The most ridiculous and genuinely stupid paradigm in rugDumb is the following:
collector 1: “Oh, my piece is better than yours.”
collector 2: “Why?”
collector 1: “Because its mine and I know more than you.”
That’s usually where it ends but humor RK a bit and let us put some words in collector two's mouth.
collector 2: “OK, I will agree you have been doing this longer than I and you “know more” than I do. So now please demonstrate to me why yours is better than mine”
At this point collector 1 either gets all huffy, or he tries with argument that might convince him but surely won’t convince collector 2.
However, if collector 1 really knows his material he can thru comparison demonstrably prove his piece is the better.
This is where we are at – showing by comparison why what we believe and write/say is “fact”
Recently this was the subject of discussion between RK and a “rug-dealer” we know for 30 plus years.
He said “yeah but a comparison is just an opinion”.
We did not bother to answer him knowing we would answer him in public by writing this missive.
To say “there’s diamonds and there’s DIAMONDS” is very true and it works for other comparisons as well – there’s worthless ones and there’s valuable ones.
In that vein let’s put on the table why we are writing this: Several days ago someone, no not the “rug dealer” , called us to ask how it was possible for john weretime to have dated the two of RK’s pieces in the book as foolishly as he had.
“How did weretime make such a big mistake? Even I can see the difference between yours as the ones he offers for comparison.”
We explained weretime made no error – he did it on purpose to make RK’s collection appear less substantial than he knows it is.
Here is the weretime example:
#1. plate 131 weretime 1998
And here is our piece that appears next to it in weretime book
#2. published Weaving Art Museum 2004
The circumstances behind the appearance of our two pieces in weretime’s book were no accident, as weretime called us and asked if we had any “unpublished” khorjins from our collection that he could include in the book he was writing.
We said we did and would be willing to have them published BUT we had several conditions:
1. he pay for the photography
2. we, weretime and RK, would share co-editorial say-so over whatever he would write about them.
He readily agreed and we had our photographer make 4x5 transparancies and sent them off to weretime with the photographers bill.
Months went by and frankly we forgot about weretime’s book and the $250 he owed us for the photographs.
One day we were visiting a rug friend and he asked us what we thought about weretim’es new book.
We then got to see, for the first time, weretime’s book and his asinine comments about our two sumak bags.
Needless to say we had been completely blind-sided by this schmuck, john weretime.
We got the two fifty the next time we saw him, and to be frank we still harbor ill feeling over weretime’s sleazy game-playing.
However the proof of what a snake he is remains for all to see.
Anyone interested in soumak bags, even the neophyte ruggie whose telephone call sparked this look at weretime's book, can tell ours is far superior to the one he published for comparison.
Here's a detail of the two bags for anyone who needs more convincing:
As RK often says the proof is in the pudding.
If any readers do not see substantial differences enough to support RK ridiculing weretime's judgement might we suggest, if you do not have the book where they are printed side by side, print the pics out and look at them side by side for an hour. We’re pretty sure you will get it then if not much sooner.
Here’s the second piece we gave weretime to publish:
#3. Ardibil soumak bag, published Weaving Art Museum 2004
Here's a detail for those who might need some additional convincing weretime is nothing but a stooge -- a soumak bag-man if you will:
To date this piece, second half nineteenth century as weretime does in his magnum opus, can only be called idiotic (prejudiced for those who now know the story) in comparison to many other dates he postulates.
Check this bag weretime dates third quarter nineteenth century:
#4. plate 4, published weretime 1998
Reading weretime’s description and comparisons is painful for RK. The faulty logic and conclusions weretime draws are not worth our time to critique.
What is worth our time is to forward the idea our bag above is the archetype for all the examples of this type he references, as our little comparison below demonstrates:
The old picture worth 1000 words might be apt here.
And for all you who might have missed reading between the lines let RK make it clear exactly what such a reading shows:
1. weretime's plate 4, the "eagle" soumak bag, is way older than the third quarter nineteenth century, like how about first quarter 19th
it is, in fact, demonstrably the best one of the group weretime cites where there are undoubtedly later, 3rd quarter 19th century ones -- but plate 4 surely ain't one.
And that other piece of ours plate 87, well... its the other half of a complete khorjin we owned and separated many years ago, is not "first quarter of the nineteenth century" but using weretime, the newt's, own dating chronology it would have to be placed closer to 1850.
It is far newer than either of RK's other two he dated as later.
But its obvious to RK weretime's dating was far more influenced by rosalie rudnick, who purchased it from us those many years ago, than any other criteria.
We are pretty sure she made him write such an early date for a bag that is beautiful but not that old.
Take it from us we still have the other half and if anyone need further proof of what we say -- go check out the mid-19th century kelim(slit tapestry) work that can be seen on the half we sold to the cry-baby rudnick.
Trut us: You will never see slit-tapestry work like that on a soumak bag made prior to the mid-19th century.
Just for drill, and the record, let RK tell you where we would date the pieces shown above, as our chronology is far earlier for a very few pieces and later for most others compared to the "traditional" rugDumB BS weretime molds his around.
#1. circa 1850
#2. circa late 18th century
#3. circa 1800
#4. circa 1825
Vive la difference