Today, we were informed Mr Lee Koch posted some "comments" about Tekke chuval with "small" gol and we just finished reading what he wrote.
Quite frankly, we felt what he has now written is just more of the same:
"Well, I've just returned from a two week vacation and am happy to report that there's life beyond the world wide web. I noticed this thread and wanted to add a coda to what I'd already said in the Cassin thread.
I own ten tekke small gul chuvals. Nine are clearly without synthetic dyes and the tenth is clearly not. Just for fun, I pulled them out this evening and did a quick knot count of each. I counted the knots in the center of a primary gul on every chuval so as to sample in similar areas on all of them. Here are the results with the horizontal count given first: 10x21, 12x20, 10x20, 10x20, 12x29, 10x17, 12x24, 11x19, 11x19, and 11x20. Now would anyone care to guess which knot count correlates with the later piece?
If you guessed the 12x29 knot count, you'd be correct insofar as the conventional wisdom goes but incorrect in the real world. In fact, the late piece is the one I gave first, 10x21. The piece with the 12x29 knot is the bag that I mentioned in the other thread that I bought from Marvin, and anyone who knows Marvin knows he would never have acquired a late turkmen bag while he was forming his collection of central asian material. It displays four vertical columns of five primary guls and its elem is decorated with the the(sic) same floral or tree figure as in plate 9 of Tent Band Tent Bag and two of the Rippon Boswell Pinner sale tekke chuvals. I'd cite the lot numbers of the Pinner pieces but can't put my hands on the sale catalogue at the moment.
As for the chuval with the synthetic dye, it shows a field arrangement of 5 columns of 5 primary guls and traditionally correct border systems. So conventional wisdom about the knot count and the iconography led me to conclude that it should have been "right" from an internet image when in fact, it wasn't.
I suppose that the moral of this story is that relying on generalizations and conclusions drawn by authors in 20 year old rug books is not as reliable as learning from a pile of rugs in your lap.
Rug books are a good way to begin to gain some familiarity with attribution and iconography but they'll always be a poor substitute for the kind of "boots on the ground" intel that comes from handling the material in real time."
First off, Mr Koch, marvin amstey's collection was not one RK ever coveted, and in fact, there were no pieces there we had, or have now, any interest in owning.
When he was acquiring Turkmen weavings Mr amstey proved himself to be, at best, a semi-knowledgeable collector and from what he contributes these days on Virginia Commonwealth University professor price=clown's board we'd have to say amstey’s expertise has not increased one iota.
Someone recently referred to amstey as "one line, marvin". While RK recognizes this statement could discount the wisdom that can be related in just one sentence; those from amstey are not in such a category, not by a long shot.
So, Mr Koch, just because you bought a chuval from amstey doesn't mean it is an early one or anything else.
Nor does the fact you own “ten” of them imply anything other than gluttony, as RK is sure they are not, perhaps, as early or good as you might believe.
Anyway, these arguments of yours are specious, as are the other ones you state about “20 year old books” and "learning" from them.
If by “20 year old books” you are referring to Tent Band Tent Bag, we’d like to hear what you think is out of date, or incorrect, that appears in the portions of the book RK authored?
To demonstrate what an early piece of this type looks like, we are intending on publishing a chuval that pre-dates the Ebay chuval by a considerable margin in a post for RugKazbah.com we are presently working on.
By the way, Mr Koch, there are several varieties of “small gol” Tekke chuvals, unless you missed the subtleties even among the “cross” gol type where there are major definable differences -- not only in age and coloration but proportions, articulation and borders.
Quite frankly, from what we have heard about your “collection”, and learned about your expertise from what you have written, RK can easily believe none of your examples of this group can compare with even the Ebay piece, let alone the so far unpublished one we just mentioned.
So, Mr Koch, go prove us wrong(or will it be right?) and publish your best one on professor clown’s rug sandbox discussion website or email it to us care of webmaster(at)rugkazbah(dot)com.
Remember, Mr Koch, talk is cheap, especially when talking about one's rugs without showing them.