RK has now had the opportunity to read he whole of pacquin’s long-winded paean to his “newly discovered group of embroideries".
It should be read as nothing more than a woefully transparent attempt to ‘prove’ something, actually anything, other than the fact these embroideries are the new, made to order, recent market fakes, as we have previously stated.
We illustrate above another of these bogus needleworks and, while it is no better or worse than any of the others pacquin has collected, it does smack in major ways, at least to us, as having come from a forgers mind and hand rather than, as pacquin mistakenly hopes, from an early period and traditional Ottoman source.
Clearly pacquin is so desperately seeking Ottoman he overlooks, or is it just discounts, all the evidence he himself presents concerning the important discrepancies, both technical and visual, his embroideries and genuine traditional period Ottoman embroideries possess.
If pacquin is playing the ‘doubting thomas’, something a careful reading of his article does question, we would have to more appropriately class him as a doubting and dumb thomas, rather than just a doubting one.
In support of our contentions, about pacquin and his embroideries, we offer below some additional quotes from his article along with our comments and rebuttal following.
Once again, pacquin’s appear in “quotations” with our’s in bold typeface.
“If our textiles are forgeries, we might well as, “of what?” It would be a unique approach to create a new category of object, with no established market value, which would be subject to close scrutiny? Why use an unevenly woven silk ground, a different technique, a different fabric width, and a mixture of metropolitan and provincial styles of drawing? Would not more conventional materials, along with consistent court-style drawing be easier to promote a real and pass more easily into the marketplace?”
These rhetorical questions pacquin throws out are, like dirty dishwater, really valueless and though they might sound good on paper, or in the case of the dishwater taste good to a thirsty someone stranded in the Sahara for many days, they have no real import or meaning. Especially as pacquin forgets them as soon as he starts waxing on about them and the “possibilities” they are genuine.
Nor do those questions mollify in any regard the incredibly high probability -- RK feels impossibility -- these embroideries are period traditional Ottoman artworks.
All pacquin’s questions are mooted by the fact fakery is widespread in Turkey and Iran, as well as Pakistan and Russia, with any of these countries having the materials, knowledge and skilled workers necessary to produce these embroideries.
In the end RK finds pacquin’s playing both sides of the fence -- are they real or not – to be obnoxious and disingenuous since he bought them and is obviously looking to increase their presence in rugdom for his own reasons.
So forget the questions, pacquin, and concentrate on the facts you enumerate pointing to their being fakes but somehow choose to keep ignoring.
“Entertaining as conspiracy theories may be, the simplest explanation is that in our embroideries we have found a new, previously unrecorded, group. But until we establish a provenance, the place and time of manufacture of these textiles will remain a mystery.”
Well, mr pacquin, please tell us, and we are sure many other interested parties, why -- in real reasoning please and not your convoluted wishin’ and hopin’ mode -- this is the “simplest” explanation?
RK might believe it is the simplest explanation simpletons might swallow, is that what you mean?
“For the moment the sheer artistry, the power of their designs, and the beauty of their materials all combine to make a strong case for them being a newly discovered, old, and very beautiful products made within the Ottoman artistic melieu(sic).”
Again we have to reiterate these embroideries are not produced with sheer artistry, their designs have no real power – we see only a vague reflection of “power”, and the beauty of their materials? Sorry, pacquin, we are sure even from just looking at your photos that not one, let alone all, of your embroideries could hold their own when shown alongside genuine period Ottoman needleworks.
These bogus copies might look good to your inexperienced eyes but to anyone with real expertise they ring hollow and appear to be rather ungainly reproductions.
They are not beautiful, their designs and patterns are gross attempts to mimic, combined with no sense of the originals majesty or creativity.
To coin a phrase, they are nothing short of horrible.
“The most striking difference, however, is that most of the textiles in our group are worked in a single type of stitch not normally used in traditional pieces. Similar to a closed blanket stitch, it has long floats and a characteristic outlining ridge on one side of each motif. The presence of thus ridge on the ‘right’ side of the textile is the sole difference in the appearance of the work on the front and the back. By contrast, traditional Ottoman embroideries use a variety of stitches on any given example…..Their surface has a distinctive and varied texture that is very different from the equally distinctive appearance of our group.”
Added to all the other differences these embroideries demonstrate compared to the originals, the above is just over-kill to any thoughts pacquin or others hold that they might be genuine.
Come on, pacquin, hali, and you numbskulls at the acor who are going to “exhibit” this group of fakes in Boston in April, wake up and face the fact you all got fooled or it is screwed?
“First we must assume they were made in an area geographically removed from the capital….there had to have been local patronage……this patronage had to be in some important commercial outpost with ready trade access….”
Why should anyone accept this arrow shot in the dark from pacquin’s puny bow of reality? And, after all the other statements pacquin writes negating the possibility they are real, why does he then wax on cloyingly like this?
We believe, and have been proven right before, many readers in rugdom are not able to separate the wheat from the chaff and if pacquin keeps implying they are real, even though in the next sentence he gingerly backs off from that position, eventually the message they ‘might be real’ will be believed and remembered.
Maybe the likes of ben evans and the acor amateurs will be so impressed but surely no one with experience could possibly join in such a circle jerk of nonsense.
“In fact, our embroideries may eventually prove to be akin to other unlikely survivals, where a small number of items were preserved in a protected environment.”
This is but one more attempt pacquin makes to answer the “are they fake issue”. Yes, mr pacquin, anything is possible. Even the idea you and some school children from Amherst made them is possible. Sure we agree that explanation is highly doubtful, as is your belief they might be period Ottoman. Impossible we say again, sir.
Then pacquin continues to point out the appearance many years ago of an unknown supposed silk Timurid carpet and four early Anatolian animal rugs, -- one that is now in the Metropolitan Museum in New York -- found allegedly in Tibet. Sure enough, mr pacquin, those broke new ground but they, unlike your embroideries, were beyond question old, and were all entirely different in every respect. These differences, their unassailable age and genuineness, demolish your silly and pointless comparison. As an aside, let us add not all of those pile carpets were as old as their carbon-dating tests implied, well at least not in RK estimation.
As for carbon-dating your embroideries? All we can suggest is don’t even bother because if they do date early, such an occurrence will only add further questions and doubt to the reliability of C14 dating for Oriental Rugs and related weavings made after 1300. It will not do one thing to prove your embroideries are anything but the fakes we believe they are.
““Sending a son, brother or cousin of the Sultan to govern a provincial center was a common means of limiting the influence of potential political rivals and such a high-born exile would have the financial resources and access to the high-style artistic products necessary to inspire a local embroidery production to use a metropolitan repertoire.”
In his extensive fishing expedition to find any reason to explain the horrendous discrepancies his embroideries have compared to genuine ones, pacquin’s quote above shows his wholesale desperation to search for any possible rejoinder, no matter how absurd or ridiculous.
This silly penchant to float nonsensical, and even incredibly stupid ones like that above, highlights either pacquin’s misplaced role as ‘explorer or discoverer’ or his sever lack of understanding what the minimum level of supporting documentation for such an exercise would require.
In any case, pacquin’s way, way off base and out in left field alone.
We could go on, as there are other gaffs and malapropisms we could cite. However, let’s end with the grossest understatement, or is it just another wishin’ and hopin’ remark from pacquin’s desperately seeking Ottoman stance:
“In spite of the design parallels documented above, we cannot be sure of the dating of our group.”
Yes, yes, mr pacquin not only can’t you substantiate any dating but you can not substantiate anything about these embroideries other than the fact you bought them, authored the hali article and will exhibit them at acor.
Besides those ‘facts’ there are no others, except they, as a group or even individually, are highly questionable and specious textiles.
Oh yes, there is one other : RK has declared them fakes and trust us on this one, mr pacquin, you can take that fact to the bank rather than your hopin’ and wishin’ a group of gullible ruggies will line up and wave their checkbooks at you as they peel them off the wall at acor.