Cherrywood vs Cocobolo wood 119

[Lawrence Helm]

I just received the Buck Cherrywood 119 in the mail a few moments ago. How do you get a Cherrywood 119? The Buck Cherrywood series is a Bass Pro Exclusive. The code ID on the box is 0119CWSBP1-B. I'm guessing that the coding after 119 means CherryWood, Special Bass Pro 1-B.

There is no information in the box about the knife, but shipment from Bass Pro included a catalog which includes, "Buck Cherrywood Series Knives, A Bass Pro Exclusive! Series features laminated cherrywood handles, ultra-sharp Edge 2X blades, and 420HC tempered steel blades."

I got out my Cocobolo 119 to compare the two. If one looks at the back of the handle one can see the laminations. Does Buck use the same process for both knives? I would guess that they do, a process of interspersing layers of wood with resin (the lamination process) and pressurizing them in such a way that the result becomes harder and tougher than wood or micarta. I know not everyone agrees with this description but the idea of Buck or Dymondwood painting a composite to look as though it is composed of laminations defies IMHO reason.

Moving ahead to the next interesting term, "ultra-sharp Edge 2X" the blade of my 2014 cocobolo 119 is slightly different from my Cherrywood 119. I'm not sure the differences would show up clearly in a photo but I may try it later on. The blade edge of the Cherrywood is slightly deeper than the blade edge of the cocobolo. I also have a 2014 Micarta 119 and see these differences. The spine stops a little more than 1.25 inches from the point on the Micarta, about 1.25 inches on the Cocobolo and a little less than 1.25 inches on the Cherrywood. I could imagine that the difference between the Cocobolo and the Cherrywood are to give the latter the "ultra-sharp Edge 2X blade," but why the difference between the Micarta and the Cocobolo? I have no way of determining the relative sharpness of these knives (out of the box).

The knife weight is another difference. The Micarta weighs 7 1/2 ounces, the Cocobolo 10 1/3 ounces, and the Cherrywood 10 1/2 ounces. Is Cherrywood heavier than Cocobolo? I haven't Googled the matter yet, but so it would seem.

Lawrence

 

[bertl]

Lawrence,

The Cherrywood and Cocobolo are the same except for the color. Dymondwood is a laminated birch product. In simple terms, very thin layers of birch impregnated with a colored resin are laminated under high pressure to form the Dymondwood.

 

[Lawrence Helm]

Lawrence,

The Cherrywood and Cocobolo are the same except for the color. Dymondwood is a laminated birch product. In simple terms, very thin layers of birch impregnated with a colored resin are laminated under high pressure to form the Dymondwood.

I argued against that with someone else recently. The only evidence the previous person had was the Dymondwood site. I don't believe that Cherrywood is birch aside from the fact that Cherrywood IS NOT birch. I quoted a site where it was explained that different woods could be used for this process. The Dymondwood site describing their frequent use of birch says nothing more than that they like to use birch for things. There is no reason this process won't and doesn't work with other woods. When Buck used laminated birch years ago they called it laminated birch. Cherry wood IS NOT birch.

Note the Bass Pro catalog calling Cherrywood "wood." If the Bass Pro special order were really Dymondwood they have violated a copyright by not giving Dymondwood credit, which they don't. They call their special Cherrywood knives "wood" and don't mention Dymondwood.

Lawrence

 

[Badhammer]

I suggest you contact Buck directly. I'm just not sure anyone here is going to be able to give you the answer you want.

 

[Lawrence Helm]

I suggest you contact Buck directly. I'm just not sure anyone here is going to be able to give you the answer you want.

I haven't asked a question. People on two different occasions have suggesting things I find no supporting evidence for.

The weight of the evidence sited indicates that these woods are woods, albeit laminated. Others with different names are just colors, but notice a list of Rutland's colors and you won't find the wood Cocobolo. You will find Macassar Cocobolo and Buck uses Macassar Cocobolo (so designated) on a 110. Here is the list of colors Rutland uses. This is from http://www.jayfisher.com/Handles_Knife_Manmade_Materials.htm#Dymondwood_Colors:

Dymondwood Colors

Dymondwood by Rutland Plywood Corporation publishes a brochure on Dymondwood. Here are the color groups from that brochure, and the names listed in the table on the left. Please click on the thumbnail photos for a larger view.
Dymondwood Name Color Description
1. Rosewood Burgundy Wine
2. Heritage Walnut Medium Brown
3. Colonial Chestnut Light Brown
4. Cocobolo Macassar Cinnamon
5. Charcoal Silvertone Black, Silver Streaks
8. American Oak Natural
9. Bahama Cherrywood Red
10. Bermuda Lemonwood Yellow
11. Tahitian Jadewood Green
12. Indigo Royalwood Blue
13. Turquoise Gemwood Turquoise
14. Tropical Purplewood Purple
15. Fiji Orangewood Orange
16. Vermont Marblewood Green, Natural
17. Royal Jacaranda Wine, Black, Medium Brown
18. Amazon Marblewood Natural, Black, Red
19. Crimson Ironwood Wine, Light Brown
20. Charcoal Ruby Black, Wine
21. Santos Zebra Black, Cinnamon
22. Desert Stripewood Black, Natural
23. Rio Grande Applewood Natural, Med. Brown, Lt. Brown
25. Field and Stream Green, Med. Brown, Black, Blue
26. Hawkeye Yellow, Black
27. Olympic Red, Natural, Blue
28. Regal Red, Yellow, Blue
29. Spectrum Green, Lt. Brown, Blue, Red
30. Magnum Wine, Yellow, Black, Cinnamon, Med. Brown
31. Camo Supreme Green, Lt. Brown, Black, Med. Brown
32. Evergreen Camo Green, Black
33. Desert Camo Med. Brown, Lt. Brown, Wine
34. Sportsman Camo Red, Black, Green
35. Agatewood Natural, Cinnamon, Blue
36. Royal Marblewood Black, Medium Brown
37. Tropical Passionwood Pink
38. Fuchsia Dark Pink
39. Aqua Light Blue
40. Camo Green, Black, Medium Brown
41. French Green Dark Green
42. Chutney Red, Black, Yellow
43. Apple Jack Red, Black
44. Paisley Black, Blue, Red
45. Tortoise Light Brown, Medium Brown, Black, Wine
46. Timberland Medium Brown, Black, Red, Green
47. Hazelnut Cinnamon, Medium Brown, Wine, Natural, Light Brown
48. Alabaster Blue, Turquoise
49. Bubblegum Pink, Dark Pink, Blue
50. Dakota Light Blue, Cinnamon, Light Brown, Natural, Yellow, Wine
51. Madras Wine Purple, Black, Red, Natural, Light Blue
52. Terracotta Red, Yellow
53. Tapestry Wine, Green, Pink, Blue
54. Midnight Ebony Black (not shown)

You can find the same list on the Dymondwood Rutland site if you click on the PDF file: http://www.rutply.com/pdf/RPC-DymondWood_web.pdf

The knife handles we have been discussing are not on these lists. Since these are the colors they combine with Birch: See the Rutland page, and Cocobolo Dymondwood is not on the list what can we conclude? Did Buck misname it? Did Rutland forget to add plain old cocobolo to its list? Or was the dymondwood process used on a special order for Buck to make laminated cocobolo handles? The weight of evidence is on the latter conclusion IMO.

Also, here is the knife I just bought, a Cherrywood handled 119. There is no mention of dymondwood. I have no doubt from all I've read that I have a knife with a laminated Cherrywood handle. I can see that it is laminated but I take that to mean that I've received a Cherrywood laminated handle -- and still Cherrywood -- not a Dymondwood-birch-color that one can see isn't on Rutland's dymondwood color list.

Over on the Becker list, Ethan Becker would be chiming in about this time on a debate. Isn't there anyone from the Buck company on this forum?

Lawrence

 

[DesertChris]

I argued against that with someone else recently. The only evidence the previous person had was the Dymondwood site. I don't believe that Cherrywood is birch aside from the fact that Cherrywood IS NOT birch. I quoted a site where it was explained that different woods could be used for this process. The Dymondwood site describing their frequent use of birch says nothing more than that they like to use birch for things. There is no reason this process won't and doesn't work with other woods. When Buck used laminated birch years ago they called it laminated birch. Cherry wood IS NOT birch.

Note the Bass Pro catalog calling Cherrywood "wood." If the Bass Pro special order were really Dymondwood they have violated a copyright by not giving Dymondwood credit, which they don't. They call their special Cherrywood knives "wood" and don't mention Dymondwood.

Lawrence

OK..... I referenced BUCK CATALOGS specifically stating the use of Birch, Buck employees stating the use of Birch, The manufacturer of Dymondwood states clearly that they use Birch and dye it.

You referred to a bowmaking site that says cocobola may be laminated in parts of a bow.
The problem is that they are talking about making bows, not the materials in Dymondwood.

Buck uses Cherrywood Dymondwood in their knives.

If dealers choose to leave out the Dymondwood part, that is their choice.

Here is an example of the CHERRYWOOD DYMONDWOOD in the catalog




Here are 2 of the 119's you have. Black PHENOLIC handle and COCOBOLA DYMONDWOOD handle



There shouldn't be any argument since all the information you wanted has been provided to you.

 

[DesertChris]

Seriously Lawrence,

You insist on believing whatever you want, so please please please please call Buck and get the answers from them.
You don't believe their catalogs though, so I have doubts that talking to them would change your mind.....

Here is a Buck phone number for you.
Order/Product Questions: (800) 326-2825 ext. 3

 

[Lawrence Helm]

Seriously Lawrence,

You insist on believing whatever you want, so please please please please call Buck and get the answers from them.
You don't believe their catalogs though, so I have doubts that talking to them would change your mind.....

Here is a Buck phone number for you.
Order/Product Questions: (800) 326-2825 ext. 3

That thee are knives with different designations like the new macassar dymondwood I don't doubt. That the knife I just bought is something other than Bass Pro says it is is something I have reason to doubt. That I should call someone up and ask them to supply evidence that you haven't been able to provide doesn't seem reasonable.

And who is on extension 3?

Lawrence

 

[DeSotoSky]

Geesh, this sure has been beat to death. Here is a Buck knife ad that references the handles as "Impregnated Birchwood" and calls the color "Cocobola". The spelling "Cocobolo" has also been used by Buck. This ad would predate the Dymondwood tradename.

Yes, other woods can be used. The current 110 Macassar Ebony Dymondwood handles are a veneer top layer for appearance over a Birch wood base. I've also seen Oak Dymondwood in the model 405 and the 2001 model 106 hatchet. I'm not sure about the Oak but suspect like the Macassar Ebony it is just the top veneers for appearance over a Birch substrate.

 

[DesertChris]

Seriously?
I provided you with images of the old catalogs that say BIRCH!!
I provided an image of an old catalog that said we used birch laminated and colored to LOOK LIKE cocobola.
I provided images of the manufactured of Dymondwood saying they use BIRCH.

What happens if a new color of Dymondwood comes out and is called Sky?
Are you going to hypothesize that they made it out of laminated pieces of sky?
This is the logic you are adhering to.

I spent way too much time (hours) researching it for you, and you called it an argument.



At this point I am done. Believe what you want.

Oh.... extension 3 gets you to the Buck Knives Inc department that handles questions regarding ordering and product information.
But if you choose to believe otherwise, that is also your choice

 

[DeSotoSky]

Moving ahead to the next interesting term, "ultra-sharp Edge 2X" the blade of my 2014 cocobolo 119 is slightly different from my Cherrywood 119. I'm not sure the differences would show up clearly in a photo but I may try it later on. The blade edge of the Cherrywood is slightly deeper than the blade edge of the cocobolo. I also have a 2014 Micarta 119 and see these differences. The spine stops a little more than 1.25 inches from the point on the Micarta, about 1.25 inches on the Cocobolo and a little less than 1.25 inches on the Cherrywood. I could imagine that the difference between the Cocobolo and the Cherrywood are to give the latter the "ultra-sharp Edge 2X blade," but why the difference between the Micarta and the Cocobolo? I have no way of determining the relative sharpness of these knives (out of the box). Lawrence

The edges on Buck knives are applied/finished freehand. No two will be exactly alike. "Micarta" 119? Did you mean "Phenolic" ?

In 1999 Buck changed the edge geometry on their knives for a thinner included angle and called it Edge2000 (for the new millenium) or Edge2X (because it would hold an edge twice as long). That change was pretty much accross the entire product line.

 

[Lawrence Helm]

Seriously?
I provided you with images of the old catalogs that say BIRCH!!
I provided an image of an old catalog that said we used birch laminated and colored to LOOK LIKE cocobola.
I provided images of the manufactured of Dymondwood saying they use BIRCH.

What happens if a new color of Dymondwood comes out and is called Sky?
Are you going to hypothesize that they made it out of laminated pieces of sky?
This is the logic you are adhering to.

I spent way too much time (hours) researching it for you, and you called it an argument.



At this point I am done. Believe what you want.

Oh.... extension 3 gets you to the Buck Knives Inc department that handles questions regarding ordering and product information.
But if you choose to believe otherwise, that is also your choice

In Engineering I addressed technical issues ad infinitude. An "assertion" is not an argument. Also, you have introduced some fallacies: If x has y attribute in this case and I see y attribute later on then it must equal x -- Is a fallacy. Notice the note up above describing other other words being used besides birch.

You must have missed my references indicating all the colors Rutland uses with Birch. Your comment suggests that didn't read the list of dymondwood colors cited above. You must also have missed that I noted that macassar cocobolo was on the list and that it is being used on a current issue of the 110.

Once again, Dymondwood is not a color It comes out in the colors described and cited above. It is also used with woods other than birch as cited above.

I worked 39 years in engineering: Douglas Aircraft which merged with McDonnell which was bought out by Boeing. Typically a person in a debate will lose his temper if he hasn't the proper evidence or if he really doesn't know what evidence is. Sometimes he'll bluster and hope that will count as evidence. Another ploy is to say, "I can't debate you or provide evidence, but here read this book and you will find my arguments supported." During the last five years or so with Boeing I sat on a board evaluating changes engineers wanted to make to the the C-17.

I would never call a lower level agency like the one you cite for a technical matter that hasn't been adequately explained, apparently as a policy by the company.

If you don't want to spend any more time on this then hope that the next time I buy a knife designated as having a wooden handle and I call it by the name described by the seller, whether Amazon or Bass Pro, that no one contradicts what I have said. I am neutral about evidence, but it needs to be evidence and not mere assertion. If Buck (someone technologically competent) were to say that they call a handle Cherrywood when it is really not Cherrywood at all but Birch, my opinion of Buck will drop several notches but I will believe them. As it is there have been assertions and some fallacies described as arguments -- nothing thus far comprising convincing evidence. If it exists I haven't seen it yet.

Lawrence

 

[DesertChris]

At this point I can only assume you are a troll.
You were presented with a ton of evidence in the form of BUCK KNIVES INC catalogs and Dymondwood manufacturer specs.
Those would be the only authorities on the subject.
Ebay sellers, knife dealers and others, who can call things whatever they want, are not evidence.
Archery websites do not matter.

Therefore it can only be assumed that you are trolling at this point.

So now that is my last post on this to you.

I hope you do find a knife handle made of actual cocobolo impregnated with dymonds and the blood of unicorns.....

But I do like your choice in knives and sheaths

 

[DeSotoSky]

Help out an old man.... I mixed "Walnut" and "Cherry" to get the color I wanted on this piece of "Red Oak" trim in my mancave. What kind of wood is it now? I used to think it was still Oak but now I don't know... is it no longer Oak? Is it now Cherry Walnut? .... hmmm now I want some ice cream.....

 

[Lawrence Helm]

At this point I can only assume you are a troll.
You were presented with a ton of evidence in the form of BUCK KNIVES INC catalogs and Dymondwood manufacturer specs.
Those would be the only authorities on the subject.
Ebay sellers, knife dealers and others, who can call things whatever they want, are not evidence.
Archery websites do not matter.

Therefore it can only be assumed that you are trolling at this point.

So now that is my last post on this to you.

I hope you do find a knife handle made of actual cocobolo impregnated with dymonds and the blood of unicorns.....

But I do like your choice in knives and sheaths

I am an 80 year old former Marine and former engineer who doesn't suffer fools gladly. As I predicted a person out of his depth in an argument will often resort to verbal abuse. I've been called worse than "troll."

Lawrence

 

[Lawrence Helm]

Help out an old man.... I mixed "Walnut" and "Cherry" to get the color I wanted on this piece of "Red Oak" trim in my mancave. What kind of wood is it now? I used to think it was still Oak but now I don't know... is it no longer Oak? Is it now Cherry Walnut? .... hmmm now I want some ice cream.....

Too subtle by far or you'd be called a troll as well.

Lawrence

 

[DesertChris]

I am an 80 year old former Marine and former engineer who doesn't suffer fools gladly. As I predicted a person out of his depth in an argument will often resort to verbal abuse. I've been called worse than "troll."

Lawrence

I really am impressed with your tenacity on this topic.
Less impressed with your ability to see reality on the handle materials.
The reality is that you are either not reading, or comprehending, the actual words in english from the actual people who made the actual product.

Then you say that the Buck Knives Inc department for product questions is not an acceptable authority for asking questions about their products..... WHAT?????

By the way, my Dad was very high up in a very large defence industry company, such as you say you were, but he actually listened and read things without going in endless circles of illogical fallacies.

Some of my best friends are engineers for very large and established defence contractor companies.
We discuss things constantly, with everyone involved contributing, using logic, facts and the english language.

Thank you for your service as a Marine, and congratulations on having a great career.
BUT.... overthinking things, and rejecting facts and hard evidence is ridiculous. Then providing hearsay from people who are not the manufacturer is even more ridiculous.

At some point the best option is to walk away from a person using an illogical argument, and that is what I need to do.
And yes.... At this point your refusal to see the reality of the handle materials in question, and constantly starting new threads about it, is really trollish.
Sorry, but that is how it comes across.

But once again, I do like your choice of knives, your hiking and dog photos
Those are all awesome.

 

[Lawrence Helm]

I really am impressed with your tenacity on this topic.
Less impressed with your ability to see reality on the handle materials.
"The reality is that you are either not reading, or comprehending, the actual words in english from the actual people who made the actual product."

That sir is an assertion. You should look that word up. It is not an argument. One of my main jobs in aerospace was converting incomprehensible technical language so that our customer (the USAF) could understand it. I was an arbiter often enough deciding what one could conclude from a requirement or RFP (Request for Proposal). Granted, I'm now 80 and may be senile, but if I am, how would I know?

"Then you say that the Buck Knives Inc department for product questions is not an acceptable authority for asking questions about their products..... WHAT?????" This is just based on my experience communicating with thousands of sources of information and authority. A "sales" department is the least reliable when it comes to technical information. Product Support agencies that provide information to customers are sometimes good but sometimes not. This information, the nature and makeup of handle material, ought to be well-publicized, but since it isn't I wouldn't trust a low-level sales or Product Support rep.

"By the way, my Dad was very high up in a very large defence industry company, such as you say you were but he actually listened and read things without going in endless circles of illogical fallacies." You really don't know what your are talking about when you deal with logic and fallacies. Anyone with even a rudimentary background in philosophy, logic, mathematics, engineering etc ought to. Being "high up" in any industry isn't necessarily a recommendation in regard to technical knowledge. If a person worked his way up through the ranks then fine but if it was a political appointment then the person may not be technically competent. And besides, the last I heard, knowledge is not passed on to a person's progeny genetically. New discoveries are occurring every day however so I might have missed this.

"Some of my best friends are engineers for very large and established defence contractor companies. We discuss things constantly, with everyone involved contributing, using logic, facts and the english language." Being an engineer does not necessarily qualify a person as being competent in either logic or English. I've known thousands of engineers over the years. Good ones will understand the nature of evidence. But I've had some argue with me when I represented engineering on the C-17 board who needed on-site lessons.

"Thank you for your service as a Marine, and congratulations on having a great career. BUT.... overthinking things, and rejecting facts and hard evidence is ridiculous." But I am not rejecting facts. You haven't presented indisputable "facts." Your "facts" are ambiguous. They are not "self-authenticating" They do not have supporting and convincing evidence. As I mentioned in an earlier thread both Buck and Rutland have presented data that is ambiguous. You assert that your interpretation of this data is true fact, but it really isn't. It is one possible interpretation and not proved.

"Then providing hearsay from people who are not the manufacturer is even more ridiculous." Unfortunately the manufacturer is being cagey and vague; so one works with what one can find. The information that you find convincing can be shown, and I tried to show you, to be ambiguous.

"At some point the best option is to walk away from a person using an illogical argument." Since I have studied logic and you obviously haven't, perhaps I should follow your advice, but here I am. "and that is what I need to do."

"And yes.... At this point your refusal to see the reality of the handle materials in question, and constantly starting new threads about it, is really trollish." I started my new thread because I bought a new knife, the Cherrywood 119. Comparing it with my Cocobolo and Micarta, I had a few observations. You really need to take a course in Logic. You have not presented evidence that your belief is correct. Everything you've presented is ambiguous and hardly qualifies as undisputed "reality." If discussing a new knife is trollish then there are a lot of trolls on this forum."

"Sorry, but that is how it comes across."

Lawrence

 

[DesertChris]

Lawrence,

By the way, I have a degree in Biology.
I did in fact take a course in Logic. I was the only person in the entire class to earn an A, for whatever that is worth.
I took many courses in Physics, Math, Chemistry, Philosophy, English, Biology, Genetics, Botony, Zoology and endless other subjects.
So please don't play the education card.

Discussion involves listening as well as speaking.

Buck has put it in PRINT what the handle materials are. I posted images of the printed catalog pages for you.
Printing what you use in your catalog is completely open and honest..
How is that not good enough for you?
The actual Manufacturer of dymondwood put it in print what they use. Once again open and honest.

What would constitute proof for you? Bucks printed catalogs are not good enough?
Their product questions department is not good enough for you? They make knives not intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Discussing a new knife, or an old one, is definately why we are all here.
Shoot, there are guys on here that have forgotten more about Buck knives than I could ever even hope to learn about them.

Endlessly denying what I, and several others have pointed out to you, and provided you the proof over and over and over, regarding handle materials is just odd behavior.
Once again how are the printed catalogs, that specifically state the handle materials used, ambiguous?
Everyone else here considers the catalogs to be full of the truth.

I don't think you are senile, just really really stubborn
Calling you a troll was a bit harsh. I will admit that.

I really should have walked away from this, but I can't seem to do so.... I must be extra stubborn too

One more thought though....... did the 119 Cherrywood model come with a "natural markings" card in the box?
Buck puts one of those cards in the box for knives using natural wood, bone, horn, stone, antler etc......
That would be a pretty good indication of the handle material.

 

[Lawrence Helm]

Desert Chris,

You wrote, "By the way, I have a degree in Biology.
I did in fact take a course in Logic. I was the only person in the entire class to earn an A, for whatever that is worth.
I took many courses in Physics, Math, Chemistry, Philosophy, English, Biology, Genetics, Botony, Zoology and endless other subjects.
So please don't play the education card."

Sorry, I didn't recognize a good command of logic in what you wrote. Maybe the difference is that I had to use logic continuously in aerospace. At one point I taught logic to engineers and contract administrators.

You wrote, "Buck has put it in PRINT what the handle materials are. I posted images of the printed catalog pages for you. Printing what you use in your catalog is completely open and honest..
How is that not good enough for you? The actual Manufacturer of dymondwood put it in print what they use. Once again open and honest."

I should probably look at those catalogs again. My impression though is that they were from an earlier era and I didn't immediately see in them what you said was there. As to what dymondwood put in print I thought that went against your argument. They listed the colors they used and neither of the knives under discussion were on the list, causing me and at least one other to surmise that this process, previously used by Buck as Packawood or something like that and one other name actually used the woods they said they were using.

You wrote, "Endlessly denying what I, and several others have pointed out to you, and provided you the proof over and over and over, regarding handle materials is just odd behavior.
Once again how are the printed catalogs, that specifically state the handle materials used, ambiguous? Everyone else here considers the catalogs to be full of the truth." I haven't "endlessly denied what you and one or two others wrote. What I did deny was that you had proved your point. If I wanted to expend the energy, which I don't, I could take up some of your earlier notes and show that they don't prove what you say they prove.

You wrote, "I don't think you are senile, just really really stubborn Calling you a troll was a bit harsh. I will admit that." I'll admit to "dogged." And while troll seems a bit harsh to me as well, I will admit to being curmudgeonly.

You wrote, "One more thought though....... did the 119 Cherrywood model come with a "natural markings" card in the box? Buck puts one of those cards in the box for knives using natural wood, bone, horn, stone, antler etc...... That would be a pretty good indication of the handle material." I got such a note in the box of a bone-handled 119 but not in the Cherrywood box. The Cherrywood knife's handle is clearly a laminate. One can see the plies.

While I'm still thinking about this I've decided to skim back through the Blade articles -- doing a search on the term dymondwood. I can't believe this hasn't been discussed in the past.

Lawrence