joint work with Cineo Park at MIT and Harvard. The subtitle of this talk is Reputability and Claimability of Ring Signatures, but it might as well have been Unreputability and Unclaimability of Ring Signatures. So ring signatures defined by Rivas Chamiar and Taman allow our variant of digital signatures that allow signing on behalf of some set of parties that have the requirements that only a member of the set can have produced the signature, but they hide which member of the set was responsible. So parties can independently generate secret key, public key pairs, and post their public keys. And at any point afterwards, a party can take a set of public keys, including themselves, and sign on behalf of that set. And the signature provides the guarantees that only some member of that set can have produced the signature, but an outside adversary can't tell which member. So ring signatures are motivated in part by whistleblowing scenarios. So suppose a official wants to come forward with evidence of misbehavior in an agency. So they may be wary of retribution from higher ups. So they may want to use a ring signature scheme to sign on behalf of some set of senior officials where this set of people sort of provides some sort of reputation that someone in a position of information has provided this message. But then suppose that someone comes to each of these individuals in the ring and demands proof that they did or didn't sign the message. Can they comply? And it's not clear under the usual definitions. So for another example, suppose that someone wants to use ring signatures to harm the reputation of a celebrity or a politician. So suppose they sign a message on behalf of a set of parties, including themselves and including some celebrity where the contents of the message are some embarrassing statement. So of course this doesn't actually say anything about the celebrity having said anything embarrassing because anyone in the ring could have produced the signature but they may post this on the internet, it may go viral and it might harm the reputation of the prominent figure. So is there anything that Alice can do to recover her reputation and prove that she was not responsible for producing the signature? So to do this, let's take another look at the anonymity definitions for ring signatures. So we have the unforgibility definition and also the anonymity definition that an adversary can't tell which party in the ring produced the signature. So we want to be more specific about the power of this adversary and what information that they have. So there's a whole landscape of definitions for ring signatures. I'm gonna talk now about two of the strongest ones and anonymity against adversarily chosen keys and anonymity against full key exposure. So in the adversarily chosen keys setting, you have some honest parties that produce keys and you have the adversary that can corrupt as many parties as they want and can also generate malformed keys and at the end, the requirement that you have is that as long as there are some two parties that were not corrupted by the adversary, the adversary cannot distinguish which of these parties was responsible for the message. An even stronger definition is provided by anonymity against full key exposure in which the adversary can corrupt all of the parties but as long as some pair of keys was sampled honestly, even knowing all of the secret keys to the adversary still can't tell which party signed the message. These definitions don't tell us the whole picture of whether a signatory who wishes to later prove or deny authorship of a signature should be able to do so. And both versions are natural to consider and what we'd like is a guarantee one way or the other of whether this is possible or not. So in our work, we introduce four definitions that specify whether this is possible. So a reputable ring signature scheme is one in which a non-signer can prove that they were not responsible for producing the signature that some other party in the ring produced the signature. And conversely, an unrepeatable scheme, this is not possible. Even if I did not sign the message, I am not able to convince someone else of this fact. And we can also look at whether I can prove that I was responsible. So a claimable scheme is one in which if I produce the signature, I can later come forward and demonstrate that I was responsible for that the signature was produced using my key. If I choose to or I can never do this. And we can also define an unclaimable scheme in which no matter what I do later, if I, as long as I sign this user ring signature, an unclaimable scheme to sign this message, even if I later want to come forward and prove that I was responsible for signing the message, there's nothing convincing I can say that will assure you that I was responsible for signing the message. Now when you look at the idea of an unclaimable ring signature scheme, it seems like this shouldn't be achievable. It may seem like this shouldn't be achievable because suppose that you sign a message and you remember the signing randomness. Then you can always come forward and say, here's my signing randomness, you know, you shouldn't do this, but here's my secret key, here's my signing randomness. You can run the signing algorithm yourself and you can see that this signature is produced. So in order to have a meaningful notion of unclaimability, we need to guarantee that non-signers can also produce fake signing randomness that looks real. So even though I might remember the signing randomness and be able to produce it later, anyone else in the ring can also later come up with convincing fake signing randomness and claim that they produce this signature using this other signing randomness. So nothing I say later would be convincing to guarantee that I produce the signature. Now this guarantee feels somewhat in the flavor of deniable encryption where you also want to produce explaining randomness for a cipher text, but somewhat surprisingly, a deniable encryption seems to require a very heavy machinery, like in distinguishability obfuscation, but in contrast, this notion of unclaimability we're able to achieve from standard lattice assumptions. So sort of the intuition behind the guarantee of unclaimability is that anything that can be produced by the true signer can also be simulated by any other member of the ring and we can even require that the simulation is information theoretic. So in this work, we define these four notions of ring signature schemes and we construct each of them. We construct claimable ring signature schemes and a generic transformation from any ring signature scheme, unclaimable from SIS, lattice assumptions and reputable ring signatures from verifiable random functions. The fourth variant, unreputable, we show is implied by the stronger of the preexisting notions of ring signatures that I presented earlier, ring signatures anonymous against full key exposure. So in this talk, I'll focus on the other three. So our work also gives some taxonomy of the landscape of ring signatures. We can show that unclaimable is a stronger definition than unreputable, it implies it. And also claimable and reputable ring signatures are compatible notions, so we can have a single ring signature scheme that's both claimable and reputable. And the other thing I want to mention is that the claimable and unclaimable are not opposites and neither are reputable and unreputable. You can have a signature scheme that's neither. For instance, if claiming requires remembering signing randomness, our notion of claimable is stateless, but you can have a notion where you can claim some of the time or only if you're stateful. So there's room for definitions in between as well. So for an outline of the rest of the talk, I'm going to talk about the three notions of claimable, unclaimable, and reputable ring signatures and constructions for them. So I'm going to start with the simplest to build, which is claimable ring signatures. So to remind you, ring signatures claimable if the signatory can later come forward and reveal their identity and prove that they were the signer. So the intuition for this is that if we could remember the signing randomness, it seems like if we build things carefully, this should constitute a convincing claim. There's two issues that we need to deal with. We need to make sure that the signing randomness uniquely determines the signer, which since I'm going to talk about unclaimability in the next section, that's not true in general. And finally, we don't want to remember the signing randomness. So this notion of claimability sort of seems partway between a ring signature and a standard digital signature. So let's start by, so suppose we want to take a ring signature scheme and a standard digital signature scheme and combine them. So if we want to sign a message, we can produce signatures under both schemes. But in order to preserve anonymity, we can't release the digital signature signature. So we might mask it using a commitment. And then the signature that we can produce is consists of a ring signature and also a commitment to a standard signature. And then the other thing we have to worry about is we don't want to remember a signing randomness so we can sort of store a compressed version of the signing randomness using PRFs and keeping the PRF key as part of the secret key. And then if we want to claim, we can simply decommit to this commitment and reveal that this signature contained a commitment to an ordinary digital signature that's tied to my identity. But if I choose not to decommit and I never open the commitment, then it hides my identity. So it also satisfies the definitions of a normal ring signature. So now I'm gonna move on to the second notion, unclaimability, which we build from lattice assumptions. So the idea behind unclaimability is that the signer cannot later come forward and prove that they were the signer. So in order for this to be the case, non signers must be able to come up with convincing signing randomness so that anything produced by the signer, something indistinguishable can be produced by any non signer in the ring. And the key technical tool for this will be lattice traptors. So our scheme is a, our unclaimable ring signature scheme is a simple augmentation of the lattice-based ring signature scheme of Bruckersky and Kalei. So, and in this scheme I'm gonna, in this talk I'm going to present a simplified version that only allows you to sign random messages. But in the paper we give the full scheme. So the public key is gonna be an SIS matrix. So an LWA matrix with a random matrix with an SIS traptor. And then to sign a random vector, you use the traptor to generate a short vector x where all of the entries are small so that a times x is equal to the message y. And then you can just release this. So this would be a digital signature for random messages. But of course it reveals which matrix was used to generate the signature, to verify you need to know which public key was used. So it's not a ring signature scheme. But suppose that we have a bunch of different, a bunch of different public keys generated by different parties and we want to produce a ring signature with respect to the set of public keys. So we can concatenate them into a matrix. And then we can ask, we have a message that we want to sign. We can ask, we want to produce a very tall vector with small entries so that the matrix vector product equals the target message. And using traptor extension techniques, you can generate a short x using the traptor for any one of these A matrices. So any party in the ring can do this. And so basically one way to see this is you can break up this matrix vector product as the sum of a bunch of products of smaller matrices with pieces of the vector. And then you can say, suppose I'm party two. I can take all of the other terms in the sum and move them to the other side. And then my traptor to matrix two, allows me to produce a short vector x two that, so that this equation is satisfied even though I don't know traptors for any of the other A matrices. So this allows me to, so pre-images generated under different traptors are indistinguishable. So the signing randomness generated by different members of the ring are also indistinguishable. And this means that no one can credibly claim authorship of a signature because anything that the true signer can produce could also have been produced by any other member of the ring. So what I described here is a simplified scheme for signing random messages but using the same transformations used by Bricker-Skin-Klei, we can turn this into a unclaimable ring signature scheme for arbitrary messages. So now I wanna turn to the final part of the talk where I'm gonna talk about repeatability, which we construct from verifiable random functions. So in a repeatable ring signature, non-signers are able to prove that they were not responsible for signing the message, that some other party of the ring in the ring can sign the message. What was the party that signed the message? So this really consists of two separate guarantees. Firstly, we want to make sure that even in the presence of a malicious signer non-signers are always able to repudiate in the scheme. And secondly, we want to make sure that no signer can later repudiate if they want to distance themselves from a message that they actually produced. So the key ingredients, the building blocks for our scheme are zaps and VRFs. Zaps are two message public coin witness indistinguishable proofs and VRFs are verifiable random functions, are pseudo-random functions that also have the capability to release a proof of the output associated with any individual input without jeopardizing residual pseudo-randomness of any other input. So suppose we wanted to use a VRF to produce a ring signature. Well, what we might do is we say, okay, we can use the message as the input to the VRF and we can produce an output and then we can also prove that that output is correct. So the public key would consist of the VRF public key and then to sign a message, you can release a VRF evaluation and proof of the message. The problem is, of course, that this is tied to an identity. So we might want to try to hide which identity was used to produce the signature by using a zap. Now, this isn't gonna work. So the zap will say this is the right message, this is the right output for the VRF on input the message. This isn't gonna work because zaps provide only a witness and distinguishability guarantee. So if there's only one witness, they're not guaranteed to hide anything. So this won't hide which member of the ring was responsible for producing the signature. It does give a digital signature, but not a ring signature. So instead, let's try to use two VRFs and then use a zap to prove the statement that either the output under the first VRF is correct or the output under the second is correct. And here, in the security proof, we can switch from using the VRF of one party in the ring to the VRF of another party in the ring. So we can get the anonymity definitions of ring signatures. This does give a ring signature. But then when we want to repudiate, we have to show that both of these VRF outputs is incorrect. And to do this, we still can't do this. I mean, we can do this once by revealing our key material and showing that these are the wrong values that my VRF outputs are different, but then I'm revealing my VRF outputs and anyone else can forge the same message under my key. So we don't want, so this is not good. We want to make sure you can repudiate over and over again as many times as you want without violating anonymity of later messages that you sign and without allowing the adversary to forge on messages that you repudiate. So this isn't gonna work either. So one didn't work, two didn't work, let's try four. Okay. So now the statement we want to use the Zap to prove is that one of the first two VRF outputs is correct and one of the last two VRF outputs is correct. And then our signature will consist of the Zap proof and the four outputs. So now in order to repudiate, we want to show the opposite of this statement. We want to show that if I want to repudiate, I want to show that for my key, either one of the first two outputs is incorrect, either both of the first two outputs is incorrect, or both of the second outputs is incorrect. So in order to do this, I can produce VRF proofs of each of these. I can produce a, I'm sorry, I can evaluate my VRF on the message and produce these output values, Y1 prime and Y2 prime. And then I can prove that my VRF outputs are different using a Zap. And then the other two values, Y3 prime and Y4 prime are not used in the honest repudiation, but they're used in the proof to hybrid over, to hybrid from one, from repudiation under one signer to repudiation under another signer, and to show that releasing these repudiation does not jeopardize the other properties that we want. So to summarize, we present four new variants of ring signatures, claimable, reputable, unclaimable, and unrepeatable that provide functionality for allowing members of a ring to prove that they were or were not responsible for producing a particular signature, and also definitions that guarantee that they should be impossible. We give constructions of these from various, and we give constructions of these from various assumptions. Thanks very much. All right, thank you Adam. We have a little bit of time for questions. If you have a question, please step up to the microphones in the aisle so that everyone can hear you. Yes, thank you for this nice talk. So regarding your construction of unclaimable signature from SIS, do you think that it's possible to transform it into a claimable one? So the question is, can we transform the unclaimable construction from SIS into a claimable one? So you can take any ring signature construction and transform it into a claimable one, but if you start with one that's unclaimable, once you apply the transformation, it will no longer be unclaimable. So you can turn it into a claimable one, but then you'll lose the structure that made it unclaimable to begin with. Okay, thank you. Thanks for the question. Yeah. If we have an unconditional anonymous ring signature, would it be unclaimable by default? If you have an unconditional what ring signature? Anonymous. Anonymous. Yes. So there are some DL-based ring signatures that are secret keys uniformly masked in the group. So for any secret key, you can find randomness in the group. So if- And this would be unclaimable, I think. So I'm not sure of the particular constructions you're referring to, but if you can produce randomness for any signature, that is indistinguishable from- If any member of the ring can produce signing randomness that's indistinguishable from real signing randomness for a particular signature, then it would be unclaimable. Okay, final question. Yes, sir. So how's your definition of the claimable ring signature different than the designated identifiable ring signatures? So thanks for the question. In the designated- So in our definition of claimable ring signatures, there's no designated honest party. And the definition you're referring to, my understanding of it is that you can, at the time of signing, you can refer to, you can designate some public party who's identified, who later has the ability to de-anonymize you whenever they want. In our signature, there's no public party, there's no trusted parties at all in our claimable definition. So that you don't need to have a trusted party who can have the whole world to be designated identifiable very fast. But the designated party can de-anonymize you. So you're not anonymous with respect to the party that you designated, that's my understanding. I might, we can talk offline. Also like, how's the reproducible definition different from the step out ring signatures? Because the step out ring signatures also has this property where a non-signer can prove that they did not sign it. So I need to look at the paper you're referring to, I'm not sure. Okay. Thank you. All right, let's thank the editor again.


You guys welcome back to another first impression video. This is the video series where I take a look at an entire sewing pattern collection. Today we're going to be looking at the McCall's spring collection and not simplicity. And we are going to be looking at each and every one of the new patterns that they just released and just kind of chatting about, you know, my just initial thoughts on the design will look for little fit issues, fit things to kind of look out for when you go to make it yourself. We'll talk about fabric choice, both the ones they recommend and ones that I think would also be appropriate. And yeah, just have a great time chatting about all the patterns. So if this is your first one, buckle in. These are a lot of fun. So first up, we have the Mrs. and Women's dresses. What does that mean? Size wise, 10 to 18 and then 20 to 28 women's evening gown dresses for Mrs. and Women's sizes, 10 to 28 dresses have curved empire and princess seams, baby hem straps or racer back style and invisible zipper closure. View C is floor length of the train. Okay, probably in time for prom, maybe I'm thinking. But yeah, what a beautiful little design. The black one's a little bit hard to see, but you can look at View C and see that there are, but this is B. Oh, that's the back of B. Oh, that's really pretty. Okay, you have this curved empire seam. You have princess seams. And then I'm curious to know if this is cut on the bias. If it's not, I would because I think it will be that much more flattering. And then View A is more of like, they said racer back, but it kind of gives an inculter, very closed up and covered up in the front. And then B has this pretty crisscross in the back. I love how it's also making kind of like a sweetheart design in the back. That's really nice. Oh, there are seams, side seams, what were they called? Side back seams, I guess, in the skirt. So that might be a little bit harder to do on the bias. Am I right? Because here they are again.  So they're probably cheating that by kind of creating some shape with these seams here, I would think. That does mean, oh, it does mean what? That it's going to be a little bit more showy of lumps and bumps, that it might be a little bit more uncomfortable to wear out of a silky, slinky fabric. So keep that in mind. But the design is really pretty. And then I think this has a thicker strap. Oh, that's even more dramatic than I thought. Wow. I wonder if that's hard to sew, I've never sewn anything like that. It can't be that bad. Maybe where the zipper comes in might be a little bit tricky, but yeah, you can really get an idea of the drape in the back. Okay, let's see this. So fabrics, they're going with charmous, crepeback satin and crepe. So they really are leaning into the drapey fabrics. I will say crepeback satin is a little bit heavier weight, a little bit just thicker in general. So if you're concerned about like being able to see your belly button or something like that, use a thicker, a thicker, slinky fabric. And then there's lining. I think just the bodice is probably, no, I stand corrected, the whole freaking thing is lined. Dang. So you would think that that would help with the slinkiness too, where it would, you know, add like a little bit of a smoothing element. So maybe it won't be that bad then. Maybe it won't be that bad. Okay, so notions and invisible zipper and a hook and I, that's it. Then that hook and I is just for A, which is the racer back option. Oh, yeah, could you zip it up and then hook it in the back? Okay. Let's see. We also have finished measurements. So two and a half. So the measurements are different for A and then B and C. So A has two and a half inches of ease, B and C have half an inch of ease. That makes perfect sense. Very good. And then the waist has two inches for all three and the hip has five inches for all three. Yeah, that all makes perfect sense. That all makes perfect sense. So yeah, what a little stunner to start out with here. Oh, A also has this full on cut out. That's right because it said that only the B and C needed the zipper. This isn't have a zipper at all. So if you're like afraid of zippers for whatever reason or just don't like zippers, they're not comfortable, whatever it is, you can get this view and there's not a zipper. There's a little hook right there. Interesting. Very nice. I don't know. Look at these line drawings. It doesn't have to be like a fancy, fancy dress. It could be something a little more casual, especially if you made it out of a print, like a printed silky type of fabric, maybe skip the lining, maybe only line the bodice, you know, try and try and think about this one outside of the constraints of evening gown. Okay, now we have women's tops and skirts. This is 20 to 28 and then 30 to 38 crop top has short or long puff sleeves and high neckline with elastic at sleeves, waist and neck. Do you B includes a sash? Pull on asymmetric tiered skirt comes in two lengths. Okay, so I kind of don't like these together. It just feels like very covered up here. There's like no neck, no decolletel, no arm really. Then the skirt is also long, like to the floor long. So it just feels like she's just not getting anything helping out with her shape, especially because the top is so balloon like and then so was the skirt. The waist definition is nice, but you know, it's not, I don't know, it's not doing much for her. I don't think, but I wouldn't like these as separate. So if you put this with like a slimmer skirt or, you know, jeans or something a little bit more close fitting and then paired the skirt with like a, I don't know, like a bodysuit or some kind of like close fitting top, that would be better for me, in my opinion. So this is A without the sash, B has the sash. I'm also assuming this is so long. If not, how in the world is that supposed to stay? It wouldn't stay. Don't be fooled. And then C's skirt is shorter, right? Because it only has this one tier. And this is the same skirt, but because she's holding it up like that, you really cannot see the cool part about this asymmetry here, right? They're losing that in the photo. To me, it just looks like any old regular ruffle skirt that we've seen a thousand times, but it's not. They're only going to give us that photo, I bet. There's the back. Yeah. I don't see any, there's just a lot of gathering. You're going to, you're, oh boy, I keep doing that. I did that in the last video. I'll do better. I'm sorry. Lots and lots of gathering. I think this is done by Elastic. Elastic, this one here. And then all of these are gatherers. So, and so is this sleeve here. So get comfortable with gathering. Yeah. You can kind of see the asymmetry here. It's not nearly as dramatic as that drawing makes it seem, right? I wanted it to be like this, but it's a little more subtle. Yeah. Oh, this is separate. That's silly. Don't make this. It'll never stay on or sew it on. One of the two. One of the two. Don't leave it separate. Okay. Shally, cotton blends, gauze and lightweight linen. Yeah. All of those would work for sure. You can expand this a little bit into other light to mid-weight drapey to lightly structured, I want to say. Like gauze would be like a lightly structured fabric. You can extend that into some of those types of fabrics. Things they didn't include that would be great. It would be like seersucker, eyelet, if you wind it, Swiss dot, things like that. All right. So elastic, lots of elastic. More and more elastic. Okay. Lots of elastic. And then sizing. We went through that. Do we get it? Yes. We get finished. Bust is going to be lots of very roomy in the bust. That's almost 20 inches of ease in the bust. That's a lot. That is a lot. I really think you only need like 10. It doesn't need to be that. 20 is a lot. And then the hip for the skirt is four inches of ease. 20 is too much, guys. It's too much. So size down the whole bunch. A whole bunch. Cut that in half if you can. I would. Then you would have just a little bit more.  So maybe that's what happened with her, too. It's just not quite slim enough. They didn't need to lean in to the puffiness of it all that much. Okay. Now we have, did we just like go back in time? Oh yeah. It's a vintage pattern. We don't normally see them so up, like so high up on the list. But yes, it is a 1980s online jacket with seeming has extended shoulder shoulder pads, notch collar, long sleeves where the wrong side of the fabric will show when sleeves are rolled up upper patch pocket, front welt pockets, top stitching and machine stitched hem. Jacket A has a drawstring in the back. Oh man. I don't know if we're like ready for full on 80s. Wide shoulders, narrow hips, like let's make our bodies into triangles. Let's look like linebackers. I mean, of course this photo does it justice. They're really making it do the most. But yeah, this is a princess scene, but this sleeve is Dolman. Yeah, that's, like I said, it looks fine there. I do appreciate the little drawstring in the back to give a little bit of shape, but this is wild. This triangle is just like, whoa. Oh, that's all we're going to get picture wise. Oh my gosh. Okay. Medium weight fabric such as baby cord, which is corduroy cotton, cotton blends, damas, gabardine flannel, lightweight denim, lightweight wool and wool blends, linen, polyester double knits, paw blend, seersucker and wool double knits, not suitable for diagonals, large checks, uneven stripes and uneven plots. Medium weight fabrics. Yeah. Wow. So what, what is that half inch thick covered shoulder pads and then one one inch button. So look at these measurements, the, the ease. So the bust has 15 inches of ease roughly. The waist has 22 inches of ease and then the hip, are they going to give us the hip? They don't give us the hip. They give us the lower edge, which is close to the hip and that has 13 inches of ease. What? So you can just tell like boom, boom, boom, it gets smaller as you go down, but it still has a ton of ease. I don't know that they're going to do very well with this one. I'm all for the throwbacks, but the throwbacks have to feel modern and they're nothing about this feels modern or even could, I can't even imagine it being modern. Like those jackets like that, that look like that. You can just get them at Goodwill right now because everybody from the 80s is giving that stuff away. Okay. So we're getting into the, oh, Melissa Watson has her own, her own name now. It's not Palmer Plesch. Palmer Plesch is her mother and Melissa has been working with her for her mother for as long as I've been sewing. To do the Palmer Plesch method patterns, which is like the, their method is tissue fitting. So now it's Melissa Watson for Palmer Plesch. Interesting. I wonder her mom's Patty Palmer. I wonder if Patty's retired. I wonder what happened. It might not even be anything dramatic. It's just, it's never been labeled like this before. So that's good for her.  Okay. Size wise, eight to 16 and 18 to 26.  If you've never tried it, it is interesting, a little bit hard to do on yourself. But they're basically the way it works is their pattern tissue has a lot of extra lines on it. So if you needed to do a full bust adjustment, there would be lines on there already to help you make that adjustment on the pattern. You're supposed to pin up your seam allowances, put it on your body and then determine based on how the paper is wrinkling or whatever or pulling how to adjust. And then the lines on the pattern help you achieve that. So this just feels like a very kind of standard denim jacket type of design, but no collar, two front patch pockets, lots of top stitching. This might be like a waxed cotton type of thing, which is giving it a little bit more rugged vibes, but it could be more polished. I'm a little bit surprised that the shoulder is so long. Now my assumption, and we all know about assumptions, but my assumption was that when the Palmer Plesch team released a pattern, they made the sample garment for their sample model. They weren't just sending it over to McCalls and having them use whatever sample models, they, they for fit models, whatever it is that they had coming in that day. My assumption was that they use their own. So if that's the case, this is a little bit long on her. So I'm just a little bit surprised to see that just, I mean, just barely, like just barely, barely. I'm being really, really picky because they are no for fit, right? And then we're going to see more of these pants in the next pattern. So we'll wait for thoughts on that. But yeah, it's a cute, it's a cute design. It's not really for me, but it would be really fun to sew. I gotta say, I did make a denim jacket. I think it was a seam work pattern. And I do love it. And I wear it a lot. So I don't know about a colorless one though. I got it. I'm trying to imagine it without the matching pants. Maybe that would be, and maybe not buttoned up either. I don't know. Am I just like ruining the whole vibe? Because this is definitely a look, right? This is definitely somebody's entire being is based on this kind of, I don't know, like rocker-ish kind of look. I'm getting grungy maybe even. Yeah, there's the back. Yeah, it fits, it fits really, really well everywhere. Like I said, just, I mean, even this already looks a little bit better than the other one. I think they, did they tuck it in? Maybe not. See, I was just a little bit long. It's like falling off her shoulder a little bit. This is a sleeve head that's meant to be up on her shoulder a little bit more like this one. But again, just being super, super picky. Okay, so cotton blends, denim linen and twill lining fabric. Yeah, all of your mid to heavy weight really structured fabrics. Five buttons for the sleeves. I mean, it's for the, for the center front and then eight buttons for the sleeves. Fit-wise, the bust supposedly has eight inches of ease. The waist has 11. That doesn't seem right. That doesn't seem right at all. 11 would be like, I mean, maybe, maybe because it is like a boxy look. See how it's so straight up and down kind of. I mean, there's a little bit of a curve, but not much. Yeah, yeah, maybe let me look at it again. Yeah, I think what's happening is the structure of the jacket is just making it look more fitted than it is. But we don't know what's going on with, like we don't really know what her body looks like under here. She could just be super skinny under here and we, we don't know. So, yeah, I don't know. I probably would size down one personally just because eight and 11 does feel like a lot for me. I like things to fit a little bit better, especially in my upper torso because that is the smallest part of my body. So try and show that off. Now it's an interesting choice for them to not put the pants and the jacket in one pattern, especially when they are calling it a matching set. It feels a little maybe greedy, some would say, others would say, you know what? No, they're obviously allowed to do whatever they want in terms of how they want to, you know, package up and sell their patterns and they don't want any options. They don't want extra views. They want to give you one thing that you can fit really well and you don't have to worry about anything else. I get that. That makes sense too. But some people might be a little bit, like, miffed about the fact that you have to buy them separately in order to get the matching set. I see both sides. Okay, pants have life front zipper, back yoke pockets and belt loops. Sizing should be the same. Yes, it is. Okay, so kind of a low slung waist. It is a curved waistband and it almost feels like intentionally it starts at the waist and scoops down, right? Then we've got like a baggier type of look here. Baggy, but still fits well. That's important. Like it's intentionally baggy, I think. And then like a little bit of tapered leg and then a little, I guess, one inch pimm allowance there. But all your traditional jean details. There's the illustration of the back. Okay, here's the actual back. So we have some really cute pocket detail. Love that kind of western, maybe, but this is straight across. So that's good. That fits well. Maybe a little bit too much room here, too much length here, but she is also popping this leg. So it's hard to tell. Crotch curve looks good. There's also probably a little bit too much fabric in the inseam, but not by much. Not by much at all. We've seen a lot worse in terms of fit on pants for sure, but they're known for fit. So that's why I'm going to point those things out. Okay, same fabrics we talked about before. Let's look at I will note that the illustration makes the waist band look straight across. But you could see on hers it was definitely falling. So I don't know what to make of that. It's conflicting on what the intention is. Okay, so hip-wise we have seven inches of ease, roughly, and hip we have two and a quarter. Yeah, two and a quarter feels fair. Seven in the hip for how baggy this is. I don't know. I'm not seeing seven there. I'm seeing like four maybe. So it's interesting. I wonder if they give you so much ease on purpose because they're anticipating you wanting to tweak the fit? We don't really see ease numbers that are so far off like this as much anymore as we used to. Every pattern before used to be like what is happening. So yeah, I'm not sure if they're just giving you a little bit of extra room to make your own adjustments. The intention is not for you to be able to make it right out of the pattern envelope that it's going to be too big for this reason or that reason because it's easier to adjust or, you know, I don't know, something like that? Maybe? I don't know. I'm just speculating. But yeah, if you're going to make that and not try and putz around with fit a lot, then for sure, size down. I would. Okay, now we have, oh, this is the same model as the, this is the same girl that is in the Melissa Watson patterns. So that means that they aren't using, that's the same girl, right? Yeah, they are not using their own fit model anymore. So that makes sense as to why the shoulder seam was a little bit long and like the end seam was a little bit long, those kinds of issues that we saw. Okay. So this is Mrs. Dresses 6 to 14, 16 to 24, easy to sew knit bodice dresses with contrast skirts. We are not doing this again. Ankle length dresses have neckline variations elastic at waist and side pockets. Guys, this is so 2010s coated. It's not even funny. So it's a knit bodice and a woven skirt. Who remembers when we were doing that? Like that was so popular when I first started sewing. And I guess, I guess it makes sense. I don't know. I always thought it was weird. Then it didn't feel super comfortable. Then like, why not just make the whole thing out of a knit? You know, like, why, why do we have to mix it up? Because now you're having to shop for two different things that match. That feels difficult to do these days. I would say that if it's a knit top and like a charmeuse skirt or a shally skirt that like, like this is a print and then a solid on top, that feels more doable. But is that cute and modern?  Um, it is beautiful, the maxi skirt especially, but I just wish it were all woven or all knit. Right? It doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't do right. It looks funny. Yeah, it's not for me. The whole, the whole thing about it is not for me. Like this isn't even sitting at her natural waist. She has zero shape, even though she's in a, what's supposed to be fit to fitted ish bodice and then like a straight slash a line skirt or gathered skirt. She has no shape, no body. It's just, it's like she's the hanger, you know, like her shoulders are just the hanger and it's just hanging there. It's just like bleh. Yeah. All right. So bodices and stretch knit only and then contrast skirt and cotton blends, poplin and satin. Yikes. Yikes. Now you could make the skirt out of the same knit. Um, it wouldn't have to be as wide through the hip because the knit will stretch around your body there, but you could. My suggestion though would be just to find another pattern. This, this one's not it. And yeah, I don't know. Okay. So elastic and elastic and kind of a lot elastic. So I'm wondering is that, is the waistband done, it's done with elastic obviously because you can't gather it. That's even worse. That just feels really uncomfortable. Okay. Um, then we have one and a half, I'm sorry, one inch of ease in the bust. This is where they start to lose the shape and body. Oh my gosh. I'm sorry. My phone is ringing. That's not your phone. That's my phone. I'm so sorry. Um, what was I going to say? Uh, oh, this is where they start to lose the shape in the waist. The bust fits well. The waist with, what is that, six and a half inches of ease. That's where they go wrong. This should be way more fitted, like two inches of ease. And then the dress, the skirt is very voluminous. It almost doesn't even really matter. Okay. Next up we have, so far I'm just like unimpressed. Um, okay. So eight to 16 and 18 to 26 on this Mrs. shirt dress. Drop shoulder dresses has double yoke, top stitching, length and sleeve variations and optional sash. So a take on a kimono type deal with these really wide sleeves, really wide and long. Um, not my favorite look.  There's no collar stand. And it also to me starts really high up the neck, but in front, I don't think there's any shape to this. If you don't add the sash, really deep hem, which I do like really deep hem here to the other versions. This one with no collar flap and no sleeve feels much more attractive to me, much more like something I would do. Even this one with the short sleeve is better. Um, oh, there is elastic in here. Never mind. So there is a waist scene of sorts with an elastic waist. And then you can put the sash over it if you want. Yeah. I think they made the wrong sample out of the wrong fabric. If they would have made this out of the sleeveless version, I think we'd all be raving. If they made this sleeve version out of something a little draper, this just is like box and box and box and so many boxes. You know what I mean? So yeah, that really doesn't help much either, does it? You do get a yoke. Like it is, it is a shirt dress for sure. Um, yeah, I think it's just the sleeve that's really throwing me. The rest of it's not that bad. Cottonblends Gauze Lawn Lightweight Linen. Yeah, I just, I get that they're leaning into the shirt dress, but that might be doing them a disservice. Like, I don't know, I just see this little sleeveless one. There is it. As like a little, I don't know, ditzy floral, like lightweight number. I don't see it out of stable fabric at all. This one, maybe. Yeah, I don't know. I'm wondering if it's just fabric choice. If they just missed the mark on making all of the, making the sample and the suggestions, um, stable fabrics. Lightweight, but stable. I almost wonder if they would have done like a, like a rayon, rayon cotton blend, rayon linen blend, something like that, if that would have been a little bit better. All right. So twill tape, eight inches of twill tape. So that must be for the neckline or the shoulders, maybe eight buttons, one package of bias tape, and then 10 buttons, depending on the view that you're making. And then again, tons of ease. So five and a half in the bust, two in the waist. Okay. That's better. And then the hip is negligible. So five in the bust with this kind of design does make a little bit of sense. I think that if you're in between sizes, size down, if you're on the mark on a size, just make that size. And I think it would, it will be fine. Yeah, there is a lot of room through here, but it's supposed to be like that, I think. And if the fabric were draper, then it doesn't stand away from your body so much. Okay. So here's the Mrs. version of that little set. Oh, gosh. They made the same view. I don't know. I don't want, I don't really love it that much more on her either. So it's not a body shape type of thing.  Like she just stepped into like one of those Japanese lampshades. It's too much. It's too much. 20 inches of ease is wild. So yeah, it doesn't have anything to do with the size of the model or anything else. It's just too much ease. Too much ease. The skirt in a print, because the last one was a, was the white solid, remember? You kind of lose this even more. I mean, it wasn't dramatic to begin with. And then it's fully lost in a print. So if it were me, and I really insisted on making this set, I would just ditch this, like all this work for it not to even be able to be seen. I would just do your regular skirt with a ruffle on the bottom. This is a nice idea, but it's just getting lost. It's right here for what it's worth, but you can't see it. And then this one also has this one going to, which I guess the white one had to, but yeah, look at that. No.  The belt is silly. That's just silly. Okay. All right. Well, that settles that then. Now we have this little, they're calling it a corset top.  Oh, it's on the tip of my tongue. Figure flattering and fitted corset style crop tops have front button closure, square neckline and top stitching details. VB has faux pockets. Waste coat. Waste coat. That's what it is, right? Waste coat. I think that's what it is. That's what I was thinking of anyway. So if that's not what this is, then I stay in corrected, but that's the word I was trying to remember. Okay. So we have square neckline, which I really like. Your corset seeming. So there's one seam here, one here and your side seam. This one has a little V's, which I don't mind the V's. This one has the scoop in the front with a flat pocket. It's a little bit too long through here. Can you see how it's gaping from her body? And then also possibly a little bit too small through here, too tight, which is an interesting juxtaposition of things. And then the crop top just cropped. Okay. I like the idea of this outfit. It is cute. I would wear it. Okay. Here's the back. Yeah. Doesn't it feel like, because see how this is also pulling away from her body? And this is probably too. They probably like, I don't know, removed some shadows or something, but I think this is pulling away from her body. So yeah, I think it's, it doesn't fit her very well. Hard to say if that's a universal thing or she just has really wide shoulders and back, but that's kind of what it feels like, a wide shoulder and back situation. Oh boy, I did it again. I was doing so good guys. I'm sorry. But other than that, I think it looks good. So my best advice and you guys are going to hate this. My advice for this one is to make a muslin. You don't need that much fabric. You only need to make the crop top version out of your muslin. Just to see what's, the arm size is not, something's wrong here. I think, I think it's her, but I also think not her. That's not the right verb. That's not the right frame. And you guys know what I mean. It's her body plus the pattern on her body type. Plus I also think the arm side is drafted really, really funny. Almost too curved in the back and then maybe too long. I don't know. There's the arm size not giving. Yeah, that doesn't seem right to me. Okay, so notions wise. Okay, just as I thought, there is no boning. So they're calling it a corset, but it's really a vest with corset seams. Corset would have boning. Okay, chambray, denim, linen and twill, lining fabrics. I wasn't expecting to see that. So I guess that there's a facing. So that's why all of that is done on the facing. So that's, that's how you finish the neckline and the arm size. That's nice. Three or five buttons, depending on the length.  Five eighths to three quarters of a yard of fabric and that's it. Well, that's certainly intriguing. In that case, maybe, oh no, it's 45. Interfacing one and a half yards. So is the whole thing also interfaced? I don't know. A lot of that seems unnecessary. I don't think it needs to be lined, especially if you're not putting the boning in. I think you could just like do it like a denim jacket with faux flat belt seams. Yeah, but still, oh, that's for the little crop top A. When you get to B and C, the yardage goes to a whopping one and three quarters, one in, no, one in an eighth. So one yard wonder is this thing. I love that. I love that. I have some single yards laying around. That's worth it in and of itself just to use up the stash. All right. And then finished measurements, we have five inches in the bust. No, we don't. There's no way. And then three inches in the waist. That makes more sense. Five inches in the bust. There's no way. That's either inaccurate or that's either wrong or they made adjustments to this one that we just can't see, like pulling it tighter in the back. But that's not five inches of ease in the bust. There's no way. A lot of fit issues on this one. I haven't, I haven't had to call out so many fitting and ease issues in a long time. I really felt like they were getting it together. Okay. Men's knit top and shorts. All right. Three button placket and self collar polo design tops have a classic look and feel. Short elastic waistband piping trim contrast options. The material is stretchy to ensure that you can play in comfort. Wow. Fans of tennis, pickleball and golf should like this design. Okay. That's what they're doing. They're leaning into pickleball. It's the number one fastest growing sport, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Um, and so they say, why can't you make your own clothes to wear out to the pickleball court? I, I agree. I agree fully. Um, so we have a couple of options. We have a that has this little trimming detail right along here. Um, and then everything else is the same. We have B that has contrast here contrast on the top of the shoulder and contrast down here. And then we have the short, two options, either the simpler, just single piping detail or with the contrast panel. Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm pretty sure they just went downstairs of their offices and just found the next guy walking down the street and we're like, yo, want to come take some pictures? Oh gosh. He's just giving like regular guy on the street. Normally their models are so like modally. This guy just seems normal, which is actually kind of nice. All right. There it is. Good job guys. Athletic knits, cotton knit, interlock, jersey. Yeah. That's it. Okay. Cute idea. Cute concept. What are the girls wearing to pickleball? Do the girls get one? Oh, they do. They do right here. We'll get there in a second. I love it. Okay. Men's shirt and shorts. Look at this guy. Look at this guy. Oh God. The casting person, like, I don't know, got sick and miss a few days of work and was back to work and knew this photo she was happening today. She just found a guy on the subway. Please come with me. Please help me. Maybe it's her boyfriend. Maybe it's her brother. You know, he's just, he's just such a normal Joe Schmo kind of guy. Okay. So men's shirt and shorts. Matching shirt and shorts sets for men. Button front shirts have collar, some and come in short or long sleeves. BBS front pockets with flaps. Pull on shorts with the last size waist have drawstring and pockets. You see hash slide slits. Oh, okay. So it's the same shorts as the pickleball shorts. It seems just in a woven and then a pretty traditional button up shirt. If it looks good on him. Yeah. Not really seeing any issues there. Yeah. Okay. It's resort wear for guys. Yeah. Looks looks great. The length of the short is definitely a choice. I think that's a little bit more palatable for most men. I, I, and I think a lot of women prefer a little bit shorter of an inseam. If you're guys comfortable with that, you know, definitely shorten the shorts. But if not, that's fine too. Just not for shorts, like not down to the knees. Like we're not doing that. Please. Um, active wear woven's they're calling it, which would be like that wicking type of woven, you know, I'm talking about, you know it. Cotton blends lightweight nylon and swimwear woven's. I have a swimwear woven. I don't know what it's actually called, but I think they called it board short, board fabric surf fact, something like that, something along those lines. I think it might even be Liberty. It's very bougie. I don't know why I got it. It's been in my stash for a decade easily. Um, anyways, so buttons, buttons, elastic, all the normal stuff for this type of design. So okay. Cute. All right. So while your guy is looking fly on the pickleball court, this is what you wear. How stinking cute. I might pick up pickleball just to wear this. Um, three button placket collar optional contrast and purchased stretch piping or trim. Scorts with elastic waistband have purchased stretch piping or contrast at the bands. I just absolutely adore a scort in any fashion. And this one is like high fashion. Like I think you could wear that with a black rib knit body suit or something. And it would look amazing. It's a little low slung. I would rather not necessarily at the waist. I get that, but maybe one inch below the waist, not three inches.  So not my personal favorite place for a waistband, but same little design details with the fabrics. I love the slit that you can see the little short in there. So cute. Yes. Also. Yes. Now stretch piping. Is that a common thing to find? That feels like a specialty item. You can also make your own. You can also make flat piping, which has no cording in it.  So I just want it to be a little bit longer, just a little bit. Okay. Fabrics are going to be the same as the guys. We should have no vintage garment measurements. Okay. All right. There's just too many options. They had to put in all the fabric requirements. Yeah. Cute though. Cute and fun. Cute idea. Okay. So now we're getting into, now this is the kind of vintage that is my jam. So this is 1970s quick and easy tops, skirt and pants. Why do I feel like I had this at one time? Knit, tops, skirt, pants and shorts. This is a whole outfit, a whole capsule wardrobe. Tops have extended shoulder line. A has sleeve bands and drawstring and waist casing. Views, BCD and E have turned up sleeves. BCD and E have drawstring and lower casing. VRE and cowl have collar, cowl collar, have pockets and side seam openings. Skirt has elastic and waistline casing. Pansor is worthwhile. I can't keep reading this. Oh my gosh. It's the same thing over and over. Okay. Let's just look at it. I feel like I had this, but maybe not. So we've got, let's start with A. A is this little, remember it's a knit top. Okay. We've got doleman-ish. What's happening with this? Oh, it's a grown-on sleeve or a, sorry, drop shoulder with a sleeve band. That's what's happening. And then elastic or drawstring casing here. Then this is our little skirt, right? Don't we get a skirt? B is this top, same top, just a longer sleeve and instead, and no elastic, no drawstring. C is a, like a short sleeve version of that. D is, D is a scoop neck. E is the cowl, funnel cowl neck. And that's also D. But you do get some pants and skirts and stuff, which I don't feel like they're calling out. Maybe they added those.  There's the pants again. She's just naked. Is she naked? She's naked. She has no pants on. Okay. A is the pant. C is the shorty short and E is, I'm sorry, A is the skirt and E is the pant. What a great little pattern. Unbounded stretchable knit. I don't even know what that means. Such as cotton nits, knitted terry, terry, come on. Knitted velour, sweater nits, wool, or synthetic jersey. Yeah. I have a lot of those. I don't really know what to do with. Perfect. I love this little pattern. Um, elastic elastic and optional stretch lace, alphanumeric sizing up to only the equivalent of a four to an 18. So yikes. Not very size-inclusive. I'm like a mid-sized girly and I would barely fit into this. Bust has five inches of ease and the hip, oh well the hip does have somewhere between 12 and 13 inches of ease. So yeah, you could, if you were like a 2022, you could size down and still fit into this and have just a little bit less ease. But it wouldn't be like skin tight. I like it. Okay, now look how cute this little number is. Mrs. Dress or Top, 6 to 14 and 16 to 24. Vintage and McCall's 1970 dress or top sewing pattern pullover dress or top front is gathered into front bands, which fold back to form collar. Okay. Short sleeves with gathered cap turned up to form cups. The dress B has purchased belt. Okay. I mean, obsessed with the top with wear jeans. This is like so my style. The maxi dress is incredible. The little mini with no belts. I don't know. This one's really cute too. Oh, that's it. We don't even get the back of the envelope. That's it. This is literally the two pictures that we get. Wow. Okay. Well, it's cute. And I'm assuming you're going to be making this out of cotton blends, you know, linen, those mid-weight, lightly stable type of fabrics, gauze, the normal stuff we've been seeing this whole collection. Yeah, two pictures. That's it. Okay. So we skip the kiddos and now we'll go to this one here. Okay. Asymmetric wrap front skirts with pocket variations, have fly front zipper with button closure and adjustable strap. Use B and C have front pleats. Sizes 6 to 14 and 16 to 24. Oh, the way I really want to like this, but something is not right. I think it's too low-waisted again.  They're just not doing this girl very much justice at all. The design is cute. I love this little patch pocket version with the little buckle. This one is also very cute. It's giving, oh shoot, what was that movie with the Girl Scouts where the troop Beverly Hills? It's giving troop Beverly Hills like cargo skirt meets schoolgirl skirt, you know, it's like wilderness and luxury all in one. I don't know. I don't know. But yeah, I wish it were higher up on her, right? That looks frumpy and I don't think it's supposed to be that. I think it's supposed to be cuter and it's just not that cute, right? Don't we want it to be up here? I think so. It also could be, see how the back is higher than the front? So maybe it's falling down in the front on her? I don't know. There just seems to be some issues here. Let's see what this, yeah, I think it would take a little bit of finessing. It is a skirt though, so you could just pull it up higher. Why didn't they, I guess it was too big for her. That's what it was. It's just too big on her. That's that's my final answer. Okay, cotton blinstin on poplin and twill, a zipper, a button, d-rings, buckle slider, and heavy duty snaps are your notions depending on which version you're making. Size wise, finished hip is all they're giving us? Okay, well I don't like to see the waist more than the hip. The hip has seven inches of ease. The waist should have two, somewhere around two at the area. No, and that would be like a one inch if you wanted to sit at your natural waist, two inches if you wanted to sit an inch below your natural waist. Yeah, I feel like people are going to start making that one and then others are going to see how cute it can be. So here's a missus skirt in three lengths. Flyfront skirts have seeming details, back yoke, pockets, and length variations. View C has high low hem. Eight to 16 and 18 to 26 on the size range. The styling is not it, especially for this fabric choice, like the big chunky belt. No, no, and then look at this little weird shoe. No, styling's not it, but let's try and look beyond that. We have seeming here and then what you can't see is this seam, this curve that goes all the way around the front to back. So it adds all of this volume to the side of your body, which I know sounds like why would I want to add saddlebags, but it's actually camouflaging. It's going to do the opposite than you think it will do. It's if you use the right fabric and it drinks the way that it's supposed to, this can be a really cute detail. It just adds a lot of volume to the sides and not so much front to back, which again, I know I'm saying that and you're all going no, no, that's not going to be cute on me, but you have to take my word for it. See how it's falling on her? It's just, no, it just is magic, okay? This one, this picture, this illustration doesn't help, but I promise you it's cute. I had a skirt like this that was kind of like businessy, so it was made out of some kind of like maybe like a stretch twill and it was really cute and that wasn't even all that drapey. If you get something drapey like the washer linens or the linen rayon blends or some kind of cotton blend, it could be really cute. See it just adds this, this drape is all it adds, but it doesn't add volume to your butt. They took the belt off, thank god, but it has the yoke. Yeah, I don't know, I don't love the high low version, but I think that the long one could be really fabulous and this one could be really kind of just cute. Cute, see? Chambray, Chino, Denim and Twill. Yeah, I think you can go a little bit lighter than this, not to like shally and stuff, but somewhere in between those two, more like the cotton blends, the linen blends, things like that. Okay, all you need is a zipper and a button and uh, these wise we're looking at in the waist, what? Five inches in the waist? No, what? No, that's so off. Oh wait, it's neck, no, that's minus. That's smaller than your body measurement, so this is not right. Maybe it's supposed to say 36, this is an error. There's no way this skirt's smaller than your body by six inches. That's, that's a problem. So we don't really know what we're working with there and it also makes me not trust the hip measurement either, even though the hip measurement is larger and it doesn't make sense for this pattern. If this were 36 and a quarter, then it would be still five inches of ease or is way too much. Again, two inches of ease is the most you want in a waist, especially one that's sitting up this high. So I don't know what's going on there. I hope it's not printed like that on the pattern itself or on the tissue paper. Okay, oh look a Barbie doll, they're leaning into that now. Okay, we've got some pajamas, extra small to two X, all in one, oversized tops of collar and front button closure have short or long sleeve option, pants and shorts have ribbon trim, purchased piping, trim and elastic waistband. The illustrations are way cuter than it actually turned out. I don't want to wear like a fitted pant to my ankle in a woven, that's for sure, but it's not that bad. It's giving, it's giving upry side. It's giving like, I'm fabulous, even in my pajamas, which, you know, is nice, but these look more like dresses. These look like they flare out more. They look like they're a little bit longer and that is appealing to me, which you can do, right? You can make that happen, lengthen this, widen it a little bit, pair it with a little short and have a cute little like short all set, right? I don't know. Maybe it's just, maybe I'm, that looks like stilts. There's the back.  It's just all being pushed to the back. The width is not being evenly distributed. That's cuter. I still don't like this at the bottom and I don't like how tight it is. Okay, shali, charmous, crepes and lawn. Yeah, wall would probably fall into that. Any of your like lightweight woven, even a little bit drapey is fine. A ton of notions, mostly buttons and piping and elastic, even honey doesn't like this one. That's sort of growling in the back. There's our sizing and finished garment measurements are not provided. We have definitely seen cuter pajamas in the past, but okay, so we've got some aprons and kitchen accessories, infant clothes. We've got this miss, is this, yeah, this was the last, this was the last release, which I remember liking so much. This one is not my favorite. It feels like we have gone back in time to when things were a little questionable over at the big, it was only the big four back then. Yeah, I didn't have a lot of nice things to say about this whole collection. Did you guys agree with me or am I just being like extra harsh today or what is going on? What did you guys think of this collection? Let me know in the comment section below, but that's going to do it for me today. I will see you all very soon. Bye.


one subject that gets spoken of a lot when it comes to NFL franchises is the window of opportunity. And what most people are referring to when they speak about that window of opportunity is the team's chances of winning a Super Bowl with their best rosters because they can maximize the potential that those rosters have before they pay their quarterbacks to big money. Because once you pay your quarterbacks to big money, not that you can't win, not that it makes it impossible to win, but it does get a lot harder because the quarterbacks take up so much of the salary cap. And again, it's not like you can't do anything, but you just can't move how you used to be able to move. So one team whose window of opportunity a lot of people speak about is the Ravens. And I mean, why wouldn't they? Ravens a very young team. And right now Lamar is still on his rookie contract, so they are able to maximize this roster. Of course, we had hoped and expected them to maximize their potential last year, but they came up short. But now this year, the team, they seem to have gotten even better on paper. But one thing that this team, one problem that this team seems to have, that it is maybe bigger now than it may have ever been when you think about it is a lot of contracts coming up. And we've talked about this extensively, this offseason.  You have Matt Judon, you have Ronnie Stanley, you have Marlon Humphrey, you're getting ready to have Mark Andrews, Orlando Brown Jr., you have Tyus Bowser as well, you have Gus Edwards, you have Matt Scurra. So there are a lot of guys that, and of course Lamar Jackson, how did I forget him? So there are guys whose names that we've heard repeatedly. And there's some guys names who you don't hear of too often when it comes to Raven's talented players contracts coming up. The guys like Scurra, Gus Edwards, Tyus Bowser, you don't hear people talk about them too often. But their contracts are coming up. Tyus Bowser is in his final year. Gus Edwards is a restricted free agent this year. So he could be an unrestricted free agent next year, Matt Scurra. He's a restricted free agent this year. So he'll be an unrestricted free agent next year. So Ravens have quite a bit of decisions to make. And again, like I said before, I am not envious. I'm not jealous at all of Eric D'Costa in the spot that he's in with that. But today, John Harbaugh had a press conference where he was asked about the Ravens and all their young talent and whatnot and how he feels about the Ravens chances of keeping that young talent. And he said that he was optimistic about it. And initially, because again, with Harbaugh, sometimes I mean, I myself sometimes I have thought that or think that sometimes Harbaugh sometimes he'd just be running his mouth and whatnot. But recently, especially over the past couple years, I've got to be like, hold on, wait now. So Harbaugh may really be saying something. So he said that he was optimistic about the Ravens having better chances of being able to retain their young talented homegrown players, like a Judon, like a Stanley, like a Lamar, etc. And then when he said that, I'm like, okay, yeah, that's that's the politically correct answer or whatnot, you hope to retain your guys, you're optimistic to retain your guys. But he did actually make a very, very good point. Because he said for the last like six, seven years, the Ravens have not been in the best spot financially. But when you think about it, they still Ravens have always been a team for the most part. After they won their first Super Bowl got a little ugly. But for the most part, the Ravens have been a team that's been financially restricted. But at the same time, they have still been able to make move after move after move after move after move. And some very quality moves to been some less quality moves as well, some bargain moves. But they have still been able to put together really good teams. A lot of it will not a lot of it was some of it came through free agency, a lot of it came through homegrown drafting and development, more so on defense than offense. But Ravens have been able to put together some special teams, despite always being tied up against the cap, because Ravens have never been a team that's been able to just splurge, splurge, splurge. Oh, we want that guy. We want that guy. We want this guy. We as fans, we mentally splurge. Like, oh, this guy would be a good fit with the Ravens. That guy would be a really good fit. He'd be a good addition. Oh, yeah, we should sign him. We should sign him. We should sign him. We should trade for him. Shout out to Jamal Adams, Jadavian Clowney too. But anyway, Ravens have never been that team to be able to get this guy, that guy, that guy. But what Hardball said is that they've been sort of financially restricted for the past six, seven years. But he said this, this offseason that they're currently in, it did get a little better. But then next offseason, it'll be even better. And we've all seen a lot of the different salary cap situations for the Ravens. And a lot has changed. I know there was, there was a one point during this past season, there was one point where they were predicting, oh, Ravens gonna have like a 80 mil, maybe 50 mil salary cap spaces coming off season. And a lot of us were like, no, that's not, that's way too early to predict that. And then you got all these contracts coming up, franchise tag, restricted free, no, it's, it's going to be more than they usually have. But at the same time, it's still not going to be that much. But for next year, again, it should be better. And one of the big things, obviously flakos contract was a big part of that. And the money that that that carried, the weight that that carried, and the dead money too, because they had some dead money that they had to get rid of. Now that's gone. And obviously through the years to Ray Rice contract was a huge part in dead money. When they traded away, got like Lodi Nada. That was a little small bump, but still, and there's been many different guys that added to the equation of the Ravens being tight and also building competitive teams. When you build like when you think about it, because some people they some people like complaining about Ravens never have any money. They never got any salary cap space. But you got to realize like these dudes put together a competitive team, like every year. And again, something that we've talked about too, every year, every year since 2008, Ravens have been competitive. There's only been a size 2015 when everybody got hurt. But even the team was still competitive because they only lost two games by they only lost two games by more than one score that year. They did go, um, well, five and 11. I think they were five and 11. But only two losses came by double digits. Every other game, every game besides those two losses. I think one was to the Seahawks and one to the Chiefs. But every game besides those two losses came by eight points or less. So one score.  But anyway, seven since 2008, Ravens have been competitive every single season. And the only time that the earliest that they've known that they would not be in the playoffs was in was after week 16. That's the early every besides 2015 season. The earliest that they've known that they would not be in the playoffs was in a week 16. In states, 15 years last year, I think it was 2016, I believe. But that's the earliest, because then the week 17 game, it didn't mean anything. It didn't have any implications on anything. And they, they, I mean, they could have rested everybody if they wanted to, but it was a meaningless game. So they, they continue to put together these teams, they build these, these rosters and whatnot, but they, they, they low on money. But then you see the, the teams that have the most money to splurge, their rosters aren't really that good. But anyway, when hardball made that point, it was a very, very good point. And that could lead to some optimism for the Ravens retaining more of their guys. But at the same time, let's face it, Ravens still can't keep everybody. And he did again, with his point, it was a very good point that the Ravens, they're gonna have, they're gonna have more money than they normally do. But at the same time, Eric DeCosta said, when he took over one of his biggest things that he wanted to make sure that he did as the GM of the Baltimore Ravens was to be financially responsible. And being financially responsible, it, it means just because you got it, don't mean you spend it. And I'm not saying that the Ravens are going to be cheap and whatnot, blah, blah, blah, but being financially responsible as a GM, you got the players that you want to, that you want to keep. But then you got to, you got to prioritize that list. Who are the top guys we want to keep? Who are the guys that we absolutely cannot lose? Who are the guys that we can afford to lose? How much are we willing to spend on this player? What type of contract agreement can we come to with this player? How much are we willing to give this player per year?   So still, there will still be hearts broken. There will still be people that get upset. Cause again, us as fans, we get invested. We get very invested and we, we want the Ravens to keep everybody. We want our team to keep everybody. We want our team to get everybody, but it just can't happen like that. And it doesn't happen like that. So I just, but still, Hobart did make a very, very good point about the Ravens actually having a little more bread next off season. So having more money does not make those decisions that easy, easier. But anyway, and he did talk about how with, with any guys that they lose, hey, they'll just have to continue to draft well and draft replacements. And that's what the draft is all about. Young guys. It's about filling holes. It's about that next generation of talent coming in and doing that thing. So that was cool. Some other notes is that Harbaugh, he said that despite everything going on with the pandemic, he does expect there to be a season. And he said he hopes that there's a season. Me, I know I've talked to a lot of y'all about this whole thing. I still think there's going to be a season. I know they said more players have been coming up with it and whatever, even in college and whatnot. I still think there's going to be a season. I do. Some people do. Some people don't, but I do. Well, now this, this was probably one of the most interesting things that I saw from that press conference. It was about the Titans. And Harbaugh made his comments on Lamar Jackson. Lamar Jackson said that he feels like the Ravens look past the Titans and they underestimated the Titans. But Harbaugh said that he doesn't think that we took the Titans lightly, personally. We just didn't play well. So I mean, hey, I mean, you could understand both points of view, but you can understand both sides. And it could be that both sides, both sides are true because Lamar could be speaking more from a player standpoint. Harbaugh could be speaking more from a coaching standpoint. So just because they have different answers, it doesn't mean that one answer is wrong and one answer is right. They could be both speaking their truth. So, but I just thought that was very interesting to see two different viewpoints on the Titans. And honestly, I think it was just really a mix of everything, a mix of everything. So anyway, because it could have been like, well, maybe the coaching staff, now they definitely didn't execute good. The coaching staff didn't execute good. The players didn't execute good. But a lot of the players, they could have been feeling themselves, they could have been like, man, we just won 12 straight.  And we beat a really good defense in the Steelers. So they could have been feeling themselves been on a high horse or whatever. Oh man, we got an extra by way. We got two by way straight. Well really three or two, two, two, excuse me. So they really could have been feeling themselves and been like, oh yeah, we're cool. We got it. We're straight. Oh Titans. Yeah, they beat up the Patriots, but we beat up the Patriots and we beat them worse than the Titans did. Titans only ended up beating them by I think like seven or eight, something like that. We beat those dudes way worse than that. And the Titans, they got to come to our crib at night, man. Please, man. We ain't worried about no Titans. Boom. Titans smacked them in the face. Then again, the coaching staff didn't play how they normally play, didn't use the game plan that they normally use. And again, just a mess. So hey, again, both, both parties, both Lamar Jackson and the hardball, they both could have been right. And they both were right. I mean, we saw the results. And hardball also talked about the ski incident. Because they asked me if he talked to Lamar about that. He said, hey, that's between him and Lamar. Next question. And then, then he talked about Earl Thomas and he said, the whole thing with Earl Thomas, he said, that's between him and his wife. Hardball ain't one, no parts of that. No parts of that. So he, he stayed out of that. And let me see. Oh, about Scurra, he also talked about Mad Scurra about how he's ahead of schedule. And yeah, we've been talking about that on here for, not forever now, but for a while now, man. But that, yeah, that was pretty much it, man. That was pretty much it. He said that he expects the team to go into training camp whenever that is. He expects them to go into training camp healthy.  You can't like plan for stuff, but you just see what's going on with the 49ers. And it's like, man, geez, even though like they're not season-ending injuries, but still, man, you just feel for them dudes, man, like yikes. And you know what's going to happen around a league. And my God nitered, he made such a good point in a video from, I think yesterday about how with a lot of these players who've been getting hurt with them, with them training on their own and them not being with actual professionals and whatnot, a lot of them, it's going to be a lot more injuries that you hear about too. With them not having the mini camps, with them not having the OTAs, with them not having training camp for now, with them not having that stuff like they usually would have been having around this time of the year. There'll be a lot more injuries. Now, I hope, I mean, I hope this every year, but I certainly hope that, I hope for football, say that that's wrong, but it's like, again, worst part about football, man, worst part about football is the injuries. Those things are rough, man. So it's going to be tough. It's going to be tough. So we'll see how everything plays out, man. We're going to see how everything plays out. Shout out to hardball because this new hardball, I like this, again, I told you all about this before too, this new hardball. Again, a hood hardball. If you're still here this part of the video, put hashtag hood hardball, especially for those of y'all that remember. Remember? Remember hood hardball? Oh yeah, because I do. I certainly do.  That ain't got nothing to do with me. I'm staying out of it. That's it. That's between Earl, his wife, ain't got nothing to do with me. As far as my boy Lamar, we talked what we talked about, that ain't got nothing to do with you. So that's between me and Lamar. So we ain't going to talk about it. Just leave it alone. But the hardball recently over the past couple of years, he has been more straightforward. Now, there was sometimes where he was dancing around some of the questions during this conference call today, but it wasn't anything that he could really answer like that anyway. But this hardball recently over the past couple of years, he's been a lot more straightforward. So I do like that. And I respect that and appreciate it. I think we all appreciate it. Because we love to see when coaches coaching staff, I mean, we see it from the players enough already about transparency. But when we see it from coaching staff, it's like, oh, okay, yeah, I love that. So when hardball gives us transparency, me, myself, I certainly appreciate it a lot. So anyway, I appreciate y'all a lot as well. Thank you for rocking with us. Thank you for supporting. Thank you just for everything, man. Y'all are great people. Team Keep It Clean. Y'all just keep doing what you're doing, man. Keep doing what y'all are doing. And thank you. So I love y'all. I appreciate y'all. And we out.


Today, I have the pleasure of speaking with David Regan from Sona Nanotech. How are you today? I'm well, Tracy. Thanks for having me on. I'll tell you, David, you certainly attract people. We get so many tweets, what's happening with David, what's happening with Sona. So let's start there. What is happening with Sona Nanotech? Well, Sona Nanotech is a really interesting life sciences company and we don't have a lot of those small ones in Canada. So we do get a lot of attention and I'll tell you what attracted me first to Sona to give it as a bit of a background. Sona has proprietary gold nanorod technology that came out of the university lab and this technology is the only type in the world that accomplishes a number of critical factors. So gold nanorods, did I hear you correct? That's right. Okay. Just put out a news release. Sona provides corporate update with these gold nanorods, which are very unique and competitive or so I'm reading. What kind of update do you have for us as shareholders? Sure. Well, I think it's important to step back a little bit and baseline somewhat, you know, gold nanorods, what they are. Nanotechnology, fascinating field obviously, but really what it's all about is the manipulation of materials at the nano scale, which is the near atomic scale and it's important to understand that when you take metals, for instance, gold down to that scale, its properties change in important ways and you can manipulate those properties and those materials in different ways at a very, very, as I say, almost atomic scale. There are lots of different types of nanoparticles. There are nanospheres, there are nanoshells, there are nanostars, there are nanorods. Those aren't new. We are not the only purveyors of those, however, we specialize in gold nanorods, which offer some really interesting, effective properties in a number of realms that I can tell you about now, if you like. So I think what you're telling me right now is the company is currently in a research stage. Is that correct? That's right. These gold nanorods are used in two general areas right now. Researchers are working with them around the world because they have such promising properties associated with them. We believe our particular technology can help to unlock some very powerful and very profitable applications of the technology. So can you give us an example of a current research program that you're working on or an application that you're focused on? Sure. And you know what? I'm going to start with commercial applications right now. Nanoparticles have been used, the first advent was probably pregnancy tests and lateral flow and the simple lateral flow tests. And that's an area in which we've got multiple different lateral flow tests. Those are like the COVID tests we've all seen that are being used. So that's one place in which they're actually commercialized now. However, the much, much larger and more interesting and more challenging area is using those nanoparticles in the body for advanced medical applications such as targeted drug delivery, tumor ablation, cell imaging, etc. Well, can I lean on you for you to tell me what your favorite application is this week? Because I do know enough about Nanotech to know that the applications are endless. So is there an application in particular that you as a CEO are most appreciative of or enjoying right now, presently? Well, I'll tell you what. As I say, multiple applications that are being researched around the world, we are agnostic as to the particular applications. Our gold nanorods, what we're trying to research right now is to understand where they best play across all the applications that are being researched in labs around the world. There's a research study that's being undertaken on our behalf right now at the University of Toronto in the Institute of Bionanotechnology to validate the biocompatibility of our particular nanoparticles. Now, why is biocompatibility a concern? Because in order to manufacture these nanoparticles, certain toxins are typically used. Our technology is unique in that no toxins are used in the creation of our gold nanorods. So I think if I hear you correct, what you're trying to say is that your nanorods really do separate you from the rest of the pack. And so your fascination and your passion topic in this particular application are on the nanorods themselves and their compatibility, not necessarily their direct applications. It's a great point. Yes. There are, as I say, different types of nanoparticles and different nanoparticles can be used for different applications to different levels of effectiveness. So researchers around the world are trying to understand which nanoparticles to use for which applications. We're helping them, by first and foremost, proving out the fact that our gold nanorods will be unique amongst gold nanorods in that they don't have toxins from the get-go, from their creation, therefore much more apt to be appropriate for implantation into the body. Now, you seem to, in addition to be attracting an endless group of interested parties in your particular company, you're attracting some world-class talent. I mean, in the new year, you had two new directors with impressive backgrounds. Can you talk to us a little bit about your board? Yeah, and thanks for noticing that. We're very proud of the quality of directors that have come on board with an industry background. We have Mark Levonin, who is a longtime former CEO of Sanofi Pasteur and co-chair of the National Vaccine Task Force. We have Neil Frazier, who's longtime president of Medtronic Canada, and most recently, Dr. Walter Strapps, who is a PhD researcher and CEO of a CRISPR-9 gene editing research company in the Boston area. However, what perhaps is the best vouching for our technology, because really that's what has attracted not just me, but those directors, not any one given test, but the underlying technology, is the research being done at the University of Toronto by a world leader, Dr. Warren Chan, which is being done not for fees and there's no commercial interest in Dr. Chan's research, other than that he understands this stuff. He's the director of the Institute of Bionanotechnology at the University of Toronto. He understands these applications better than anyone, and he finds our technology extremely interesting and worthy of research. Well, I'll tell you, we would love to do an interview with him in the future. If you can possibly compel him to do one, we would love to do one with you both. Well, let's let him get through the research first, see what the results are, and we're going to be very keen to tell you all about it, Tracy. And speaking of that, what should shareholders anticipate, say, in the next upcoming quarter? So this research is the main thrust of our work right now on the research side, the work with Dr. Chan, and we hope to have results back on that study over the course of the summer in this quarter. And that will be foundational in terms of being able to have an incredibly credible third-party expert opine on the efficacy and uniqueness of our technology. One thing for me to stand here and tell you that this is the best in the world, and this is going to be the gold standard, but it's something else to have that. So we're really excited to be able to talk about that when it comes out. Well, David, thank you so much for updating us today and for all of you sending me endless emails on what's happening at Sona Nanotech. Please go to their website at the following URL and or send David and his team your questions direct. David, thank you for joining us today. Thank you, Tracy. Okay, appreciate it.