Ahh, the old ignorance is bliss. This adage shines as bright as a supernova in turkko-trekk.com land.
Witness this witless exchange between professor clown and two of his respondents:
“Older rugs are, indeed, considered to be more beautiful. By you, by me, probably by almost everyone who reads ****. But I think that's because we have learned to equate age with aesthetics. People not so enlightened (and they make up 99+% of the population), see young rugs as more beautiful. That's why they buy them.”
Well now there are as many holes in the clowning professor’s statement as there are in the swiss-cheese sandwich he probably is eating for lunch today. Firstly, he and the rest of his crowd have proven a distinct inability to differentiate what really is an old rug. Secondly, calling himself and his junior partners “enlightened”, or even alluding to the fact they might be, is so laughable RK can hardly type.
Thirdly, and this is perhaps the worst, is his assurance in so unequivocally revealing the tastes of 99+% of the population. Did the great professor take a scientific/statistical survey? Or did he just make this up, as is his usual modus operandi?
Sorry steev, but 99+% of the population buy new rugs because they are far cheaper and much more plentiful in the marketplace. Only a numbskull like price=clown could believe the BS he wrote.
The exchange continued and one of the nameless equally challenged posters to the price’s playroom followed with these bon mots:
“I think that Steve and others have previously alluded to the fact that today we might be seeing the better examples of earlier weavings, since those are the ones that are most likely to be preserved.”
Another nincompoop speaks. Where do the folks get these dumb ideas? Not only are they ignorant about the rugs themselves but also about the socio-economics of rug production.
Better rugs, or what they think these might be, had no greater chance of being preserved than lesser ones. This is a dopey tautology, period.
The same magpie continued:
“So perhaps in our assessment of older rugs today we are dealing with a biased sample of the more attractive ones because the unfavoured ones have generally met a swifter demise.”
Here’s professor clown’s answer:
“The best pieces are the ones most likely to be preserved, the worst are the ones most likely to find their way into the trash pile. Recent production includes the mediocre in nearly its original proportion. That subset - the majority - is mostly gone from the antique population.”
And another reply from some other lamebrain:
“Makes sense to me. Lucky for those of us who are attracted to this old rug aesthetic that these are the ones that are preserved….But since we all know that rarity is a cornerstone of collectibility and value in antiques, maybe we should start looking out for the unattractive old rugs...”
We are sure RK is not the only one who wonders how anyone, including the authors of such nonsense, could possibly believe steev and company have ever been doing anything else?