We have frequently pointed out the gaffs, mis-statements, boners and worse Virginia Commonwealth University professor steve price consistently makes when trying to discuss old oriental rugs.
Lately, we have avoided commenting on his dopey comments but this one, issued yesterday, deserves being critiqued:
"Vis-a-vis aesthetics: most fo(sic) the khalyks I've seen live or in photos have fairly dreary color and design. There are several in this thread that are very far above average (bearing in mind that "average" includes the published ones, which we can presume to be generally above the average of the total population). Kapunuks (door surrounds) are often extremely beautiful, though.
There is little doubt price's take on khalyk stems from his gross inexperience with Turkmen weaving and blatantly dumb as a rock rug-intellect.
As a rule it is clear there are far more khalyk than kapunuk extant.
Part and parcel of this fact is the reality most khalyk are late(post mid-19th) and most kapunuk(except those made in the Amu Darya region) are earlier(pre-mid 19th).
In addition had price spent some quality time reading about khalyk, as well as sourcing the available excellent examples in the literature(and of course being able to discern their differences), he would never had made such a laughably stupid blanket statement.
But this is typical for the rug challenged professor and his deplorably clownish belief he has the ability to comment publicly about Turkmen, or for the matter, any old oriental rugs.
As we have said before, it's way time for price and his cohorts to take their effort private and out of public view.