The over-dating of this carpet is not a one-off for little lord franses and his “textile gallery” emporium.
There are a number of other examples in his advertisements that formerly graced the pages of every hali.
It is not difficult to locate these egregious uses of 17th and even 16th century dates when describing carpets that are clearly much, much newer.
Here is one of them from hali #34:
textile gallery advertisement, 1987, called 17th century
Anyone with enough experience studying and appreciating Early Turkish Village rugs would instantly recognize this as extreme over-dating, as this rug is more likely circa 1750-1800.
RK has written about over-dating and the lack of attention almost all concerned pay to it. Granted most of the vocalists in rugdom do it themselves, so why should they possibly call out someone else for doing exactly what they do?
This is, dear readers, the reason RK is basically alone in any of the crusades we have undertaken – the powers that be in rugdom are, themselves, too tangled and enmeshed to ever be able to join us or, better yet, initiate their own.
The textile ‘gallery’ and little lord franses’s advertisements and those of his sisters - like the johnny eskenazi gallery and the franz sailer gallery, though they are now out of business - still remain in hali back issues and we suggest motivated readers make a survey themselves. Should you do so a number of overdated Turkish rugs, some of them even more ridiculous than the one we illustrate here, will pop out before you.
By the way, the pompous and long winded spiel franses wrote to accompany this carpet, a two-page advertisement at that, is full of analogies to other early carpets and early paintings, all of them implying connection to this rug.
Well now, the fact they share similar designs holds little water for RK considering design similarity is the least effective means of “dating” any weaving.
Design comparison based on careful examination of the many factors inherent in any design’s depiction -- proportion, size, placement, coloration, etc – is extremely valid but franses’s tort is bereft of this level of analysis, relying only on simplistic reference and what we read as gross over-generalization.
Also let us take this opportunity to once again restate: There is a difference between an Early Turkish Village rug and one made in a ‘town’ atelier or ‘factory’.
These differences, often are subtle and hidden in nuance but sometimes they can be easily spotted.
This rug is, in RK’s estimation, not a Village rug but one made in a town ‘factory’, just like, you guessed it, the LACMA/dodds rug. Neither of them is 17th century.
The rug above, again like the LACMA/dodds “Bellini”, has that ‘formal’ regularity and stiffness we associate with this type of production, i.e. town factory.
Genuine Early Turkish Village weaving has a far more salubrious design texture, fluidity in all aspects of their design articulation and wonderful three-dimensionality. Plus other criteria we have mentioned in the past.
These characteristics are difficult to reproduce and even harder to produce.
We know little lord franses is not alone in his inability to sense these differences, there are many others like him. Unfortunately, the practice of over-dating is self-perpetuating and franses’s highly suspect 17th century dating of this carpet and others could not help but spawn more of the same by other dealers and collectors.
Wishful thinking is one thing that doesn’t belong in advertisements for art, especially in rugdom where too much of it already exists.