you it he fined it as a chair individually made by a craftsperson. it was not a factory chair. do you recall that chair? >> are you talking about the hitchcock chair? >> no. i don't think it was a hitchcock, know. it had claw legs. it is just prior to the factory chairs that you showed us. >> okay. >> go back. there you are. now, those chairs were individually made by a craftsperson, not in a factory, is that correct? >> yes. i'm trying to figure out. >> were they treated as art form by the colonials much like having a painting on a wall or were they put to use as chairs? or were they put aside on the side of the room to be admired rather than being used? >> both. i mean their primary -- i don't think someone at the time would have separated those two. they would have considered these to be, but i would argue that of the hitchcock chair as well. they are objects to look at and enjoy and show off as well as the primary purpose which is seating furniture. >> the hitchcock chairs, i understand would be used, but to make a set of these, one could understand, it would take an extend