Home > Archive >Just Croaking or is it a swann Song
Author:Wendel Swan
Wed, Aug 8th, 2007 02:31:04 AM
Topic: Just Croaking or is it a swann Song

RK Replies:

The only point you, steev or williams made was our erroneous multiplication -- but all your other, far more accusatory but just as lame assertions have now been proven off base and incorrect.

But then your quoting this supposed 16 year old who is, by the way, from a town near where price=clown lives, is pretty pathethic, wendile, speaking of pathos, you impertinent slob.

If you and the rest of the lame crew you pontificate to had any sense you'd be buzzing about dodds sale of the bogus "bellini".

'Cause even a rug pissant, comme vous wendle, knows what we say is fact.

In my first post in this thread, I said that the chuval “doesn’t deserve nearly the amount of time spent on it” but I nevertheless got pulled into the discussion. Clearly, Jack Cassin made mis-statements of fact about the knot count and ratio of his chuval and that required correction.

Now, that’s been done irrefutably. I urge everyone to move on beyond Jack Cassin.

Over the course of years I’ve learned to ignore Jack Cassin and his personal attacks on me and many others in the rug community because there is no point of or benefit from any dialog with or about him.

Jack Cassin recently posted on his site that those who post on Turkotek demonstrate “their deficiencies for all to see.” That, of course, is true but it is also true of RugKazbah. All of Jack Cassin’s deficiencies are there to be seen and they are apparent to even the 16 year old who said of his site:


“In short, nothing edifying or worth reading.”

The site is virtually all vituperative wailing, sophomoric name calling, jealousy and hatred.

However, if one chooses to view RugKazbah in the most charitable light, one would conclude that it is also pathetic in every sense of that word.

I urge all who post here on Turkotek to refrain from calling Jack Cassin names or calling him evil in return for his comments and actions. Name calling is the retort of last resort. Don’t stoop to his level for two reasons. First, it doesn’t do any good and second, it makes the name-caller look foolish.

And don’t worry about the buyer. Michael Phillips is an experienced dealer who regularly handles Turkmen material. He can deal with the situation. It wasn't the business of anyone here to interfere with the transaction before it closed and it isn't anyone's business now either.


Author: Francois Tremblay
Wed, Aug 8th, 2007 02:31:04 AM

RK Replies:

Learn to read.

Then when you have, think about what we have written utilizing a far better level of comprehension than your post demonstrates.

Then, post something cogent, interesting and real about the chuval and you might engage us enough to receive a comprehensive reply.

But, as we said, any more of the same -- and that's exactly the only way to describe your post -- and we will not reply further.


Dear Mr. JC, I have followed the discussions about the Tekke juval that you recently sold on EBay and I am a bit amazed that you now refuse to discuss it anymore. You say that you want to discuss important and historic weavings. In the EBay description you called that juval "extraordinary and important". Never mind that AFTER the sale you were more modest in your assessment when you said "We (sic) never said the chuval was the greatest thing since the discovery of America...". Maybe you now realize that the juval wasn't that great, which is why it didn't bring a higher price. Shouldn't it be surprising to your readers that a juval that was judged by you to have such high merit brought only $1200, despite its very good condition? You continue to refuse to acknowledge your error in the structural description. This is not as trivial an issue as you say it is. As you say directly in your description on EBay, the vertical:horizontal ratio is important information about a piece. You said "the ratio is close to 1:1.2 which is also an indicator of earlier Tekke weaving". It is obvious from looking at the pictures of that juval that there are many more vertical knots and wefts than there are horizontal knots and warps in a square inch. That is not an issue for multiplication as you are now trying to claim, but for accurate description of the structure. I think you know this is the truth, and yet you continue to evade this issue. I hope you know that everyone who has read this forum and has seen the pictures of the rug know why you don't want any further discussion about it. Finally, I am sure your readers will have little interest in you responding by challenging my intelligence or my rug collecting taste (about which you know nothing). That is what you normally do when you are challenged, but this issue is about YOU. You were the one who sold the juval on EBay. You are the one who wrote the erroneous description about its structure and said it was an indication of an earlier piece. You are the one who said it was important and extraordinary. You are the one who continuously criticizes others for hype and misinformation. C'est incroyable! Francois

Author: John Lewis Sat, Aug 4th, 2007 04:20:01 PM

Dear Flight Attendant, I can understand why JC would get annoyed with someone like Jack Williams who clearly does not know very much and is very rude. Please put that on one side. The crux of the issue is whether the rug is "around 1850 or earlier" or, as Jack Williams asserts much later. There are some early (early in JCs parlance is probably pre 1750) tekke weavings that are densely woven and others that are less dense. Most experts seem to take a whole range of factors into account when dating a piece - they have experience of seeing a lot of pieces that they are able to place on a continuum of design. If you look at the litrature you will see that many auction houses/dealers attribute very similar designs to "early 19th century". I am waiting to see if any reputable dealers/authorities come out and say "JC represented this as pre 1850 or earlier - bullshit". No takers so far.

Author: Flight attendant...
Sat, Aug 4th, 2007 09:50:02 AM

Dear Mr. Lewis, If you read most of the RK website you will quickly realize that Mr. Cassin is more interested in personalities and criticizing people than discussing rugs, so there is no purpose served in posting one's name.

RK REPLIES: Listen up, fa, RK could really care less about you, or what you think about us.

However, if you post your "opinions" about RK on the net, where anyone can read them, your doing so will surely be of concern to us.

RK does not spend too much time talking about rugs here because we are not interested in educating others.

We wrote in the introduction to one of the books we made "Showing is teaching", so forget about talking.

Nevertheless, we are, nonetheless, very interested in sharing our knowledge, ideas and yes, interest, with others, and we feel we have done that enough to satisfy all concerned.

Regardless, your comments are besides being way incorrect, impertinent and we suggest, should you wish to remain able to view and interact here on RugKazbah.com, you learn to speak truth and not innuendo and BS about RK.

In addition, your lame "rational" for not posting your name is just that, lame. It is not only feeble but downright dumb and stupid.

It is also clearly prejudiced and motivated your agenda to prove what a big bad terror RK supposedly is.

Need we say more?

He will just take an ad hominim approach to the response. I would prefer to talk about rugs and issues, which can be easily done without posting a name.

RK RELIES: If your logic and reasoning abilities are so poor and bent to believe such poppycock, we are sure you will not be able to discuss anything with RK.

We do not suffer fools well, better either get straight or get lost.

I am sure you know that. I don't know that your real name is John Lewis, and even if I did, I don't know anyone named John Lewis, so that would serve no purpose. I am keeping my posts to a discussion about rugs, not people, so let's get back to that.

RK REPLIES: Like dumbasss steev, you make false statements, like this BS, in the hope the listener will be conned into thinking they are true.

Remember, you are the one to start the slagging match, fa, not RK.

So get real, boy, if you want to remain here.

If you don't, once again, we'd suggest returning to the little backwater pond you've been floating in.

You are way over your head here.

It would be easier for experts and non-experts to assess this chuval if Mr. Cassin could clear up the remaining inconsistencies in his structural description. In my most recent post, I asked how the chuval could have much wider than tall knots and still have the same number of wefts and warps per square inch. Surely you have taken a close look at the pictures and could agree that the pictures don't agree with the description. If the chuval has a very high vertical to horizontal ratio, then by Mr. Cassin's criteria, that would suggest a later weaving. This is my last post on the subject. It bores me to ask legitimite(sic) questions, and get non-responsive and vituperative replies. Perhaps other readers will have more success by posting their own names, but I doubt it. FA.

RK REPLIES: Listen up once more, fa, since you have not proven you know anything about rugs, and for us this issue, the EBAY chuval, is over, why should we bother to do anything? We readily admitted we multiplied one incorrect number to ascertain the kpsi but the rest of our cursory analysis is correct.

We are willing to bet we have been making structural analyses long before you even knew what the words meant -- and we know how to do this quite proficiently.

So your position -- like that expressed by swindle, professor price=clown and that moron williams -- is nothing more than an agenda driven witch-hunt.

And, like them, you have proven yourself to be a know-nothing waste of time.

RK is sure we could run circles around you, even while we were asleep.

A part of our collection is published and online, go show us anything that is even comparable that you own.

Talk is cheap, fa, especially from someone who is too disingenuous to even post under their own name.


Author: John Lewis Sat, Aug 4th, 2007 06:40:02 AM

All, The tread would be much clearer if everyone posted under their own names. There seems to be general agreement that the tekke chuval is 1850 or earlier (not substantially later). Lee Koch has some good comments that I cannot respond to because I am banned from ****. He seems both sane and knowledgeable. Is there any expert who will call it out as being substantially later?

Author: Flight attendant
Sat, Aug 4th, 2007 01:40:05 AM

Dear Mr. Cassin, I understand your approach to warps and wefts. It is pretty elementary. What confused me was that I have looked carefully at the picture of the back of the chuval you sold, and it is evident to me that unless there is extreme depression of alternate warps, each knot is much wider than it is tall. This can be seen easily enough if one examines the outlining portions of the design where there is a single brown or blue knot. Since you have stated that the chuval is double wefted, that would indicate that there are two wefts for each knot (and of course two warp threads). Since there are obviously many more vertical knots than horizontal knots per square inch, this would indicate that there are many more wefts than warps per square inch, which calls into question your calculations and descriptions of the warp and weft ratios. Perhaps you could post a close-up picture of the back of the chuval to help your readers decide for themselves. If not, readers can see a close-up at the other website that you will not have mentioned on this forum. On the other hand, if you were serious about having nothing more to say on the matter then I suppose you will be content to let me have the last word... FA.

Author: Flight attendant...
Fri, Aug 3rd, 2007 10:14:11 PM

RK REPLIES: This is the last time we will address the issue of the "ratio" (of Vertical to Horizontal) and its "meaning".

PLUS there is, nor has there been, any "revision" of what we claimed -- only an explanation of our error in multiplying to get the kpsi(knots per square inch).

1. the only ratio We are interested in examining is the number of WARP per inch to the NUMBER OF ROWS of weft.

The EBAY chuval has 24 warp per inch and 26-to-28 ROWS of weft per inch. That ratio is quite close to 1:1.

WE ARE NOT INTERESTED in any other ratio. PERIOD.

This was our position, as set forth in the EBAY description. It is still there for all to see.

Go read it.

2. A high vertical to horizontal count, and the lopsided ratio it creates, is invariably the result of thick, heavy warps(low count) while still packing down many rows of knots vertically(high count). This combination makes the weaving faster, yet still allows for a decent enough level of design articulation.

So, fa, learn how to read; get honest enough to post here without an anonymouse moniker and go learn why the best and most indicative “ratio” is NOT the number of vertical knots to horizontal knots but the number of warp to the number of ROWS of weft (each row of weft being one, two or more "passes").

We trust this has been now made clear to all, including swindel, price-clown and mr williams.

3. There is, rather coincidently, a "similar" chuval for sale on EBAY, not at auction but rather in a store.

If you search for antique Tekke chuval you should find it.

We mention this apropos your bogus and demonstrably incorrect assessment of the RK Ebay Tekke chuval.

Go check it out and then perhaps you'll be prepared should we decide to go further along here.

By the way, we did email a mr david reuben, who allegedly used to own the piece. We offered to debate him concerning the merits, or lack of them, a comparison of these two "similar" chuval displays.

We figured reuben will/would not participate but we are glad to wait a few more days just to see.

Should he respond it will be the perfect opportunity to address the questions you pose, fa.

If he doesn't, we will be glad to speak a bit more about why the ex-reuben chuval is way inferior to the one RK has just sold.


Dear John, Just a quick comment, that I think is relevant. It was Mr. Cassin himself, in the EBay description of the chuval, who indicated that the low vertical to horizontal was an important indicator of an early age. Now that there has been a revision to the structural information and the chuval in question appears to have a high vertical to horizontal ratio, my question is whether Mr. Cassin still believes this to be an important indicator. If not, what changed his mind? If so, wouldn't that place the chuval later than he first proposed? It would be hard to have it both ways, particularly for someone who is experienced in matters of old Turkmen weavings. Personally, I would say the the chuval looks to have good colours and an interesting border. But compared to the really good ones of this genre (and there are plenty that are demonstrably much better), I think that it might closer to Mr. Cassin's dreaded "airport art" category. I think the final sale price is about right in that case, since a really good and old chuval in good condition should sell for much more than 1200 bucks. E.T.A...

Author: John Lewis
email: john_lewis@mac.com
Fri, Aug 3rd, 2007 03:44:10 PM

RK Replies,
Greetings, John

Well, we never relate to sarcasm, and the pontification/guru label is not one we are interested in being tagged with.

Regardless, clearly we believe the chuval was made before 1850 and it is an excellent example, though surely not the best of its type.

The type is rare and there are a a limited number of examples but enough to construct that a rather informative continuum.

That said, we are not going to spoon feed this exercise to our readers preferring, at this point, to keep what we know to ourself.

We appreciate your asking, John, sarcasm or not, and hope you will study the references cited in the Ebay description, go and find others which are accessible and, then, perhaps come back here with some observations or questions.

So, get your books lined up and report back here whenever you might like.


Away for a week and I miss the pontification from a guru. A question. Is the rug in question, in your humble opinion, 1850 or earlier or substantially later? I can understand why many people would want to attack JC but it comes down to - either the chuval is 1850 or earlier or late 19th century/early 20th century as other experts claim. No-one is really that interested interested in the knot count. There is nothing wrong with experts disagreeing. You either agree with JC and the buyer or with JW? I would genuinely be interested in your opinion - those like me who admit to not knowing a lot - need guidance. Are there any experts reading this who would call it out as being much later than 1850? My only reason for buying it would be to see if it "waves".

Author: jc
Fri, Aug 3rd, 2007 02:00:37 AM

Here's what we wrote, the complete section.

Waterboy wendle's attempt to claim we were comparing the ebay chuval with the one in "Turkmen" is downright stupid but to not admit it, even worse.

2. pg. 102, plate 30 in "Turkmen"; published by the Textile Museum, 1980: dated 1st half 19th century; size 1 meter 18 by .78 meter

Interestingly, this piece appears to be similar enough to the one above to be considered its other half. This conjecture is based solely on a picture comparison and, to make a final determination, both piece would have to be examined in the flesh; something we have, so far, not been able to do.

Here is a quote from jon thompson's text describing the piece "Plate 30 shows the face of a large wall bag which is missing a part along the top, back, and tassels. For reasons, which are hard to understand, the Tekke used big guls on their shallow bags and small guls on their large bags. This gul is a miniature version of the archetypal gul, and the secondary gul a small version of that found on shallow bags and carpets. The end panel contains a variation of the tree, a recurring feature of Tekke design, here placed in a row with alternation colors, and interspersed with small designs which maybe birds, lyres, or amulets according to taste. The main border has an interesting two-way-reading design found also on a small rug.

This piece was made probably in the first half of the nineteenth century. Its color and freedom of design in the end panel provide a useful comparison with numerous, later, finely worked but obsessively detailed examples."

We should mention plate 30 and our chuval have different borders and end panels but they both share the most significant feature -- the main and minor gol -- as well as color palette.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service