It is rather strange dodds wanted to insist, in his bogus as a 3$ Bill sales pitch to LACMA, the late genre period “bellini” rug he sold them is central Anatolian, supposedly from the Konya area.
We have already pointed out both catalogs where the earliest published 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 suggested.
We would agree and see it unlikely dodds’s view 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. Guess dodds was talking to himself, as no one at the time bothered to comment.
It was also back dated 100-200 years earlier than the Bausback and Austrian Collectors catalogs authors believed. Guess dodds needed to try harder to find a buyer, even back then, and over-dating was the simplest way to try and make the sale.
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 dumbell daydreaming dating and provenance.
Furthermore, we know dodds expressed the idea to LACMA his “bellini” was made in a “…provincial weaving area far from the ateliers…”.
This too is highly questionable, as the warp depression his rug exhibits more properly denotes its origin was in a workshop or atelier, not the typical domestic situation that produced most early village rugs.
Actually, dodds’s rug is neither central Anatolian, produced in a “provincial” circumstance, nor is it 16/17th century – all statements dodds made in the Atlantic Collections catalog and his fraudulent LACMA sales efforts.
Usually, the passage of many years, in this instance 20, would imply the later an opinion or expertise is offered, the better the chance it is true and correct.
Well, that’s how things go when there is true expertise involved. However, in dodds’s case, and in the case of his “bellini”, the older published ideas are far closer to the truth.
Here, there are only two possible explanations:
1. dodds’s desire to look like an expert prodded him into fabricating a new high falluting 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 disinterest all and every oriental rug collector showed in this piece for almost 30 years and, to interest some new blood or maybe old 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 that no one, other than a gullible, naive, curator from LACMA’s costume and textile department fell for the bait.
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.