RugDumb's supply of even bigger fools is as endless as it is legendary.
While RK believes detlef maltzahn, the owner of rippon boswell auction in Weisbaden Germany, is a nothing but a rug-know-little with a big yapper, his fool's gold rug "wisdom and wit" might be considered valuable in comparison to barry, former rug cheat, oCONnell's dumbass and ludicrous pronouncements.
Case in point is oCONnell's absolutely stupid commentary on a rather mediocre example of a rare type of Turkish Village rug included in sotheby New York's upcoming rug sale.
lot 18; "West Anatolian Rug"
For those of you new readers, who are unfamiliar with oCONnell, he has a website called spongobongo that is littered with similarly stupid, off-the wall, declarations to this one he published about the sotheby rug:
"God bless Sotheby's, their carpet department is second to none. However every once in a while I think they are a little too conservative. This is a case in point; They have cataloged this rug as "A WEST ANATOLIAN RUG" and "18th century". It has been suggested elsewhere that this rug is actually 17th century and most likely from the Bergama area. The small squares in the outer guard border are indicative of Bergama see Bergama Rug C. 1900 Sotheby's Doris Leslie Blau lot 66, Bergama prayer rug, West Anatolia, circa 1850, and Bergama Rug ex Bill Price 18th C Lot 47 for other related renditions of the small square element."
First off this rug is not 17th century, only a rug midget-brain like oCONnell could believe it is.
Second to ask GOD to "bless" sotheby's carpet department or to consider it second to none does nothing but dig oCONnell further into the pile of horse manure he habitually inhabits.
The McMullan example is miles above the sotheby piece or any of the other ones quoted in their catalog entry.
BTW: One they left out belongs to hot-air harry kesheshian and is illustrated in one of our earlier missives here on RugKazbah.com.
There is no doubt early Turkish Village rugs are difficult to understand but to be so flippin' ignorant to believe the sotheby piece to be 17th century, or even 18th as we would date it circa 1800 at best, demonstrates oCONnell is but another hopeless case and nothing but a big-mouth rug dummy.
Furthermore the sotheby rug, like others we have written about, ain't the real thing.
It is nothing but a later copy and a pretty piss-poor one at that.
Doubt what we say?
Then go take a peek at the McMullan example, and if that does not persuade you RK can only say you must be as ignorant and gullible as oCONnell and that dim bulb on the rug Xmas tree who writes those catalog entries for sotheby.