The abysmal proof of Virginia Commonwealth University professor steve price's inability to understand even the most basic facets of what constitutes a 16th century Turkish rug can be shown in the following comment the turko-idiot of rugdom just published:
"My understanding is that the C14 dating of the LACMA rug was based on wool from pile that was original.
The fact that they say that they intend to do C14 analysis on restored parts implies this to be the case.
If that's so, the rug is a documented example of a mid-16th century (plus or minus 100 years) Turkish rug.
For the most part, it should be useful in contributing criteria for recognizing Turkish rugs of that period.
The design and colors were probably reproduced pretty faithfully in the restoration (that's nearly always the case), and the pile and foundation in the parts that are original are mid-16th century work.
It may be typical of the period, it may not be. But I don't see how any database of mid-16th century Turkish rugs can fail to include it.
It's nothing short of idiocy for price to write "If that's so, the rug is a documented example of a mid-16th century (plus or minus 100 years) Turkish rug."
As dumb as price's statement is on the surface, the fact he is a PhD scientist makes it even worse; proving price's credentials as a scientist need to be carefully addressed.
One or two C14 analyses of a rug that has been subject to unknown contaminations surely does not provide any proof it is actually as old as the C14 implies. Nor does a 95.4% probability for the dating make it anything other than, basically, an opinion.
Plus price the rug clown then finishes with this dim-witted conclusion:
"It may be typical of the period, it may not be. But I don't see how any database of mid-16th century Turkish rugs can fail to include it."
Firstly, price wouldn't know if dodds's dud "bellini" was or was not typical of the period if his accomplishment devoid professional life depended on it.
What this shows, and one does not need to be an Einstein to figure this out, is rugdom's silence on dodds's caper allows price, and those of his ilk, to believe the hype and nonsense dodds, or a C14 date, might make seem real.
That false sense of reality flies in the face of what a far more positive and real art historical comparison of dodds's "bellini" with real pre-1800 examples of the type demonstrates.
Sadly, it requires some intellectual capacity to see this while all an idiot like price needs to do is read what he wants into dodds's lies or what a far from positive C14 analysis might imply.
It would be funny but this is too serious a matter to laugh about; that is for anyone who knows the difference between airport-art and genuinely historic textile art.