For the past months RK has refrained from posting comments concerning Virginia Commonwealth University professor steev price=clown’s website and the ludicrous, stupid and dumbass opinions he and the rest of his chirping small coterie of magpie ruggies publish daily on the internet.
We are sick and tired of seeing price and company tramp through RugDumb like little lost sheep, or their holding onto the idea price=clown is boo-peep.
But regardless of that fact, and the reality our critiquing their worthless nonsense is pointless as price and the rest of his circle are amazingly immune to criticism, they actually believe they are providing something worthwhile.
Yeah right, about as factual as president bush’s belief he is providing security and freedom for the Iraqi people. Bullshit to both says RK.
But today, after looking at the totally ridiculous postings price, jimbo allen and company have made concerning this “yastic”, RK felt we had to comment.
this highly questionable “yastic” is foolishly dated by its owner, jim, aka jimbo, allen as an “early 17th century rug”
While we do not have the time or patience to critique, we mean demolish, the arguments professor clown, jimbo and the magpies have offered up we will, however, comment on two of them – the two we find most egregious and specious.
The first is a pant load of off-the-wall nonsense from jimbo:
“I dated the yellow ground yatak to the early 17th century based on iconography and that isn't always a good idea. I have contacted Arizona to get the forms and prices for C-14 analysis. My problem is that people with a negative attitude will say that I didn't use the wool form this rug but some other sample in my possession. I want to avoid this fallacy by gathering several worthy samples from other collector's rugs and using my precious C-14 dated samples to add accuracy and validity to the test. This will take awhile to pull together. Meanwhile I agree with your asking for other relevant examples to compare mine with. Horst said that the yellow ground rug "is a venerable small rug with a strong Anatolian appeal; the eight-lobed star motif seems related to the ones in A-22, the Transylvanian rug and also plate 61 in the Morehouse book." This means that one well informed person agrees with me that the rug is quite old. I think Horst would bet the rug is early 18th century. The last time I had a chance to do a well conceived C-14 study I submitted two samples and one of them, a Tekke chuval, was C-14 tested twice and both times came up mid 17th century. That was the first Turkoman in history demonstrated to be pre 18th century. I believe I have a pretty good track record in these matters but if you have something more than opinion to base your approbations on, please share them with us. _Jim Allen”
For many years jimbo, who is a liar and cheat of a rug dealer, has been braying about his c14 testing, his doing it “with the Met”, and the alleged revolutionary findings he has published.
All total BullShit and fabrication.
He did nothing with the MET other than bother Nabuko Kajitani, the former curator.
How does RK know this? Well, Nabuko is a buddy of ours and she told us that directly.
Plus his rational for proving he is not using other samples to get results for pieces is nothing more than more BS, as the “methodology” he describes does not bona fide his results at all. In fact, it relies on the same bogus BS premise (that he is honest) he has always mouthed.
Plus, his testing and all his comments about it ignore the most salient and important issue -- contamination.
Furthermore, his “interpretations” of the finding are equally as phony and false as saying he did it “with the Met”
This yastic or yatak, what ever you wish to call it, looks to RK to be horribly 19th century, at best, surely not 18th and positively not 17th.
In fact, we would not be surprised if it was a newly made reproduction “revival”(although we put small credence there and much, much more in a 19th century dating).
The fact one ruggie horst nitz, who is a professor price=clown adherent, thinks it might be “early 18th century” is not only worthless but totally immaterial.
Why? Because horst nitz is nothing but an amateur and neophyte, surely not an “expert” or someone whose opinion carries any weight anyplace other than price’s rug-sandbox.
No, jimbo is full of crapola, again, for the umpteenth time, and the fact price=clown publishes his garbage “scholarship” is par for the course for someone, who is so far below par that he couldn’t score a 120 on a child’s pitch-and-putt course with Arnold Palmer coaching.
But as lame and absurd as jimbo’s “scholarship” is, at least he knows it. Witness this quotation from him that is included in his arguments for this yastic/yatak:
“I have written an article about this rug but with my usual disregard for facts and established suppositions.”
We do agree with one point -- his “usual disregard for facts” is genuine and epidemic – and if that ain’t enough to sink jimbo’s ship then RK doesn’t know what more could.
As bad as jimbo’s level of academics are, they are stellar superlative compared with steev price=clown’s.
Here is a sample from the rug challenged professor price:
“Just a few points in Jim's defense and my own (since this is a moderated forum, I bear at least partial responsibility for anything that appears on it).
1. Regarding date attributions: The foundation for dating any rug woven between 1650 and 1850 is mostly marketplace lore handed down from dealer to dealer and collector. There is no database of rugs of documented age during that period from which criteria can be extracted. There's only a handful documented to have been woven before 1650 (I consider C-14 results to be documentation). As the latter part of the 19th century comes in, there is some firsthand experience with who was weaving what. These facts notwithstanding, it's not at all uncommon for collectors, dealers, and curators to make attributions. I don't take them very seriously as statements of fact, but they don't get me all exercised unless they're presented with an air of great certainty. Nothing in this thread seems to warrant major objections.
2. Much of what Jim presents is speculative, but I see no pretense about it being anything else.
3. Although there are links to images that are on Jim's website, to the best of my knowledge none of them are on the market and some may not still be in his possession. This meets the spirit and letter of our prohibition of promotional posts. If I am mistaken about whether any of these are for sale, or if any of them are offered for sale in the near future, we'll do what needs doing to protect the integrity of the site. But if Jim hasn't violated it, there's no reason to impugn his. In fact, one of our rules (posted in the paragraph atop this page) forbids comments bearing on the reputation of any seller, and the question of whether your comments crossed that line doesn't have a clear answer. If you know of some reason to believe somebody is promoting his inventory here, letting me or Filiberto know about it by e-mail is a better approach than posting innuendo.__Thanks.__Steve Price”
To say price is a rug moron would be giving him far too much credit – he is a supreme rug imbecile who, after decades of “interest” in old rugs, still can not identify the good from the bad and ugly – nor can he discern airport-art from genuine weaving.
While we hardly ever agree with anything jimbo or rug-idiot price says, we will have to agree with price’s statement he “…bears at least partial responsibility for anything that appears on it.”
Thanks, steev, you rug-nincompoop for at least confirming the fact you know nothing about old rugs and will never learn anything past the abysmally low understanding you already possess.
Critiquing what price wrote above, or in fact rebuking most of it, is pointless.
RK knows there are enough bright rug-minds out there to figure it out for themselves.
So read and weep over jimbo’s nonsense illusions and fabrications that continually pass for anything other than the BS they are on price’s sandbox rug discussion board.
Isn’t it about time price, rug cheat and carpet-bagger jimbo, and the rest of price’s crew took their palaver and imbecilic comments private and off the public internet?