I looked at the recently restored Whale Bark Charles W Morgan. She had all three solid lower masts, again no hoops. There apparently is no enginerring structural need of iron bands on solid masts. Despite the conflicting paintings, from Duncan MacLean's usually reliable description, it appears that Flying Fish at least as originally launched, had a solid mizzen mast.

[Rick310]

George, ClipperFan,

I agree that the flying fish probably had a solid mizzenmast. I still think hoops on the mizzen mast although solid are appropriate for the added strength given Duncan McLean described the masts of the flying fish as massive. Interestingly enough, I have seen a number of China trade paintings of clipper ships and I have never seen one that shows fished masts. This seems to be a detail that was frequently omitted in the China trade paintings.   Given that both the buttersworth painting And the China trade paining show hoops on the mizzen mast, I will probably elect to put hoops and the mizzen mast when I get to that point. I do not think either is wrong.