Understudy Gets Eleventh Hour Chance in Shanghai

Radek Stepanek showing off his socks?

They're playing the ATP Tour Tennis Masters Cup in Shanghai this week. In this end-of the-season event, the top eight men's players in the world compete in a round-robin event, followed by knock-out semifinals and a final. The winner goes home with more than a million dollars, the equivalent of a Grand Slam purse, plus ranking points and bragging rights.

Before the event started, Frenchman Gilles Simon, ranked ninth in the world, got his chance to compete in Shanghai when number-one player Rafael Nadal withdrew because of a knee injury that occurred in the final tournament of the regular season. Czech player Radek Stepanek was on vacation in Thailand when he got an eleventh hour call to come to Shanghai to substitute for Andy Roddick, who had sprained his ankle. Stepanek grabbed his chance and took off for Shangai. Unfortunately, he didn't have any tennis gear with him, and his own equipment did not arrive in time for his match against number-two Roger Federer.

Stepanek went begging for equipment among the other players. He didn't even have contact lenses with him, but his prescription was made up in Hong Kong. Finally, with a racket borrowed from Novak Djokovic and socks borrowed from Andy Murray, Radek Stepanek took the court. He lost in straight sets to Federer, but he has the chance to play one more match in the round-robin before being eliminated. By that time, Stepanek will have his own equipment, but if I were he, I'd keep Andy Murray's socks. The way Murray has played this year, those socks may have some magic in them

Are You Ready for a Throwdown?

These days, nearly everybody knows chef and restaurant owner Bobby Flay.

The Food Network has made changes in its approach recently. Star chefs Emeril Lagasse and Mario Batali have made way for wildly popular and much-imitated cooks Rachael Ray and Paula Deen. Straight cooking shows have had to cede pride of place to competitions, like Iron Chef America and Food Network Challenge, and semi-reality shows, such as Ace of Cakes and Dinner Impossible , not to mention The Chef Jeff Project, in which an ex-con turned star chef takes a half dozen street kids and tries to turn them into food professionals . In addition, much more attention is given to lifestyle shows and travel shows, such as Rachael's Vacation and Road Tasted With the Neelys.

Mario Batali's new food program, Spain . . . On the Road Again, itself a kind of "travel" show, is being broadcast in prime time on public television, which has also welcomed Chinese-American chef Ming Tsai, once a Food Network regular. According to Batali, “They [the Food Network] don’t need me. They have decided they are mass market and they are going after the Wal-Mart crowd,” which he said was “a smart business decision. So they don’t need someone who uses polysyllabic words from other languages.” Frankly, I agree with him. Food Network made a conscious decision to go mass market, which basically involves a certain amount of "dumbing down" as well as a focus on entertainment rather than instruction. This means that I watch fewer Food Network shows, but I confess that I still do have a favorite, that strange mixture of reality TV and cooking competition called Throwdown With Bobby Flay.

For the less hip among us, a throw down is a fight or a street fight. If someone disses you, you have to throw down. Get it? In the Food Network vocabulary, a throwdown has become a challenge to a competition. Star chef Bobby Flay goes to the home territory of a food professional and challenges him or her to a competition cooking their signature dish. Sometimes this is something Flay is also expert at, such as grilling, and sometimes it's something out of his normal repertoire, such as wedding cake or soft pretzels. No matter, Flay and the expert do battle before an audience and the results are judged. Every week, someone wins and someone loses.

The major catch is that, while Bobby Flay knows what is going on from the beginning, the other cook is caught by surprise. The featured food professionals think that they are going to appear on a segment of a Food Network series. They are filmed talking about their business and their food, then some sort of party is given, at which the professionals are supposed to give a demonstration of their signature dish. When the party has started, Bobby Flay shows up and issues his challenge, and the throwdown begins. In the beginning, the food professionals were genuinely shocked to find themselves nose to nose with Bobby Flay. Often the audience recognized the famous chef even before the food professional did. Now it's harder to catch the contestants by surprise, but even so, they have to go head to head with Bobby Flay on television.

Most of the food professionals, once they have gotten over their surprise, take the challenge in stride. After all, they are on their home territory cooking their signature dish, and they're going to appear on a nationally broadcast television show. If they win, they get bragging rights and great free publicity, and even if they lose, they still get great publicity, as well as the sympathy vote for having been ganged up on by the Food Network. It's really hard to go wrong, although it's also clear that none of them wants to lose. In one show, Bobby Flay cooks eggplant parmesan on Arthur Avenue in the Bronx, in the heart of Little Italy. The cook he has challenged says, "What? An Irish guy is going to beat me making eggplant parmigiana? Forget about it!"

However, occasionally the food professional is not only shocked but displeased. Sometimes this is reflected in a cool politeness, such as the episode about Buffalo chicken wings or the one about seafood gumbo, but one cook, New York City doughnut expert Mark Isreal, basically threw a hissy fit on television, even though he won the challenge. This behavior did not get him much sympathy on the blogs, where the nicest thing said about him was that he was a "donkey." Considering that Bobby Flay himself does not inspire much affection from the foodie bloggers, the Mark Isreal episode sent Flay's stock up with some of his most persistent critics.

Bobby Flay's record in the Throwdown challenges is 16 wins, 1 tie, and 34 losses. Given some of the shows I have seen, such as the one about macaroni and cheese, or the coconut cake episode, Bobby won a few he should have lost. However, he is always extremely polite and respectful with the other chef, win or lose, and he absorbs a lot of good natured ribbing, as well as the odd insult. When Mark Isreal tried Bobby Flay's doughnut, he barely took one bite and dismissed it: "Doughy." He also refused to shake Flay's hand. Yes, he was indeed a donkey. Honestly, I think one reason I like the show is because it's short and Bobby Flay gets heckled so much by the other chefs. When he challenged her to a chicken-fried steak throwdown, fellow Food Network star Paula Deen told him she was going to "kick his butt," then proceeded to do so. He just smiled. That has to be worth something. It's fun, and I like it.

Food for Life

Rice in the field in Taiwan.

Did you know that a blight threatens bananas and plantains, the world's favorite fruit and the staple food of western Africa? Did you know that climate change is affecting the production of rice, the staple food of Asia? Did you know that your rising milk prices in the USA are due to an increase in the consumption of milk in China and India?

Sometimes there is a common food crop that is underappreciated, such as potatoes. The World Food Program does not use them in its food aid program because they are too heavy to ship and spoil too easily. Despite being perishable in hot countries, potatoes provide a great deal of nutrition, and China, India, and many developing countries are trying to increase domestic potato production. Clearly, this is a trend that should be applauded.

Other excellent sources of food are barely known outside of a small area, such as quinoa, a protein-rich edible seed that can be cooked and eaten like rice. Quinoa is native to Peru, Bolivia, and Chile, and has been called Inca rice. Its nutritional quality is higher than most grains, but it only grows where days are short and temperatures are cool. The only place in the USA where quinoa is grown commercially is Colorado. The production of quinoa as a food crop is spreading into other areas of South America, such as Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. However, since quinoa is a finicky crop, it will take much experimentation to determine which other countries might be able to grow it. Imagine a substitute for rice with almost twice the protein! Unfortunately, quinoa needs cool temperatures, and rising temperatures in the world are already threatening the production of rice. Unfortunately, the decision in the USA to set aside a large percentage of corn for the production of ethanal has also led to rice hoarding in some Asian countries and a global rice price crisis. Food scientists are trying to come up with a strain of rice tolerant to higher temperatures, but finding cool mountainous areas in which to grow quinoa would be helpful. What about Afghanistan, for example?

Then there is the banana crisis. Bananas and plantains are the fourth most important staple food crop in the world. A plant disease called Panama Blight is threatening to kill off the Cavendish banana, the commercially grown variety that feeds most of the world. In the past, Panama Blight destroyed the Gros Michel banana, which made the banana the world's most popular fruit. If Panama Blight spreads from Asia to South America, the commercial banana industry that feeds the United States and Europe may be wiped out. Scientists are trying use genetic engineering to make the Cavendish blight-resistant, but whether that is possible is anyone's guess at this point. Bananas may be the world's favorite fruit, but its starchier relative, the plantain, is a food staple in South America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The plantain is also susceptible to crop diseases, but biotechnology is being applied to develop disease resistant strains. If bananas and plantains were to disappear, it would take a lot of potatoes to replace them.

Finally, the price of milk has risen sharply as the cost of animal feed has risen and milk consumption in countries like China and India has increased. A long-lasting drought in Australia and New Zealand has added to the problem, because these countries are important milk producers. To add to the milk misery, China, which imports milk powder from other countries, is also a milk powder exporter. Recently it was discovered that Chinese producers had mixed the chemical melamine with their liquid milk, apparently to increase its protein content. This led to the deaths of Chinese infants because of tainted baby formula. Soon after, it was found that tainted milk powder had made its way into products sold in the West. The British candy maker Cadbury had to recall products made at a plant near Beijing.

This is only one of the food scares that has arisen because of lack of oversight in China's food industry. So, if people don't starve to death, their food may well poison them. Just when you thought you didn't have anything else to worry about . . . .

Excused Juror in Ted Stevens Trial Went to a Horse Race: What to Do?

Today, the Washington Post reported that one of the jurors in the corruption trial of Alaska senator Ted Stevens lied to the judge to get relieved of the duty of continuing on the jury. She told the judge her father had died in California, then went to California to attend the Breeders Cup horse race. The juror, Marian Hinnant, appeared before U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan and admitted that she lied to get out of staying until the end of the trial. She said she had already bought plane reservations and tickets to the horse race before the trial started. The judge let her go without penalty.


There were other problems with the jury in this particular trial. The jury could not reach a conclusion because one of the jurors refused to cooperate. The other jurors complained about juror No. 9's "violent outbursts." On October 23rd, Ms. Hinnant was excused by the judge so that she could go to California to attend her father's funeral. When the judge lost contact with Hinnant, the trial threatened to founder, but an alternate juror eventually took her place. Finally, the jury did convict Senator Stevens of 7 counts of corruption. Now, Stevens is saying the verdict should be set aside. The Stevens trial began in Washington, DC on September 27, 2008. The case went to the jury on October 22nd, and the verdict was rendered on October 27th. Thus, the jurors in the trial were essentially tied up for a month. Ms. Hinnant told CNN that she "didn't think the trial would take that long." She has a point, but should she be allowed to duck out of the trial without some penalty?


Jury service is a public duty. According to information provided about jury service in the federal courts, a juror may be required to serve for up to one month, or until the trial is completed. In theory, jurors are told this in advance, and jurors may ask for a temporary deferral of service in the case of "undue hardship or extreme inconvenience." Based on that standard, if Ms. Hinnant had asked to be excused from jury service because she had already paid for a trip to the Breeders Cup, her request would most likely have been denied. On the other hand, if she had told the judge the truth about her situation on October 23rd and said, "Judge, this is preying on my mind so much that I don't think I can make a proper decision," he might very well have excused her and appointed an alternate, but how would it have looked to the other jurors? After all, they had lives, too, and by that time I'm sure all of them wanted to be done with the trial.

It turns out that Ms. Hinnant is a certified paralegal who works for a mortgage company, so she might be expected to have some idea about what jury service entails. On the other hand, she was rambling and incoherent when she appeared before Judge Sullivan on November 3rd, although she refused to answer questions from reporters about whether she was on medication or had been hospitalized. The question remains: Should a juror who lied to the judge and essentially walked out of jury deliberations in a high-profile case be penalized in some way, even if it is a token penalty? If there are no consequences whatever, what message does that send to the public about the importance of jury service?

The State of Maryland's court system website states: "Jury service is one of the most important civic obligations that citizens have. To be available to serve on a jury is both a privilege and an obligation for all Marylanders." The North Carolina Court System website proclaims: "The only contact most citizens will ever have with the court system is through jury service. The right to a trial by jury is one of our most important rights and is guaranteed by the United States and North Carolina Constitutions. By serving as a juror, citizens are helping to preserve this freedom." And the Philadelphia courts website begins the section on jury service with the words: "Jury Service is one of the highest duties of citizenship and it is an essential element of our democratic society. Citizens selected as jurors participate in a decision-making process in order to reach a verdict or decision of guilt or innocence in both civil and criminal cases. Service as a juror provides an interesting opportunity for citizens to learn more about our system of justice and how it works. Nearly 100,000 citizens are called to duty in Philadelphia each year. " These lofty statements have little relation to the fact that many people consider jury service to be a troublesome disruption of their normal lives. Most people who appear for jury service sit around for a day or two and then are dismissed. But a person who is chosen to serve on a trial jury may be tied up for weeks. Very few people look upon this prospect with pleasure, so jury duty has to be an obligation with an "or else" attached to it. Otherwise, who would show up when the letter comes from the Commissioner of Jurors?

The Philadelphia website warns: "If you fail to respond to your Jury Summons, the law provides for the imposition of a fine not to exceed $500 and imprisonment not to exceed 10 days." But that's if you fail to show up when you're called for jury service in the first place. What happens if you show up, are chosen for a trial, hear the evidence, begin deliberations, then give a false reason to be excused so you can go to a horse race? The answer in Marian Hinnant's case is nothing. "I am thoroughly convinced you would not have been able to continue to deliberate," Judge Sullivan stated when he heard Ms. Hinnant's rambling and incoherent story. I agree with him, but wouldn't it have been easier if she had told him the truth in the first place? And shouldn't he have given her at least a slap on the hand for what she did?

In Yorkshire, they say, "There's nowt so queer as folk." The case of Marian Hinnant seems to prove that adage, but we're still left on the horns of a dilemma. Or maybe jury service isn't quite so important after all?

What Do Tennis Players Do When They're Not Playing Tennis?

In this photo, Spanish tennis player Fernando Verdasco is advertising underwear. At least, that's one of the things he's showing off.

Admittedly, professional tennis players, with their eleven-month season, don't have a lot of spare time. But they know how to make good use of the spare time they do have. One of the things they do is appear in advertisements. Given their fitness and toned bodies, it's not unusual for tennis players to go shirtless in ads, as is the case with Fernando Verdasco (left). Of course, you can find just about anything on Youtube, and there is an almost 10-minute video there of shirtless tennis players, including Andy Roddick, Feliciano Lopez, Dmitri Tursunov, Tommy Haas, Robbie Ginepri, and Rafael Nadal. In fact, current number-one player Rafael Nadal goes shirtless in a commercial for Nike. On the other hand, he covers up for a Spanish commercial for a milk drink called Cola Cao. This is a bit more reminiscent of the many ads of tennis players, including Pete Sampras, Venus and Serena Williams, Andy Roddick, and, Ana Ivanovic (2008) sporting their milk mustaches in the highly popular "Got milk?" series of ads.

Although many tennis players take off their clothes in ads, some advertise other products while fully clothed. Top players, like Roger Federer, have many top of the line sponsors, such as Nike, Wilson, Rolex, and Mercedes Benz. For a couple of years now, Federer has been doing advertisements for Gillette with golfer Tiger Woods and French soccer player Thierry Henry. Recently, Gillette has replaced Henry with New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter, at least for the American market. This is not unusual. Rafael Nadal makes commercials for Nike in Europe, but up to now they have never aired on American television. Now that he is the number one tennis player in the world and the 2008 Olympic gold medalist, Nike will probably make an ad with Nadal for the American market. Based on this year's U.S. Open series "Road Trip" commercial with Nadal and John McEnroe, Nadal has possibilities, but they will need to clean up his English. But he does a great job driving the bus!

Sometimes the ads take advantage of an aspect of the game that a player is especially known for, such as the Powerade commerical with big-serving Andy Roddick. In one of the great ad campaigns that went astray, Roddick was the subject of a series of American Express commercials for the 2005 U.S. Open in which Andy was looking for his "mojo." Unfortunately for Roddick and his sponsor, Andy lost in the first round. Obviously, he couldn't find his mojo when he needed it. Often, even second-rank players have multiple sponsors and do ads for all of them. For example, American player Robbie Ginepri does ads for Underarmour, a clothing company, as well as for Babolat, the French manufacturer of strings, tennis rackets, shoes, and other tennis gear. Babolat's premier American player is Andy Roddick, who also is sponsored by Lacoste, another French company.

Mind you, sexy commercials are not the exclusive province of male tennis players. Probably the queen of advertising is Maria Sharapova, whose beauty and tennis prowess make her a sponsor's dream. Her sponsors include Colgate, Canon, and upscale clothing and shoe manufacturer Cole Haan. Canon has recently done a series of amusing ads in which Maria is upstaged by her pet Pomeranian, Dolce. Actually, "Dolce" in the commericals is a dog actor named Beowulf, because Sharapova's own pet dog did not respond as well to the camera.

Probably the most notorious advertisement involving a tennis player is the Canon "Image is Everything" ad with Andre Agassi. It took years for Agassi to live down the "all flash and no substance" image it portrayed. Today, with tennis players represented by image-conscious agents like IMG, the Agassi Canon ads probably never would have been made, but that would have been a shame, because they capture an image of "cool" that would be hard to replace. These days, Agassi, who won 8 Grand Slam titles before his retirement in 2006, prefers to be known for his foundation and charitable work, which earned him a spot in Time's list of 100 most important people of 2008. But, you know, those were great ads.

Would you let a child fire this 9 mm Uzi Micro submachine gun? The results could be fatal.

Can anyone imagine a more obvious recipe for disaster than allowing an 8-year-old boy to fire a submachine gun? Maybe it seems obvious to you, but it didn't to the father of Christopher Bizilj, of Ashford Connecticut, who stood by and watched as his son fired the Uzi. The recoil from the powerful weapon knocked the child backwards, and he accidently shot himself in the head fatally. In a second, a "family event" at a gun club became a disaster, but to anyone with sense it was a disaster waiting to happen. Unfortunately, a child paid the price for adult stupidity.

Of course, no one expected Christopher Bizilj to die at the demonstration of the Uzi submachine gun. It happened at the Westfield (MA) Sportsman's Club on the second day of a two-day "Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Exposition" that had been advertised as a family event. It had been cosponsored by the Pelham, MA police chief, Edward B. Fleury, who has had little to say about the incident. According to Christopher's father, a physician and medical director of the emergency department at Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, the boy had been eagerly awaiting the event. He allowed his son to fire the gun under adult supervision, and Christopher was not the only child who lined up to try out the Uzi. But he was the one to die. At the boy's funeral, his father said, "We cannot change the past. We cannot dwell on analysis, or 'what if.'"

It must be agony for parents to bury their 8-year old son, but if Dr. Bizilj doesn't want to dwell on analysis or "what if," somebody should. Why didn't the adults affiliated with the event recognize that the weapon was too powerful for young children to fire? Why didn't Dr. Bizilj, with his experience in trauma medicine, realize that it was dangerous for his son to fire the Uzi? Why didn't the Pelham police chief, with his experience of accidents and violent crime, have second thoughts about letting children participate in this event? What were these supposedly responsible people thinking of?

The 9 mm Micro Uzi machine gun is a compact fully automatic submachine gun that rapidly fires 9 mm rounds. It has a metal foldable stock (shown unfolded in the picture above). When the stock is folded, the Uzi looks like a pistol. The Uzi submachine gun is a weapon of war. It has no peaceful purpose. It doesn't belong at a so-called "family event" at a sportmen's club, anymore than you would bring it to a church picnic to try out when the kids get tired of playing horseshoes. This was an insanely stupid idea, and I hope that someone sues the Westfield Sportsman's Club for negligence. Given the comments that are showing up on most websites that mention the club, public opinion is against them. In fact, their own website has been taken down, so heaven only knows what was going on there. In law, negligence occurs when someone does something that a reasonably prudent person should know is likely to result in harm, and the harm actually happens. If the people from Westfield Sportsman's Club who sponsored and advertised this event didn't reasonably foresee that harm would occur if they let children fire a machine gun, they should have. In fact, even two members of the Westfield Sportsman's Club have publicly questioned the actions of the club. The Hampden County District Attorney is investigating whether criminal charges should be brought relating to the incident. All over the country, people are considering the Bizilj tragedy and wondering if it could have been avoided.

Naturally, there are gun advocates who will defend this insanity on the grounds that they have to defend all use of guns, even irresponsible use, to protect their rights. However, an article by one gun advocate, while hoping that the Bizilj tragedy would not result in more stringent gun laws and taking a "guns don't kill people, people kill people" stance, commented: "What appalls me about this incident is how anyone with any level of experience could allow a little kid with small hands and body to fire such a hard-to-control, powerful automatic weapon under any circumstances, legal or not!" That says it all. Now, what is anyone going to do about it?

What's In Your Attic?

David Dickison is a Britsh antiques dealer who hosted a television game show about antiques and auctions. But you already knew that, didn't you, bargain hunters?

You may be familiar with the long-running PBS program Antiques Roadshow, in which a group of antiques experts sets up in various American cities to examine and value objects brought in by local residents. Often what comes in is junk, or just a cut above junk, but sometimes they discover a piece of great value. When the expert tells the owner that the piece, bought for $2 at a garage sale, would fetch thousands of dollars at auction, the owner always looks thunderstruck. Personally, I sometimes wonder if the astonishment is genuine. Nevertheless, Antiques Roadshow continues to be a very popular program, which has spawned its fair share of imitators. I am not a huge fan of Antiques Roadshow, because many of the objects are not of great interest to me, and the series of presentations and valuations usually makes me want to nod off. However, thanks to one of my sisters, I have discovered two other antiques programs that I find entertaining to watch. They are Cash in the Attic and Bargain Hunt, both broadcast on BBC America.

Cash in the Attic has a storyline: A person wants to raise cash for a particular project, maybe a vacation trip or a kitchen makeover, and he or she invites in the team from Cash in the Attic to rummage around their house or apartment to find objects that can be sold at auction to raise the money. The team consists of the presenter, in my experience usually Alistair Appleton, and one of two experts, Paul Hayes or Jonty Hearndon. In between finding goodies to be put on sale, Alistair talks to the homeowner about his or her project. Finally, once the objects have been identified, we watch them auctioned off and find out whether they bring in enough money to fulfill the person's dream. Sometimes an object expected to fetch a big price disappoints, while another that was valued less highly brings a huge profit. At some point, heralded by gentle "doom" music, it looks as if the person will not get all the money he or she is looking for, but somehow it generally comes out right in the end, and everyone is satisfied. There are some obligatory but brief warnings about auction commissions and VAT, but that is never publicly figured into the amount that the person makes from the auction. Of course, it helps that most of these people have been collectors or have inherited a lot of collectible objects from relatives. Otherwise, it's hardly likely that the team would find much in their houses that was worth selling. Anyway, at the end of the program everyone seems happy.

The other program, Bargain Hunt, is actually a species of game show. Two pairs of contestants, the Red Team and the Blue Team, get 200 British pounds apiece and one hour at an antiques and collectibles fair. They use the money to buy items that they think will make a profit in an auction sale. Each team is assigned an antiques expert as an advisor, and after the items are purchased, they are put into an auction a couple of weeks later. If the team makes a profit at the auction, they get to keep it. However, they more often end up with a sizeable loss. The host of the program is antiques dealer David Dickinson, known as "the Duke," who allegedly looks something like the hero of the television mystery series Lovejoy, about a British antiques dealer. Dickinson, who favors Italian suits and handmade shoes, has a rich Manchester accent and is always coming out with quaint expressions. "Coo! Isn't that a bobby-dazzler?" he'll say as he admires a fine piece of antique furniture. Seeing an item that can be had at a bargain price, he crows, "It's cheap as chips!"

Frankly, most of the teams on Bargain Hunt don't have much of a chance to make money because they are buying items at retail and then have to show a profit at auction. If they find something that is actually undervalued or do a bit of sharp negotiating, they may succeed. Otherwise, the auction price comes in well below what they had to pay in the first place. In addition, they supposedly only have an hour to find their (usually) three items, which gives them far too little time to make considered choices. As a result, they have to rely heavily on their experts, antiques dealers or auctioneers who are supposed to advise them, and often the experts don't give particularly good advice or even make mistakes in valuing the items they recommend. And frequently the team members ignore the advice they're given because they fall in love with a totally unsuitable item that turns out to be, as David Dickinson puts it, "a bit of old tat." However, one has the chance to hear about the import and manufacture of porcelain, the differences between Regency and Georgian furniture designs, how the condition of the items affects their price, and whether items have been restored or cobbled together. Dickinson's comment on an item of suspicious origin: "That's a bit of a licorice all-sorts, isn't it?" The show is rich in north of England accents and odd bits of farm tools, curios, and imported objects made up to look like British collectibles. There are lots of traps to fall in, and the teams stumble into many of the them, to the kindly amusement of the experts. When a team makes a big loss, Dickinson throws an arm around them and says consolingly, "Bad luck. Still, you've been good sports. Come on; let's get a cup of tea."

I am not an antiques collector and never will be, but I find these shows entertaining because you can learn a great deal in a very painless way. Did you know that small turned wood items are known as treen? Were you aware that there is a difference between silver hallmarks and makers' marks? And did you know that the term Tunbridgeware denotes a variety of wooden items with mosaic inlay? Just as fantasy tennis has taught me to never bet on sports events, Cash in the Attic and Bargain Hunt have taught me that you can't predict what will sell well at an auction just by looking at it. And it's fun, too. What more can you ask for?