Home > Rug, Kelim, Soumak, Textile Post Archive >Konya? 16/17th century? No Way, Jose dodds
email: jc@rugkazbah.com
Thu, Jul 12th, 2007 03:17:57 PM
Topic: Konya? 16/17th century? No Way, Jose dodds

It is rather strange dodds wants to insist the late, genre period reproduction “bellini” rug he sold to LACMA is central Anatolian and supposedly from the Konya area.

We have already pointed out in both catalogs where the earliest appearances of this rug took place (in the Bausback exhibition of 1981 and the Austrian Collectors Club exhibition of 1983) a western Anatolian provenance was described.

We would agree and see it as unlikely dodds’s view, the rug is central Anatolian, is anything but another serious error on his part.

When the “bellini” appeared in the Atlantic Collections exhibition and catalog in 1996, which by the way dodds himself authored, the rug suddenly was called central Anatolian.

It was also back dated 100-200 years earlier than the Bausback and Austrian Collectors catalogs authors believed it to be.

What is even stranger is dodd’s belief no one would notice these changes. And, in fact, no one did until RK decided enough is enough and started our public objections to dodds’s sale and his daydreaming 16/17th century dating and Konya provenance.

Furthermore, in the catalog dodds expressed the idea his “bellini” was made in a “…provincial weaving area far from the main ateliers…”. This too is highly questionable because the warp depression his rug exhibits more likely denotes its origin was in a workshop or atelier and not the typical situation that produced most early central Anatolian village rugs.

Actually, dodds’s rug is neither central Anatolian or produced in what he calls “provincial” circumstances. Nor is it 16/17th century – all these are highly questionable statements dodds made in the Atlantic Collections catalog.

Usually, the passage of many years, in this instance 20, would imply the later an opinion or expertise is offered, the better the chance for it to be true and correct.

Well, that’s how things go when there is real expertise and knowledge involved. However, in dodds’s case, and in the case of his “bellini”, the older published ideas are far closer to the what most up-to-date and erudite scholarship in this area would now maintain.

Why did dodds go out on a limb in making such debatable statements about his bellini” and then start sawing away with abandon?

There are only two possible explanations we can imagine:

1. dodds’s desire to look like an expert prodded him into fabricating a new, high fallutin’, description of his “bellini” to show he knows more than the previous cataloguers, who weighed in on trying to provenance the piece.

2. dodds created the new extreme dating and central Anatolian origin to try an dispel the 20 plus years of continuous disinterest the oriental rug collectors showed in this piece and to attempt to interest some new blood into viewing the piece differently.

This might have worked had dodds’s new description held any water. But, in reality, it was so full of holes no one, other than thaa gullible, naive, curator from LACMA’s costume and textile department fell for the bait.

Regardless of how the baloney is sliced it portends dodds’s dating, his provenance, his belief the rug is “important and a museum piece” are all nothing but fairy tales spun by someone who believed his word would never be questioned.

Well questioned it has been , mr dodds, and not only have we questioned every bogus aspect of your sales pitch but we have proven beyond a shadow of doubt you twisted the facts with no regard for the truth, hyped a rug that you knew was not 16th/17th century and told a bunch of lies on top of all that to make the sale.

There will be more to come on both dodds’s lack of rug expertise and his questionable and highly dishonest salesmanship in pawning off the “bellini” on that hapless LACMA curator.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service