Actually, jim burns has several factors in his stead which might explain his dumb and stupid pronouncement the LACMA ok bash is a late 19th century piece of junk.
First, let's all remember burns has no collection of Turkmen rugs to speak of, and while this might not imply he knows next to nothing about this genre of weaving, we have some other indications demonstrating he is, to put it mildly and nicely, Turkmen rug challenged.
At the sotheby sale where he purchased that chuval RK used to own for 3.5K$, he could have just as easily and effortless purchased a number of other stellar lots, especially our full-pile tent band that also sold for a mere pittance of its worth(16.5K$).
Had burns, who foolishly believes he bought the "best" piece in that sale(the fragmented chuval), been as knowledgeable about Turkmen weavings as his bluster might erroneously appear to substantiate, he should have been a bidder for it.
Regardless of the fact his doing so would have surely pushed the price much higher, possibly to the 50K$ the German collector who won it at sotheby had offered us in private some years before the sale, it still would have been a far better and more important purchase than the chuval, even for an often cheap, and almost always price-conscious buyer, like a jim burns.
To substantiate our statement let's reference the fact burn's had, at that time, two small fragments of another full-pile tent band, which he sold several years later to George Hecksher.
By the way, burns sold the two small fragments for a higher price than our 20 times larger and almost complete full pile tent band brought at the sotheby’s sale.
Had burns really been as knowledgeable as he and some other rug-toadies believe he is, RK is sure burns should have scooped up a number of other lots in the sale besides the full pile tent band; as they too were important pieces, and major bargains as well.
But burns, who is a rich man in almost anyone's eyes, sat on his wallet because he doesn't know much about Turkmen rugs and not because of his stupid belief the chuval he bought was “the only good lot in the sale”.
Rubbish, counselor burns, you Turkmen twit.
And speaking of rubbish and rug-twits, let us likewise mention burns's equally as dumb-ass pronouncement concerning the veracity of the mitchell and rosey rugnik star Kazak.
As the story goes, and from what we have heard about it, when burns saw the "star" Kazak, which was quite soon after the rugnik's purchased it, he told them it was a fake, a new reproduction.
Not only did this cockeyed statement send the rugniks on a long haul journey to nowhere trying and get their money back from the sellers but, finally, when they learned the truth -- that the rug is genuine but not the earliest example and a heavily restored one to boot -- it led the rugniks, who formerly had been sitting attentively at burns's knee and lapping up his rug-utterances like they were from God's mouth to their tin-ears, to forsake their place and never assume it again.
As we explained, we know burns since 1973 or 1974, and although he, like many other rich rug "collectors" we could cite, is really more of a rug “investor” than rug “collector”, we have never mentioned him here on RugKazbah.com.
The "star" Kazak rugnik story is surely an interesting one but, quite frankly, as we care so little about burns or his inflated reputation as a rug connoisseur, we left it untold.
However, when big-mouth burns tries to diss us, our investigations and complaints about the dodds/LACMA fraud, or one of our pieces, like he did with the ok bash, we feel it is pertinent to demonstrate and prove what we believe, and have said, about him.
Granted, burns has a fabulous collection of mostly 19th century Persian city rugs with a smattering of earlier pieces from other rug weaving areas.
But that said, and trust us we can say more about mr burns, a central fact here is the one that burns has always, at least in our opinion, comported himself in rugdom as an investor-collector.
Does jim burns love his rugs?
From our viewpoint, and it’s a long one since 1974, RK would have to say “no” because a bloke like burns appears to only love himself and his bank account.
Should mr burns be upset about what we have written, or believe it is untrue, we welcome him to write in here and try to prove us wrong.
After all, jim burns is a trial attorney who has been practicing forty years or more. He can surely defend himself, especially if he thinks RK has falsely, or incorrectly, portrayed him and his long time efforts in rugdom.