A new hat gets thrown in the ring, too bad it’s nothing but another flea-bitten worthless homburg sitting atop a rug-moron's head.
Recently RK learned a low-end Baluch collector named dewit(less) mallary has become a rug-dealer, like rugDUMB needs another far less than semi-knowledgeable neophyte hanging out a shingle.
Yessshhh, what is it that attracts rug-morons to first of all become ‘collectors’ and then morph themselves into ‘dealers’?
Could it be there is some mysterious, undetectable substance in the wool of old rugs that infects a rug-dope like mallary to first believe he can become a collector and then a dealer?
Frankly, in all the years we have watched rugDUMB spawn turko-idiots of mallary’s ilk we still have not figured out the what and why that makes these mouth-breathers gravitate to this art-field.
Well, no matter the reasons, the fact remains they do and to RK’s amazement some of them do prosper.
But that will surely not be the case with mallary as his abilities are minimal, his eye clouded with absurdly obtuse perceptions and his penchant to talk nonsense legendary.
RK first met dewittless sometime we believe in the early 80’s and from the get-go were impressed with him about as much as we would have been with a week-old opened can of Bumble Bee tuna-fish.
While mallary adopts a “patrician” aire about himself, according to that fat rug-poseur george obunnion who profiled dewittless for that now out of business rug-rag oriental rug review, his suit and tie never impressed RK who surely does not believe “clothes make the man”.
RK would occasionally run-into mallary on the NY rug circuit and we were always friendly and courteous to him.
That was until mallary, who is still not much more knowledgeable now in 2010 than he was then in the mid-80s, wrote a ‘review’ of the1990 Tent Band sale.
Now why an upstart pip-squeek like dewittless thought he could make any comments about the sale is astounding but why he started to rebuke and sling the mud at what happened there is totally off the chart.
RK is traveling presently and we don’t have handy the issue of that equally as revolting rag hali along with us for reference. However, we do have a pretty good memory, especially when some dumb bastard like mallary takes cheap and impertinent shots at us.
The tone and content of mallary’s comments were revoltingly incorrect and way off the mark.
Granted mallary was not the only one to have done so but now in the light of 20 years later what he and others said can not be seen as anything other than incorrect and stupid.
Sorry we cannot quote him directly but the review is there for all to read, go do it and see for yourself.
Ok, OK today is 2010, twenty years on and in those twenty years it would seem even a rug-dolt like mallary would have learned enough to overcome his former ignorance about antique rugs.
Far from the case as his description of this rug, which is illustrated on mallary’s new ‘website’ demonstrates.
Here is mallary’s spiel to try and sell it:
The deep pile and intense coloration of this fragment accentuate the multi-dimensional quality of the drawing of the large central flower. There are a number of closely related published versions of this classic Karapinar design, which likely would have had three medallions. The remains of an upper medallion with ground colors reversed from the complete nedallion remains. While such fragments were traditionally dated to the 17th century, many related pieces are now thought to be from the 18th. Even if this fragment is only a couple of hundred years old, the centuries have not diminished its power.
Sorry, dewittless, but your ‘Karapinar’, which ain’t no Karapinar, is at best early 19th century, though RK would date it mid-19th.
But regardless of its age, which a clown like mallary couldn’t determine with Alaister Crowley’s crystal ball, it’s a ghastly later day genre period reproduction.
Here’s an archetype example for design comparison, although note these two rugs are unrelated save for the ‘cross’ type medallion they both sport.
Archetype Anatolian “yellow” rug; JC collection, NY; on loan to Weaving Art Museum
Now, of course, it’s an unfair comparison to show a masterpiece beside a mediocrity but when a midget-brained low-end collector turned dealer presents a piece like mallary has, which at best can be called a mediocrity, with such hi-fallutin’ praise he deserves to be sent packing and RK has just given dewittless his pink-slip.
The rest of the ‘pieces’ on mallary’s website are as piss-poor or even worse, and fact remains these are the left-overs from his recent inaugural effort to wear his rug-dealing homburg at a gallery-show in San Francsico.
We saw a number of photos from that effort and can only remark the lack of success it resulted in was eminently predictable.
And by the way, race-fans and you, too, mr. dewitless, the jury is finally coming in with the correct verdict on the Tent Band sale, which proves even in rugDUMB there is a modicum of justice, as the following picture clearly illustrates.
‘S’ group Salor Gul chuval fragment, formerly in the Tent Band Collection
So the moral of the story here is an easily interpreted one for anyone who is an expert, which is something dewittless proves he will never become: Don’t believe what rugDUMB believes.
And while the 20 pieces in Tent Band sale were ridiculed unjustly by turko-arseholes like mallary today these 'pundits' and what they wrote appear as dumb and stupid as RK portrays them.
And by the way mallary's profiler scheisse-kopf george obunnion’s dumbass ‘review’ of the Tent Band collection proves in spades what RK has always said about him, as well.