Home > Archive >Yastic Sets Europe to USA Flight time Record
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Tue, Feb 28th, 2006 11:07:42 AM
Topic: Yastic Sets Europe to USA Flight time Record

RK.com is no stranger to the notion of “flying carpets” but those we know about “fly” on account of their amazing iconographies, proportions and colors. None of which, mind you, are possessed by this late, two-dimensional, pastiche of a yastic:

that has flown from a European auction sale to dodds’s show in Philadelphia with remarkable alacrity.

It is one of the more prominent so-called “stars” of dodds’s Arthur Ross Gallery Anatolian exhibition and one example RK has questioned.

The fact this yastic was very recently sold at auction in Europe -- it was lot 93 in rippon-boswell’s November 19, 2005 auction – and then so quickly found itself included in dodds’s show, which opened only two months later, does appear to RK to be a bit suspicious.

Now it is perfectly possible there is nothing unseemly going on here but, knowing dodds and his penchant for using his position to further his personal agenda and gain, we would not be surprised if dodds has had some unannounced involvement in this process.

Usually exhibits for any museum show are finalized long before opening. Why this yastic turned up in dodds’s show of Anatolian Rugs, at Arthur Ross Gallery of the University of Pennsylvania that opened on Jan 21, 2006, when it was being sold at auction in Germany just two months before--mid-November 2005, should raise more than just our eyebrows.

By the way, the yastic was advertised by bozwell, who is another outrageous issuer of trumped up provenance and gross over-dating (dodds and bozwell have plenty of others in company with them here) as 18th century and sold with an estimated price of 26,000 euro.

According to the sales results published by the bozwells it made 22,000 euro ($26,250.oo at today’s rate of exchange).

In RK’s opinion that price is almost as ludicrous and far from what it should be as calling it a Karapinar area weaving and dating it to the 18th century – nothing but nonsense.

Each new photo of this yastic we see only further convinces us it is not circa 1800 and might well be the reproduction, i.e. fake, we have stated.

Regardless of its genuineness, it is not a masterpiece or a gem (few, if any of the pieces, in dodds’s mis-named exhibition are).

We have heard the name of the person who supposedly was the buyer of the yastic at rippon bozwell and, if the name we have heard bandied about is correct, the idea dodds was the buyer’s “expert and/or consultant” would be well-placed.

If so, it again demonstrates dodds’s seriously flawed understanding of historic Anatolian Rugs, as well as his practice of using these museum shows to exhibit his for-sale-inventory as well as his and his client’s supposed ‘private’ rug collections.

Let’s not forget, dodds told the LACMA curator, dale gluckman, the late, genre copy of a pseudo-'Bellini' rug he sold them was “…from (his) private collection…and had never been offered for sale.”

Both of these statements were bald-faced, unadulterated, out and out lies and misrepresentations.

The facts are clear and present for anyone to examine: The LACMA rug and this miserable example of a yastic are not masterpiece, early period, weavings at all but only ones that are hardly comparable to those that actually are masterpieces.

More to come, stay tuned to RK until dodds faces the music and is forced to quit his out of step turkey-trot cha-cha-cha.

Author: jc
Tue, Feb 28th, 2006 11:07:42 AM

This yastic and the rug dodds sold LACMA both have a two-dimensional quality about them. Adding to this are colors that are extremely uniform and homogenized.

The absence of three-dimensionality results from the lack of subtlety in the layout of their overall designs and the basic color arrangements and juxtaposition the weavers have employed.

RK believes both of these rugs, though made in different locations and probably different time periods (the LACMA/dodds rug being the ‘elder’ in our estimation), were made to reproduce much earlier weaving styles.

Clearly the weaver(s) of the LACMA/dodds rug stuck to a well-defined "classic" pattern (Bellini re-entrant) that apes but does not come close to fully reproducing the majesty and splendor the veritable period "Bellini's" demonstrate.

The yastic, however, departs from any "known" or "classic" form but it does lift some known designs from those earlier "classic" weavings, melding them into a rather "new" overall design.

Actually calling the yastic a yastic is not correct as its size, which we have been informed is more than 4 feet in length, would rather make it a small rug.

Clearly dodds's use of the term "yastic", like may of his other 'inventions' and spurious proclamations, was presumably intended to increase it's reputation and value.

This attempt, as well as the careless and stupid 18th century dating, do nothing other than expose more of the ignorant underside mr dodds totes around with him wherever he goes.

Both these weavings, the LACMA/dodds rug and this yastic, can, could and did fool those whose knowledge of Turkish Village Rugs comes from armchair experience.

RK.com would have imagined, since dodds has been privy to direct exposure to many real honest period Turkish Village weavings, he would have been able to differentiate the blatant shortcomings these pieces cannot help but demonstrate compared to those "originals".

The fact he hasn’t, combined with the other shortcomings and gaffs we have noted in our discussions of dodds’s recent machinations at merchandising his inventory, which by the way he continues to call his “collection", do not bode well for his trying to dispute and refute our statements, now do they?

Author: jc
Sat, Feb 25th, 2006 08:21:40 PM

Earlier this afternoon RK called someone who believes he really knows about rugs, and we steer clear of him for just that reason. But we had heard ago he had handled the yastic in question some weeks and that motivated our call -- to ask what he knew about the structure and materials.

To say we were interested to hear what he had to say about those topics and his age guesstimate would be right. But only those topics, not his opinions about other topics of possible discussion, as we could care less what this professor stuffed-shirt has to say.

Of course, we put off calling him until today, long after our view of the situation had been already published, so as not to hear him say it was his “idea”.

Anyway, we came right out and asked "How old do you think it is? You know we have said, and are on record, it is a late repro made to fool and not just as a 'homage' to the past, either".

"Well let me say this" he said "it's more urban and later than village and earlier".

RK agreed but pressed on with getting an answer to the age guesstimate question.

When we reiterated our opinion it is a fake he said "Hmmmm, you might be right."

We then asked about the structure, materials and handle but he did not remember much, actually nothing.

Before we ended the call, bored to tears with his phony-professorial demeanor we told him because of the large size and numerous atypical design features, not to mention the color tonality, we believe it possibly was made in the Balkans, Romania or Bulgaria. It ain't Turkish, nor is it circa 1800 -- you all can quote us on that and don't forget to spell RK right.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service