Home > The Kaitag Myth Destroyed >Here we go again, re: kaitags
Author:jc
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Tue, Mar 5th, 2013 10:48:03 AM
Topic: Here we go again, re: kaitags

(ed. This originally appeared in Spring of 2007)

Yesshhh, are those icoc/acor wannabe honchos so brain-dead to think they got away with the pacquin masquarade and can do it again?

Come on now, enough is enough. Their thinking,“presenting” Kaitag, Textile Art from Daghestan in the Sakip Sabanci Museum in Istanbul will somehow make anyone believe the emperor’s new clothes BS little lord franses and company have tried to float about these weavings is about as stupid as believing pacquin’s equally as flawed and contrived spiel.

There is no doubt pacquin’s embroideries were all bogus and RK holds the same opinion about quite a few, but not all, of the kaitag pieces we have seen and handled.

Yes, some kaitags, a very small few by the way, appear to be 19th century. BUT we have yet to see one that we’d call 18th let alone 16th, as only the kaitag scheisters feel wont to voice.


From franses’s website, this kaitag is, according to him, “18th century or earlier” , as are several others he pictures.

Frankly, we don’t believe this embroidery is older than circa 1900 and will be glad to wager ten times the cost to have it be examined with invasive scientific testing to prove our point. The types of testing we have in mind, by the way, are expensive and miles past what dopey rageth and company have been peddling.

We also know little lord franses of Queen Street won’t respond - he is too afraid to engage us or attempt to disprove what we have written over the years about him.

Whatever.

On top of the egregious and absurdly obvious over-dating, the rest of the publicity for this, what is billed as an extra added attraction to the icoc Istanbul program, is laughable:

“The art of Kaitag embroideries survives in less than 500 examples, dating from the 16th century (under Ottoman influence) through to the 19th century, mostly now in museum and private collections throughout the world”

not to say name-droppingly pedantic:
“Kaitag art speaks to people of diverse cultural traditions. French art-lovers respond to a proto-Matisse style; in Sweden they see ancient Scandinavian art; Australians are reminded of Aboriginal art and in the US they see Abstract Expressionist paintings. Indeed, all these echoes are references to the common experience of the primal appeal of Kaitag embroideries, which is based on shared animist archetypes.”

”Only 500”, in RK’s opinion that’s 500 too many. And 16th century. Pleezzzzeeeee this is complete claptrap.

Plus who really gives a flying freak about proto-Matisse or the rest of that blah-de-blah, especially their chucking in that animist archetypes caboose.

Honestly, this whole affair sounds to us like nothing more than another big push by little lord franses to move some dead stock.

But who really cares about the why this “exhibition” is happening? The fact it is speaks volumes how those who are running the show care only for their personal agendas.

Art? History? Science? These are all platitudes franses, dodds and the rest of the ruglosers who chair and attend acoc/acor meetings mouth but could care less about – and their actions prove it.

Marveling at Kaitag: The Art of Daghestan will no doubt take place, both among conference attendees and the general public. However, putting a machine-made dishrag with a pic of Mickey Mouse on the wall, along with some convincing museum wall label, would equally wow such fans.

Don’t believe us, go try and see.

Oh, we forgot to mention the hali pump for the Turkish episode of the franses kaitag traveling show and fiasco informs readers

“The art of Kaitag embroideries survives in fewer than a thousand examples, arguably dating from the 16th century (under Ottoman influence) through to the 19th, mostly now in collections throughout the world.”

Better get yer figures right, boys, even Turkish punters know how to count.

But then again, wait a moment, little lord franses might have an excuse: He left school when he was 16 without even gaining a high school diploma, forget about any higher education.

Maybe that explains things??

Author: jc
email:
Tue, Mar 5th, 2013 10:48:03 AM

Greetings Viriditas:

Sorry for the late reply but we did not see your post until this afternoon.

Might we ask: "Conclusively dated by who and how"?

Either you are a franses toddy drunk on the kool-aid he dispenses like it were holy water. Or you're just another rug schmuck who doesn't know his warp from his weft.

Please take note: RK will be delighted to eat any kaitag embroidery you or any one else can prove conclusively as being earlier than the 19th century.

PS: Of course RK will be glad to buy it first, we wouldn't expect anyone to fill our tummy for free, now would we.

Author: Viriditas
email: Viriditas5@earthlink.net
Tue, Mar 5th, 2013 09:53:45 AM

You should update this rather angry site, as these pieces have been conclusively dated to the 17-19 century, in 2010.

Author: jc
email:
Thu, Apr 26th, 2007 04:02:47 PM

RK has now had the opportunity to speak with several icoc attendees and, to the man, they all exclaimed their skepticism and disbelief concerning the dating little lord franses attached to his kaitags.

There is little doubt Michael franses is a serial-over-dater of the highest degree and he has no real information to support the pre-19th century dates he has hung on a number of the icoc exhibition kaitags, as well as ones he has published on his website and in adverts in hali.

When RK inquired why no one bothered to publicly register their suspicions and doubts, both at the icoc and before, again, to a man, they said "Why should we bother" because franses is so respected and we are not nearly in his league.

RK instantly replied the only reason franses is "respected" is just for this reason -- everyone is cowed in silence, just plain afraid to go against the common consensus or part of franses's circle.

Well, RK isn't any of the above and we know if more rug collectors and dealers voiced the opinions in public we often hear in private, like those concerning the fallacious and highly misleading kaitag dating, things would change.

During the anti-Vietnam protest period we had a saying "Silence is consent" and that maxim is quite applicable to this situation and many of the other problems facing rugdom.

Need we say more?

Author: re: the beat goes on
email:
Sat, Apr 21st, 2007 08:49:23 AM

RK Replies:

We know it's you again, toiletkazbah. Let's just say you're fooling no one, dummy.

And you're a pretty brave mighty mouse to keep posting your drivel here.

Continue and sooner or later you will end up in our little mouse-trap.

We will then expose your sorriful butt for all to see.

Don't believe us?

================================

.... and the jerking is just as vigorous. Time for some vaseline, rk.

Author: jc
email:
Wed, Apr 11th, 2007 01:48:07 PM

Seems little lord franses and his “kaitag” partner, who have been hyping these embroideries for years, have not bamboozled everyone in rugdom except RK.

Here is a “kaitag” up for auction at Christie South Kensington's Spring Textile Sale:

"lot 118 estimate:500-1,000 pounds"

Here is the auction catalog description:

"RUST SILK YASTIK, OTTOMAN EMPIRE, DAGHESTANI, CIRCA 1800
embroidered in white and blue floss silks with lappet borders, the field worked with an ogival lattice--20in. (51cm.) x 42in. (106cm.)"

Perhaps, the person who catalogued this embroidery has been living next door to Osama in a mountain cave? Because this would be the only reason for anyone, who is involved with Oriental Rugs, not to have heard the word "kaitag" or read the continuing bla-de-blah franses and company have spun about these textiles.

However, it is far more likely they, just like RK, can't believe franses's "kaitag" crapola; while the rest of the brain-dead rug world has swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker.

In trying to deflect this situation for little lord franses, we are sure hali was prompted to publish the following:

"...lot 118, a Kaitag embroidered panel of about 1800, in yastik format with an Ottoman-derived ogival lattice design and lappets, while correctly attributed to Daghestan, is misassigned(sic) to the Ottoman Empire (estimate Ј500-1.000)."

Yes, Shirley, little lord franses still pulls strings at hali and we are sure that is the reason this lot was pick out for mention.

Too bad for franses he can't control Christie's cataloguer, as we see what is written in the catalog might be a first salvo in a coming barrage that will forever sink the idea these "kaitag" are anything but the derivative, 19th and 20th century, folk textiles RK has for the past years claimed they are.

The planned gala "kaitag" exhibit in Istanbul's icoc will also hopefully prompt other sharp eyes and the knowledgeable to publicly begin questioning these pieces and the highly specious dating claims franses and his partners have used to raise the "kaitag" profile.

By the way, if lot 118 is really circa 1800, watch for little lord franses or one of his minions to bid it up way past the 1,000 pound estimate.

After all, franses and company will have to protect their market, now won't they...

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service