Home > Archive >16th Century? Rubbish...
Author:jc
email:
Tue, Jan 3rd, 2006 10:17:22 PM
Topic: 16th Century? Rubbish...

No, no, this rug's date is nowhere near the 16th century.

Well, not any we've heard about and while RK will be the first to admit no one really knows, how old all but a very few rugs are, it’s clear this town/factory rug is mid-18th century at best and not 16th as one highly respected supposed Turkish Village Rug expert dates it.

Though RK can not exactly date any rug we can, however, place just about any example on a well-defined continuum, or time line if you like, of others like it.

While this doesn't equate with a specific 'year' or even 'century' it can/does prove rugs, like the LACMA/dodds or this one here, are at the ends and not the beginning of their respective lineups.

We intend to continue to put LACMA's rug into perspective and, in doing so, continue to demonstrate how little it has in common with the prototypes and archetypes it was modeled after.

As for the rug above?

It is advertised for sale right now on little lord franses's website: www.textile-art.com as 16th century.

Author: jc
email:
Tue, Jan 3rd, 2006 10:17:22 PM

OK, ok we'll fessup, we lied.

We really think the hali #34 rug circa 1825 and the other rug circa 1750.

The only reason we wrote differently, and dated them earlier, was not to appear too far out.

Well far out we be because after re-reading this, we decided the situation demands, since both these rugs are seriously later than franses dated -- and continues to date them until today, we had to do it.

Too bad for franses not many folks still believe in his ‘school’ of overdating/thinking, as so many real, early period Turkish Village Rugs have now been published.

RK realizes not everyone can tell the difference at first glance but, after doing some thinking and study, most people will see the LACMA/dodds rug, and these here as well, compare unfavorably, very unfavorably we must add, with any other examples of "re-entrant" and other Turkish rugs published on RK.com.

We defy anyone to successfully counter our claims and the fact no one does, whether on RK.com or elsewhere, speaks much.

Eventually LACMA will recognize the truth and have no choice other than give the rug back to dodds. This is our opinion and why we are continuing to bring attention to the facts and not the fiction of the situation.

As for little lord franses and his fairy-tale dating? When and if he next exhibits any rug we believe is seriously mis-dated we will be glad to bring it to our readership's attention, and to his.

Short of that we really don’t have much interest in franses, after all he moves with other mini-lords of the realm while RK sits in pineville doing what we do best.

Author: jc
email:
Sun, Jan 1st, 2006 03:28:26 PM

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.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service