As for mark hopkins?
We have had a few, very few, exchanges with him over the years and always found him to be nothing but another pompous pseudo-rug collector.
We have, though, heard a number of rather unflattering stories about his attempts to prove his mettle as a collector and, frankly, they were as comical as professor clown's greasy-spoon antics in rugdom.
Like our government, it seems those at the "top" in rugdom are not the intelligentsia but the unintelligent.
Why do all the people who really are in the know about rugs avoid being on these "committees" like they would the plague?
The list of ding-dongs on acor's roster could out chime St. Peters on Christmas morning.
If one takes a very close look at the schedule of exhibitions and talks at acor, it is readily apparent there is mostly nothing other than self-promotion or backslapping paybacks.
The icing on that cake is, of course, the presentation of those bogus embroideries pacquin found (or did they find him?).
How anyone in their right mind could possibly believe they are real and then plan an "exhibition" of them is completely unfathomable.
However, that point is readily explained when considering the mental midget and know-little who made that decision. Guess who that was? Try mark hopkins.
No, hopkins, his thin checkbook and holier than thou attitude, which by the way is shared by most of the other grandees who now are the arbiters of what happens at icoc and acor, shouldn't be in charge of the refreshment stand at a rug conference, let alone on the central committee.
And their dumb-bell ideas, like the pacquin exhibition, and their nods to pseudo-academics by staging 20 minute "lectures" that will be forgotten by most in the audience before they even leave the lecture room prove our opinions quite well.
Watch and see, itíll be deja-vu all-over-again; same mistakes and same ďIím sorrys" afterwards. Hello wendle swann.