Speaker 1: Welcome to Criminalia, a production of shondaland Audio in partnership
Speaker 1: with iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Gold and jewel encrusted. The Rospigliosi cup had been displayed
Speaker 2: as a work of sixteenth century Italian goldsmith ben Venuto
Speaker 2: Cellini at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York
Speaker 2: City since nineteen thirteen as part of the Benjamin Altman
Speaker 2: bequest to the museum. But in the early nineteen eighties
Speaker 2: it was discovered that the piece, one of the mets
Speaker 2: most admired and beloved Renaissance treasures, was actually not et
Speaker 2: Cellini original at all. It was really a nineteenth century
Speaker 2: Vasters original, and there were others. Welcome to Criminalia, I'm
Speaker 2: Maria Trumurky.
Speaker 1: And I'm Holly Frye. Reinhold Vasters was in nineteenth century
Speaker 1: German goldsmith. His work then zo changed when his wife
Speaker 1: Katerina Hamaker died in eighteen fifty nine, and that left
Speaker 1: him with two young daughters to raise and a tight
Speaker 1: budget on which to do so. Today he's famous for
Speaker 1: his forgeries of Renaissance objects, including jewelry and vessels in particular,
Speaker 1: but no one ever knew or guessed about his counterfeits
Speaker 1: until decades after his death. It all unraveled when the
Speaker 1: Victorian Albert Museum in London began an investigation about works
Speaker 1: in their archive. Their work led to a revelation beyond
Speaker 1: the walls of the Vina. In time, it would be
Speaker 1: discovered that at least forty five objects at the men
Speaker 1: were actually Vaster's works masquerading as authentic pieces, and they
Speaker 1: were not the only ones duped.
Speaker 2: Vasters is generally acknowledged as a gifted goldsmith and interpreter
Speaker 2: of period pieces from the time of the European Renaissance.
Speaker 2: Experts have linked some examples of nineteenth century jewelry as
Speaker 2: well as some goldsmithing as his genuine work. He's not
Speaker 2: all fakes. During his legit years. In eighteen fifty three,
Speaker 2: Basters was contracted to be part of the restoration of
Speaker 2: the Ahen Cathedral, specifically to make reproductions of designs for
Speaker 2: Franz Bach, canon of the cathedral and curator at the
Speaker 2: local Diocesan Museum, a museum for the Catholic Church. Bach
Speaker 2: employed highly skilled goldsmiths to not only restore, but also
Speaker 2: to replace liturgical objects that had been damaged through continuous
Speaker 2: usage over time, and here Basters worked with fellow legitimate goldsmiths.
Speaker 2: In town records, he is mentioned for having a quote
Speaker 2: workshop for the production of church vessels in the medieval style,
Speaker 2: and he's once named as a jeweler in the town.
Speaker 2: Bach's project put Maasters on the radar of various dealers.
Speaker 2: And this is when a man named Frederick Spitzer are
Speaker 2: an antagonist. If we're going to hand out labels enters
Speaker 2: the story Frederick Spitzer.
Speaker 1: Vasters may have been the maker, but Baron Frederick Spitzer
Speaker 1: was the seller, and it seems the mastermind behind a
Speaker 1: lot of forged works during the years he was alive.
Speaker 1: Spitzer was a Viennese art collector and dealer of antiquities,
Speaker 1: specializing in medieval and Renaissance art. He worked with European collectors,
Speaker 1: including prominent names like Baron Adolph de Rothschild and Sir
Speaker 1: Richard Wallace, and he boasted that some of his art
Speaker 1: objects came from the collections of, among others, Louis Fedel
Speaker 1: de Bruges, Dumenil, Prince Soltikov, Baron Sellier, Alessandro Castellani, and
Speaker 1: Julian Greo. In the years close to Vaster's wife Katerina's death,
Speaker 1: Spitzer commissioned Vasters to be his in house forger. The
Speaker 1: job offer was that Vasters would alter existing objects and
Speaker 1: or create new forgeries that could be sold on the
Speaker 1: market as authentic works of art, all made to meet
Speaker 1: market demand. In addition to handling artifacts many of dubious providence,
Speaker 1: Correspondence between Spitzer and his associates suggested he was also
Speaker 1: very much engaged in some underhanded negotiations and trading with
Speaker 1: various collectors. For Masters, the partnership was simple, though it
Speaker 1: kept him flush in work and money.
Speaker 2: While experts consider his connection to Spitzer to be firmly established,
Speaker 2: there is evidence of it in the historical record, the
Speaker 2: record of works misattributed and provenances deliberately concealed. The extent
Speaker 2: of that may never be known. Maasters doesn't get a
Speaker 2: lot of recognition as a talented professional goldsmith during his lifetime,
Speaker 2: though he was, but experts theorize from piecing together the
Speaker 2: financial records of his anonymous works that Spitzer's very very
Speaker 2: generous payments for his forgeries may have compensated for that.
Speaker 2: Maasters wasn't the only forger working for Spitzer. Spitzer had
Speaker 2: a large number of pieces forged by other goldsmiths and artists,
Speaker 2: which he sold as authentic.
Speaker 1: We're going to take a break here for a word
Speaker 1: from our sponsor, and when we come back we will
Speaker 1: talk about how Spitzer basically lived in a gallery and
Speaker 1: how it was a stack of drawings that brought down
Speaker 1: the forgery empire.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to Criminalia. Let's get to know more about Spitzer,
Speaker 2: the guy who turned his own home into a museum,
Speaker 2: as well as his unique way of making a sale.
Speaker 1: Spitzer's first big art deal was when he resold an
Speaker 1: Albrecht Durer engraving at a huge profit. He established his
Speaker 1: business in London in the eighteen forties and then moved
Speaker 1: to Paris in eighteen fifty two. By the time he
Speaker 1: was in Paris, he had been successful enough to turn
Speaker 1: his home into a collector's dream. It became known as
Speaker 1: Lemius Spitzer. Located near the Oucta Triomphe. His mansion was
Speaker 1: filled as one would fill a museum gallery and as
Speaker 1: you'd see at the Louver, for instance, objects were housed
Speaker 1: in glass cases and everything was cataloged. This home slash
Speaker 1: gallery was a popular high society hangout. Some came to
Speaker 1: view the works he kept and some came to buy them.
Speaker 1: American artist and ex pat John Singer Sargeant was a
Speaker 1: regular presence there, for instance, and Hungarian composer and pianist
Speaker 1: Franz Liszt was often around the house too, and is
Speaker 1: said to have been heard playing the piano on occasion.
Speaker 1: Among his regular clients were magnates including the Rothschilds, as
Speaker 1: well as newspaper baron William Randolph Hurst. Spitzer showed his
Speaker 1: works for sale in a particular way. He always showed
Speaker 1: a number of works together. No object was ever seen solo,
Speaker 1: and he always chose a mix of authentic pieces with
Speaker 1: forged pieces.
Speaker 2: He may have courted names like the Rothchilds, but Spitzer
Speaker 2: also focused on the practice of revitalizing broken or damaged
Speaker 2: works of art, particularly those made of metals. That practice
Speaker 2: is not a crime and usually not a forgery. It's
Speaker 2: technically just considered a repair, but it becomes problematic if
Speaker 2: the piece is worked too far. Becoming unrecognizable from its
Speaker 2: original state can turn an authentic work into a counterfeit
Speaker 2: of itself. It's also problematic when deceptive descriptions, provenance, and
Speaker 2: pedigrees get attached to those objects. Spitzer catered to the
Speaker 2: type of person who could and would overlook some squishy
Speaker 2: details to have an object they considered worthy of their
Speaker 2: place in society.
Speaker 1: Paula Cordera, a fellow at the Center for the History
Speaker 1: of Collecting at the Frick, said of Spitzer quote he
Speaker 1: was really able to capitalize on the growing demand for
Speaker 1: decorative art among a growing bourgeois class. She continued that
Speaker 1: much of Spitzer's success came at least in part from
Speaker 1: his ability to be one step ahead of trends. He
Speaker 1: was known to purchase works when they were out of vogue,
Speaker 1: only to later sell them at a markup when they
Speaker 1: were in demand. According to Cordera, it wasn't until more
Speaker 1: than a decade after his death the curators began to
Speaker 1: really take a look at some of the works from
Speaker 1: Spitzer's collection, and with time and research, they discerned that
Speaker 1: some were heavily restored to a point that threatened their authenticity.
Speaker 2: The controversy, though, really grew legs in nineteen seventy eight,
Speaker 2: when more than one thousand drawings by vasters were rediscovered
Speaker 2: in the archives of the Victoria and Albert Museum. The
Speaker 2: VNA had acquired a library of his drawings, prints and
Speaker 2: lithographs in nineteen nineteen, a decade after the goldsmith's death,
Speaker 2: but they'd been in storage and out of sight. The
Speaker 2: drawings appeared to be renderings of known Renaissance objects, including
Speaker 2: many pieces of jewelry. However, upon examination by VNA curator
Speaker 2: Charles Truman, notations found on the drawings in Master's handwriting
Speaker 2: include very specific details such as which colors should be
Speaker 2: used when enameling specific objects, and how these were drawings
Speaker 2: that actually made one's heart sink because they were production drawings,
Speaker 2: and they included precise instructions to other smiths on how
Speaker 2: to craft certain existing Medieval and Renaissance objects, probably all
Speaker 2: for Spitzer, and probably all sold as genuine. Each of
Speaker 2: the thousand plus documents depicted a different piece. Most drawings
Speaker 2: corresponded to known Renaissance objects in a number of well
Speaker 2: known collections, and the revelation suddenly cast doubts on the
Speaker 2: authenticity of many pieces. Equally revealing were associated documents that
Speaker 2: showed other goldsmith's hate executed many pieces to Vaster's designs.
Speaker 1: With this finding, experts now were suspicious of pretty much
Speaker 1: every single object for which there was a corresponding Master's drawing.
Speaker 1: In fact, even regarding Renaissance objects for which there were
Speaker 1: no corresponding drawings, they were still suspicious. After all, what
Speaker 1: if there were more drawings like this still to be found.
Speaker 1: The documents confirmed that there was a forger, and also
Speaker 1: opened up the idea that there was likely more than
Speaker 1: one forger, with works hidden in many collections. And that
Speaker 1: was true true. Spitzer alone had several forgers working for him,
Speaker 1: including Masters, of course, but also Alfred Andre, a highly
Speaker 1: regarded nineteenth century Parisian restorer. Andrea was Chevalier of the
Speaker 1: Legion of Honor and widely respected for his legitimate metalwork,
Speaker 1: but it also became clear to modern historians that he
Speaker 1: was one of the goldsmiths who had executed many pieces
Speaker 1: to Vaster's designs.
Speaker 2: Building on the work Truman did at the VNA, scholar
Speaker 2: Rudolph Distelberger of the Museum of Art History in Vienna
Speaker 2: began his own detective work in nineteen eighty three. At first,
Speaker 2: though in his investigation, it was Alfred Andre's forged Renaissance works,
Speaker 2: not Masters, that came to light. So let's talk about
Speaker 2: him for a moment. We know he was also connected
Speaker 2: to Spitzer. His forgeries, it was discovered, had deceived the
Speaker 2: National Gallery, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the British Museum,
Speaker 2: the Victoria and Albert, and the Walters Art in Baltimore.
Speaker 2: Through Spitzer. He was another craftsman hired to restore and
Speaker 2: repair or aka make counterfeits. Distelberger concluded that quote in
Speaker 2: order to enlarge his collection, Spitzer apparently commissioned Andre and
Speaker 2: Maasters to produce objects in the style of the Renaissance,
Speaker 2: then presented them in his collection as originals of the
Speaker 2: sixteenth century. He played an inglorious role in this deception.
Speaker 1: Like the Masters drawings. Years later, Distelberger found physical evidence
Speaker 1: of Andre's forgeries. Andre's family had kept many of the
Speaker 1: models and casts that he had created, many of which
Speaker 1: were used to recreate Renaissance objects and collections around the world.
Speaker 2: We are going to take a break for word from
Speaker 2: our sponsors, and when we're back we'll talk about the
Speaker 2: fallout from the discovery of the forgery ring.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to Criminalia. Let's talk about what happened after
Speaker 1: the discovery of the blueprints and that the Rospiliosi Cup,
Speaker 1: a popular and treasured item, was fake.
Speaker 2: Philippe de Montebello, Museum director at the Metropolitan Museum of
Speaker 2: Art at that time, initially stated that they believe the
Speaker 2: drawings quote might be marvelous chronicles of old pieces, but
Speaker 2: we now know they are not. They contained too many
Speaker 2: instructions on how to make them. They were blueprints. We're
Speaker 2: not sure why he kept them, but they're remarkable drawings,
Speaker 2: and even forgers have pride. As an institution, the MET
Speaker 2: was anxious and started to withdraw certain pieces from exhibition,
Speaker 2: announcing that quote, we have been gradually removing things from
Speaker 2: view for examination because we did not want to keep
Speaker 2: on view anything that might be doubtful.
Speaker 1: By nineteen eighty four, the forgeries made worldwide headlines when
Speaker 1: the MET held a news conference to announce that Reinholdmasters,
Speaker 1: a goldsmith and restorer, had been more than a restorer.
Speaker 1: They stated it had been concluded from his drawings that
Speaker 1: many of the alleged antique objects in institutions around the world,
Speaker 1: including the Met, had in fact been made in his
Speaker 1: shop in Germany in the late eighteen hundreds, and that
Speaker 1: included the Rospiliosi Cup exhibited at the Met. The Respiliosi
Speaker 1: cup was considered a treasure and had long been attributed
Speaker 1: to the Florentine goldsmith and sculptor benven Nutuccellini. In a
Speaker 1: brochure in eighteen fifty two, it was described as a
Speaker 1: salt vessel of gold enameled in different colors from the
Speaker 1: years fifteen forty to seventy, said to be made by
Speaker 1: benven Uttuccillini, the property of Prince Ris Bolioso of Rome.
Speaker 1: Art historian Eugene plom named the prince as the owner,
Speaker 1: but also admitted that there were no documents authenticating the
Speaker 1: attribution to Cellini. He claimed it had belonged to his ancestor,
Speaker 1: Grand Master of the Court, to the Grand Duke of Tuscany.
Speaker 1: But then nothing more was heard of that object until
Speaker 1: nineteen oh nine, when it was sold by art dealer
Speaker 1: Charles Wurthheimer to Benjamin Altman, who then bequeathed it to
Speaker 1: the Met.
Speaker 2: Upon close examination an inspection of the Rospiliosi Cup and
Speaker 2: many other works, some objects were clearly made entirely from
Speaker 2: Vastar's Renaissance style blueprints, including a rock crystal vase mounted
Speaker 2: in gold and a rock crystal candlestick mounted in silver guilt.
Speaker 2: Other objects were determined to be partly of authentic Renaissance derivation.
Speaker 2: For instance, fragments of earlier works were remounted and reworked
Speaker 2: by vast To, creating new, similar but forged work. And
Speaker 2: then some works, including a pendant with a figure of
Speaker 2: Neptune enameled in gold and set in jewels and pearls,
Speaker 2: aren't precise copies of Master's designs, but they are so
Speaker 2: similar that scholars believe they can safely attribute them to
Speaker 2: other craftsmen working from his instructions.
Speaker 1: Of the VNA's blueprints. Demonte Bello has also stated, quote,
Speaker 1: most likely every major repository of Renaissance jewelry, metalwork, and
Speaker 1: mounted crystals will find that a disturbing proportion of their
Speaker 1: holdings date from the nineteenth century. This is irrefutable because
Speaker 1: we have the actual drawings created by the maker. He continued, quote,
Speaker 1: he captured the style of the Renaissance so well that
Speaker 1: even today, if you were to put side by side
Speaker 1: two pieces, one by Masters and one from the Renaissance,
Speaker 1: very few curators could tell by eye alone. He was
Speaker 1: that good, which is why all the collections were fooled.
Speaker 2: Despite the fact that the works do not actually date
Speaker 2: from the Renaissance. They do still yes, have value among
Speaker 2: many circles. De Montebello has stated, quote in their own right,
Speaker 2: while they were made to deceive, these works are of
Speaker 2: enormous quality and great beauty, and they are important historically.
Speaker 2: We intend to mount an exhibition in which we will
Speaker 2: carefully explain the master's works, comparing them with authentic pieces
Speaker 2: and showing the difference between the two. And it's true
Speaker 2: the museum doesn't hide them today, though they do now
Speaker 2: attribute these works to masters.
Speaker 1: Of masters well. He purchased a house in Acham in
Speaker 1: eighteen seventy two, and he lived there until his death
Speaker 1: in nineteen oh nine. By his later years, Vasters had
Speaker 1: become a man of means, and he became a collector
Speaker 1: of decorative arts himself. In nineteen oh two, he exhibited
Speaker 1: almost five hundred objects from his growing collection. His final
Speaker 1: year as an active goldsmith appears to coincide with the
Speaker 1: year of Spitzer's death, eighteen ninety and according to city records,
Speaker 1: he was officially registered as retired in eighteen ninety.
Speaker 2: Five, and Spitzer a short entry in the Collector Journal
Speaker 2: published in eighteen ninety reads quote, the Spitzer collection has
Speaker 2: in the estimation of connoisseurs and amateurs. At least long
Speaker 2: Ben the Eighth Wonder of the World now and then
Speaker 2: its possessor has allowed glimpses of it to be seen
Speaker 2: in exhibitions, but as a rule it has been locked
Speaker 2: and barred against vulgar and elect eyes in his roomy mansion,
Speaker 2: which it stuffs like sausage from cellar to roof. Before
Speaker 2: his death, Spitzer collaborated with art historian Emil Moligner on
Speaker 2: a multi volume illustrated catalog of his private collection. Only
Speaker 2: one volume was published before he died, but he left
Speaker 2: detailed instructions for its completion in his will. The Spitzer collection,
Speaker 2: which contained more than four thousand items, was publicly auctioned
Speaker 2: over the span of three months in eighteen ninety three.
Speaker 2: Most of the collection was bought by Australian born London
Speaker 2: based private collector George Salting. He bequeathed his collection to
Speaker 2: the British Museum, the National Gallery in London, and the
Speaker 2: Victoria and Albert Museum in nineteen oh nine. Spitzer's collection
Speaker 2: was revered, but what no one knew when it was
Speaker 2: auctioned was that some things were authentic, but some were not.
Speaker 2: Like Vaster's, Spitzer's duplicity wasn't known during his lifetime.
Speaker 1: When it comes to Spitzer and his forgers, According to
Speaker 1: online art brokerage Artsy quote, at the very least, Spitzer's
Speaker 1: story serves as a cautionary tale. When one encounters a
Speaker 1: collection of work so numerous they stuff a house like
Speaker 1: a sausage, one should always inquire a about how they
Speaker 1: were made. Indeed, listen, I like sausage. Who doesn't? Would
Speaker 1: you like a bogus bevy? As we consider how many
Speaker 1: things sitting in collections are probably fake because of this man, Yes, okay,
Speaker 1: this one was one of those things. Where as we
Speaker 1: were looking at this, I kept thinking not about anything
Speaker 1: related to the time that the forgeries were made or
Speaker 1: the period of time that they were forging, but instead
Speaker 1: that magical time when all of this was exposed. The
Speaker 1: early eighties were a real fun time for cocktails. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of experimentation going on, and it is when
Speaker 1: most people will say that a very popular cocktail today
Speaker 1: was invented, and that is what we are going to make,
Speaker 1: a forgery of espresso martini.
Speaker 2: Do you know my history with the espresso martini? Have
Speaker 2: I ever told you, I don't. I really want to
Speaker 2: like the espresso martini, and I also it's a similar
Speaker 2: thing for me, like chocolate martini. I very much want
Speaker 2: to like something like that too, and I try. I
Speaker 2: at some point in the last let's go with decade
Speaker 2: to fifteen years, decided I will always try it because
Speaker 2: there's going to be one out there that I like,
Speaker 2: but I haven't yet.
Speaker 1: I mean, the good news is there are now a
Speaker 1: lot of versions. But the original was really just espresso,
Speaker 1: coffee liqueur and vodka. It was very simple, and that
Speaker 1: was created by Dick Bradsell in the UK right around
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty allegedly for a model who said that she
Speaker 1: wanted to get woken up and messed up at the
Speaker 1: same time. But that is not what we're making today.
Speaker 1: We're making something that looks like it right, but also
Speaker 1: has only three ingredients and also will we'll mess you
Speaker 1: up for sure, So let's do it. And it's very yummy.
Speaker 1: It's very easy to make. You're going to take an
Speaker 1: ounce of cognac and an ounce of dark spiced rum
Speaker 1: and put those together in your shaking tin and shake
Speaker 1: them with ice until they are just frosty cold and
Speaker 1: You're going to strain that into a martini glass with
Speaker 1: a few ice shards are green in there. Get ready
Speaker 1: because this is going to sound crazy, but I'm telling
Speaker 1: you something great happens here. You're going to top it
Speaker 1: with an ounce to two ounces, depending on your taste
Speaker 1: of root beer. If you really want to sell the illusion,
Speaker 1: you could put a couple of espresso beans on top.
Speaker 1: But it looks like an espresso martini, but it could
Speaker 1: not taste more different. But it is very spirit forward
Speaker 1: because unlike our recent cocktail that included cream soda, where
Speaker 1: the taste of the spirit in it was obscured, this
Speaker 1: does not. You can still tell there's a lot of
Speaker 1: alcohol in it, like at this point it's two thirds
Speaker 1: roughly of spirit, so it's very present. It is a
Speaker 1: weird flavor. I'm not gonna lie. It's unexpected and it's strange.
Speaker 1: But I loved it and found myself like I didn't
Speaker 1: even consciously do so. Often when I'm making drinks for
Speaker 1: the show, I'm doing it early in the day because
Speaker 1: we record in the afternoon, and I usually don't finish
Speaker 1: the drink. I'll either give it to my beloved or
Speaker 1: I will put it away or I'll just toss it
Speaker 1: it happens. I realized after a while that I had
Speaker 1: just been carrying it around sipping it. I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: I clearly like this drink, which I am calling the
Speaker 1: slap in the face, because discovering all of these technical
Speaker 1: drawings that were basically a manual to how to forge
Speaker 1: Renaissance art had to have felt like a slap in
Speaker 1: the face to the entire art community. That's not a
Speaker 1: great feeling to be, like, how many of our things
Speaker 1: are probably fake?
Speaker 2: Sorry? How many documents did you say there were?
Speaker 1: Yes, this one is another one that is a little
Speaker 1: bit tricky to do. A mocktail. I will tell you
Speaker 1: the mocktail does not look as much like an espresso martini,
Speaker 1: but it gets closer to the flavor of the original drink.
Speaker 1: Instead of that ounce of cogniac, you are going to
Speaker 1: take an ounce of white grape juice and doctor it up.
Speaker 1: I would let a little bit of clove sit in
Speaker 1: there for a little while, and I would throw in
Speaker 1: some nutmeg, and you're just gonna let that do its
Speaker 1: thing for I don't know, ten minutes or so, and
Speaker 1: then give it a little shake and then strain that
Speaker 1: off because you don't want that stuff in there. Dark
Speaker 1: spiced drum, we're going to do our trick of a
Speaker 1: dark tea. I would actually do a red tea here
Speaker 1: and not a black tea. And again, if you really
Speaker 1: like spice, you can add something like a cardamom and
Speaker 1: it's going to do something really good. And then you
Speaker 1: use your root beer and this makes also a very
Speaker 1: very yummy especially when it's very cold. Something really cool
Speaker 1: happens with these three things, and they're like, hi, we
Speaker 1: would like to play today. It's sweeter than the alcoholic version.
Speaker 1: So you could put it over ice if you want
Speaker 1: to dilute it a little bit down instead of making
Speaker 1: it look like a martini. But you're gonna be happy
Speaker 1: and you won't feel like you got slapped in the face.
Speaker 1: You could just do root beer and rum. If you
Speaker 1: don't like the kgnac note, I love a little cognac.
Speaker 1: I probably made this because I was thinking of kognak
Speaker 1: recently and thinking a konnak in a minute. I really
Speaker 1: love a little cognac in that you think, why am
Speaker 1: I not doing that? Now? We are. We hope that
Speaker 1: if you make this you find it fun and interesting
Speaker 1: and If you don't like it that you tweak it
Speaker 1: to make it super delicious for your palette. We will
Speaker 1: be right back here again next week with more stories
Speaker 1: of forgeries and more bogus bevies. Criminalia is a production
Speaker 1: of Shondaland Audio in partnership with iHeartRadio. For more podcasts
Speaker 1: from Shondaland Audio, please visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.