RK Replies: As expected you have only posted more of the same weak or fallacious arguments.
While they might sound reasonable to anyone who is a complete rug novice, half-blind or worse and/or someone who doesn’t look up the references you cite, to RK they are totally inadequate and amateurish.
In fact, the supporting “documentation” you provided for each and every one of your “poinds” -- it’s spelled points by the way --
has as much strength as a strand of over cooked spaghetti.
RK told you we have no time to waste baby-sitting your misplaced rug visions and less than half-baked theories and we don’t.
However, for the record and so you can not claim we ignored your “poinds” and only for those reasons, we will examine a few of them to show you the difference between analysis and gibberish.
1. Your absurd statement (your #1) monotonous coloration is “Normal” for circa 1550-1700 Early Turkish Village Rugs is so dense and defective we need to say no more in rebuttal.
2. Your erroneous theory(your #2) concerning the doubled minor borders in the LACMA rug has already been discussed and clearly rebutted on RK.com. The fact you’re still hanging on it doesn’t add support to your position, in fact it only lessens it.
Either your command of English is so poor as to prevent you from understanding we negated your position or you are just to stubborn to admit it.
3. The validity or even the relevance of your citing this rug:
to substantiate your attempt to disprove what we wrote(your #3) is, just like the other references you cite, way too far off any mark of veracity.
If you cannot see the obvious DIFFERENCES between the elem design in the LACMA/dodds rug and the one you cited either you are half blind or intellectually incapable of framing a cogent argument based on fact not fiction.
Plus this rug, from the Sultanahmet Museum in Istanbul, is not 15th/16th century. It is far more likely to be early 18th and your inability to recognize the difference between a 15th/16th weaving and one made 100’s of years later is, in our estimation, your problem in understanding our dating the LACMA/dodds rug circa 1800.
4. In closing we mention this rug you cited:
which is illustrated as Plate 21 in the ”Carpets of the Vakiflar” book, to support for your belief (your #4) the wonky drawing in the LACMA/dodds is “Nothing”.
Well, if once again you cannot see that the Vakiflar piece is a later, post 16th century, masterpiece “Bellini” (that was made circa 1700 in RK’s opinion, although it is dated by Balpinar and Hirsch the authors as 16th /17th century) and the LACMA/dodds rug is a Town factory produced late genre, circa 1800, copy we give up this exchange with you.
We will not, under any circumstances, continue this charade, nor will we allow you to do it on RK.com.
As we said you are entitled to your opinions, just refrain from posting them here as you do not have the expertise or skill to frame a cogent argument.
Nor do you apparently know the difference between analysis and gibberish.
You have proven our assertions about your miniscule rug expertise and for that reason we will not allow you to post here again until you can come up with real and not imagined contributions.
We do not mind anyone trying to disprove our positions or opinions but we will not waste time with those who, like you cevat, are unable to present factual rebuttal or critique.
So we have reached the end of the line with you and will not waste any more of our time glorifying your seriously flawed and fallible attempts to prove the LACMA rug is even circa 1650, let alone 16th century.
Novice eyes, even ones with 20/20 vision, cannot be trusted to see reality in a complex environment, especially one like historic Early Turkish Village weaving traditions where the lack large signposts and other easily found points of demarcation require far more expert ones.
So, cevat, go learn more about genuinely old historic weavings, improve your English comprehension and debating skills before you come back.
But if you persist in posting here in the same manner all your efforts so far have proven, you will leave no choice other than our preventing your doing so or even viewing RK.com.
Here Is Your 10 poinds and mine.
1. The monotonous coloration of this rug is the first and most obvious error. Basically it’s a red, white and blue weaving that lacks large color areas with the key choice colors – purple and green – that all masterpiece Early Turkish rugs display. The coloration also renders and limits the rug to a boring two dimensional portrait, whereas genuine weavings of this period all demonstrate the ability to create that all important third dimension.
Answer: That's Normal.
2. The all-too balanced and repetitious placing of minor borders (with the same design on either side of the main border) is a characteristic rarely seen in early Turkish rugs but rather in those made circa 1750/1800 and afterwards. Instead, the basic and universal single minor border layout is almost religiously followed, but when there are two minor borders, they are always different.
Answer: here is a star and lotto ushak rugs minor border are both same colors and design.
3. The unknown 'design' (11 above, 10 below) repeated across the two additional borders, or elem at the top and bottom of the rug, are also highly suspicious and weird. They look as if they were lifted directly from an early 19th century yastic, they surely never graced a circa 1600 main carpet. Novice eyes might consider them a ' nice touch' but for experienced viewers they are wrong, wrong, wrong
Answer: here is a 15th 16th Century central Anatolian rug In Hali Museum Sultanahmet/Istanbul, Brought Sivas /divrigi ulucami Has elem bordur.
And here is a Central Anatolian rug detail 16th. Century has similar elem border
4. The wonky and misshapen articulation the re-entrant design surrounding the field exhibits, especially on the lower left side, would never have been allowed by any 17th century weaver worth his or her salt. This type of uncontrolled drawing is frequently seen in late period reproductions, as well as out and out fakes.
Answer; That kind of mistake is Nothing
Here is similar design 15th 16th. century east anatolian rug, hali museum in Sultanahmet/Istanbul
5. The two ‘ghirlandaio medallions’ placed within the re-entrant areas display too much vertical compression and besides they lack the clarity of drawing captured by all real Classic Period Turkish rugs. Both of these are glaring errors characteristic of 19th century work and are not in any way associated with 17th century weaving.
Answer: that design is holbein
6. This vertical compression continues in the two pairs of checkerboard designed triangles, which might be better described as horizontal spandrels, seen to the left and right of each of these ‘medallions’. Again this is indicative of 19th and not 17th century weaving.
Answer: That design is 16th. C. Holbein
The rug appears to me 17 th. Century Central anatolian rug.