Home > Rug, Kelim, Soumak, Textile Post Archive >Open Left Doesn't An Arabatchi Make
Author:jc
email:
Thu, Apr 7th, 2011 02:17:57 PM
Topic: Open Left Doesn't An Arabatchi Make

In the recent Nagel sale there was a Beshir chuval lot 165 that sold for 650 plus premium.

Lot 165, Nagel auction, March 22, 2011

We are not going to discuss its merits or lack of them, as this is surely not the reason we are writing.

However, why we are is an interesting tale of nothing that could be called anything but stupidity, and rampant stupidity we must say.

The chuval was bought by someone RK believes is one of the biggest turko-clowns on the scene…michael craycraft. We have written about ‘mad’ mike before but this episode outdoes them all.

RK knows craycraft’s act well, as we used to be quite friendly with him. This is more than 20 years ago and we need not enumerate why our “friendship” with this turko-moron degenerated.

But we will mention his idea of “friendship” is completely different from ours, and we will in that promised autobiography spill the beans on craycraft.

But for now reading the following will prove how craycraft does a great job of spilling them all over himself without any additional help or effort on our part.

Trust RK: The craycraft RK story is an interesting one, another Judas betrayal, etc, etc.

But let’s get back to the Nagel Beshir….

RK knows the piece well. In fact we owned it for more than 15 years and consigned it to the Nagel auction along with several other pieces.

Note: Over the more than 40 years we have been collecting old oriental rugs we have only four times consigned rugs to auction and we do not need to recount here the biggest disaster -- our having done so with Sotheby in 1990.

Anyway, craycraft bought the Beshir chuval and within three days posted a picture of it on the “KARMA” website, calling it "Arabatchie".

We happened to view it there and that’s how we found out he bought it.

Our curiosity why craycraft claimed it is "Arabatchie" got the best of us and we emailed him from a yahoo.com email box we made expressly for this purpose: marioseventyone@yahoo.com.

Since purchasing it, which by the way was at the Rose Bowl Flea market in about 1994, we offered it several times, unsuccessfully we might add.

When we decided to consign some pieces to Nagel it got included but had we known craycraft would buy it we surely would have left it sitting in our storage place.

Originally it had a higher reserve but we lowered it and several others the day before the sale to insure we would not get what we consigned back, as our interest in keeping the last of our trading pieces has diminished to the point of our selling such a piece at Nagel.

Below we are posting the complete email exchange between “mario” and craycraft with some additional comments thrown in to roast craycraft in his own juices even further than his own words accomplish.

For ease of reading we will post mario’s emails in italic and craycraft’s in bold typeface.

Our comments will remain in this normal typeface.

From: marioseventyone@yahoo.com

Hello Mr Craycraft:

I was wondering if you will sell that interesting Arabatchie chuval I just saw advertised on the KARMA website publicity page.

I have several of the type and yours seems older and quite interesting.

My email for your reply is:
marioseventyone@yahoo.com

Thank you, Mario

(ed. "bt" aoptions@pacbell.net is michael craycraft’s email address)
"bt" aoptions@pacbell.net

Hello Mario,

Yes, of course I intend to sell it.

I would like to spend another week with it though.

I need to absorb it a bit more.

I would like to wash it just to see what the palette is like.

Where are you located?

Best wishes,
michael craycraft

And what might we ask is to be absorbed?

Well only a turko-poseur like craycraft would need more time to “absorb” this chuval.

But then again craycraft has spent too much time absorbing who know what and the result is a dull minded michael.

So, of course, that dull mind needs more time to “absorb” what is obvious from the get-go.

But read on and have a good laff-over craycraft’s several days of absorption.

Plus the chuval is clean.

We washed it a number of years ago, and since then it has been rolled up in our clean storage and at Nagel’s where it was never on the floor.

Why craycraft needs to “clean” it is beyond us.

From: marioseventyone@yahoo.com

Hi Michael:

Can you please give me some idea what you would want for it?

and I am in Prague

From: marioseventyone@yahoo.com

Michael:

might I ask why you think it is Arabatchie?

From: "bt" aoptions@pacbell.net

It's seems that about 90% of these 'ikat' chuvals, especially the ones with this specific design, have a Kirghiz knot but this one has a Turkoman weave.

The knot is an asymmetric knot open to the left. This type of knot reduces the number of possible tribes to two; either Salor or Arabatchie.

The red is wrong for Salor. Also, in at least one area the weft is white wool which one might presume to be a facsimile of cotton which was generally available only in the north, by the Aral Sea.

We know from the literature that the Arabatchie were one of the numerous Turkoman tribes subject to the Khan of Khiva and the Emir of Bokhara.

We know that it was the policy of the Khan of Khiva to frequently break up the Turkoman tribes in his domain and reassemble them in various combinations.

This was to keep them weak. Some of the more powerful tribes managed to keep their guls and designs but it seems that the Arabatchie were not numerous enough to do so.

Almost every Amu Darya and Bokharan Arabatchie weaving that I've seen has either one of the many 'ikat' type designs or the minakhani design.

I believe this particular example to be very old (that's why I bought it). The vertical aspect of the design is exaggerated and the minimalist border with no minor borders are signs of age.

The shade of red is unusual too but I can't be sure of that until I wash it.

I hope this has been of some help.
mc

It is apparent from the above, and other similarly off-the-wall postulations from craycraft, he either has a working crystal ball able to detect unknowns, like what is a “Bokharan” Arabatchi, or that dull brain of his believes what it conjures up is fact and not the poppycock it appears to be.

RK has never heard of the “Kirghiz” knot and a quick web-check returned nothing as well.

Does craycraft know something no one else does, or is this just more regurgitated conjuring from that dull mind?

From: "bt" aoptions@pacbell.net

I don't remember what I paid for it. I'm in Wiesbaden at the moment but will return to Stuttgart tomorrow. I'll try to let you know then but I would prefer to wash it first.
m

From: marioseventyone@yahoo.com

Michael:

That's fine, please mail me when you return.

Thanks

From: marioseventyone@yahoo.com

Michael:

I have been thinking about these two sentences you wrote to me

"The knot is an asymmetric knot open to the left. This type of knot reduces the number of possible tribes to two; either Salor or Arabatchie."

Are you really so sure there are only two possibilities to explain the asymmetric open left knot?

Since the historical literature about the Turkmen people makes it very clear there were many tribes that today we haven't any idea of what their rugs looked like, how can you be so sure this ikat chuval is not one of them?

Believing the commonly held ideas there are only about 10 names of weaving groups into which all Turkmen weavings can be placed seems to me to be impossible.

If I remember correctly one writer lists about 20 different tribes in the Ersari Confederation so do not you think it could be one of them?

From: "bt" aoptions@pacbell.net

Hello Mario,

I don't know where you got the idea that there are only 10 Turkoman tribes, I can think of 15 just off off the top of my head.

I'm sure that if I sat down and thought about it extensively I could add at least 5 more.

I am quite familiar with the structure, designs, and palette of these 15.

Of the group only 3 employ an asymmetric knot open to the left. The one that I did not mention, Imrelli (currently labeled "Eagle Group" and misattributed to the Goklan) abandoned this knot technique before the beginning of the 19th century.

I didn't mention them as a possibility before, not because the chuval has no chance of being 18th century, but because I've never read a travelogue or history where they are said to be in the east.

Their original homeland, before they were defeated and dispersed by Nadir Shah, was very far west-almost in Iran and in the Uzboy basin.

Since it is not entirely inconceivable that some part of the tribe ended up in Bokhara or someplace in the Amu Darya region it is remotely possible that this chuval could be Imrelli but I am more comfortable attributing it to the Arabatchie.

As for the "Ersari Confederation", well yes, it is very possible. But this fluid 'confederation' was composed of the known Turkoman tribes including the Salor and Arabatchie.

In fact, true Ersari weavings are extremely rare.,p> I've seen less than 40 in my life.

And yes, I bought everyone of them that was for sale.

If we include the Kizyl Ajak as Ersari (their knot is almost identical), which is an iffy proposition but not without some basis, then the size of the tribe is increased considerably.

I keep them separate though because the palette and design pools are separate and distinct.

Please remember, Ersari was a man; a leader who brought only 400 families to the Amu Darya.

They would have had to breed like amoeba to gain the population numbers that many 'scholars' attach to this tribe.

In fact, the term 'Ersari', even as early as the turn of the 20th century, had devolved into a confederation or perhaps more succinctly into "any Turkoman that we don't know their tribe".

More to the point, all of the true Ersari weavings (and Kizyl Ajak) have a very distinctive "bow tie" looking knot that is open to the right.

Uzbek is another possibility. I cannot speak with any authority on this because my ability to recognize an Uzbek weaving is fairly recent.

I can only comment that the only Uzbek weavings that I have seen with a knot that was open left were made by the tribe in the Maimana region; quite some distance from the Amu Darya.

Admittedly though, I haven't seen enough examples to speak with confidence.

Uzbeks employed Kirghiz concubines and slaves, to an even greater degree than the Turkoman, and many Uzbek pile weavings seem to be mostly composed of the Kirghiz knot.

Separating the 2 tribes requires looking at most of the knots in a piece.
m

Well, after rambling thru a warped interpretation of Turkmen history and tribal movements, crystal ball mike has taken his Arabatchi provenance and dashed it on the rocks of Kirghiz, Uzbek and Imreli, throwing in some “Uzbek concubines” for local color.

If this gobbledygook isn’t enough to convince anyone he is the bozo-the-clown of turko-history and Turkmen carpet provenance read on and marvel as craycraft spins himself even further into a turko-tizzy even more convoluted and laughable.

From: bt" aoptions@pacbell.net

Dear Mario,

It seems that i will not have time to wash the chuval before my departure to London on Thursday.

It has some fascinating mixtures of blues that i wanted to bring up and view.

My price for the chuval is €2,300.

Best wishes,
mc

RK doesn’t think for one minute asking 2300 euro for something someone paid 825 euro for is wrong or unusual.

However since craycraft bought it a a very public and well-advertised carpet sale, just about any/every collector of Turkmen rugs is pretty sure to have seen it, and therefore RK can only say asking almost three times the price is both greedy and foolhardy.

But, let’s just give craycraft a pass here and read on, as that slippery slope is going to get even more slippery.

Oh, and remember, first it was the red that craycraft needed to see better and now it’s the blue. Is this turko-moron’s dull brain so confused he cannot remember what he wrote yesterday?

From: marioseventyone@yahoo.com

Michael:

Perhaps you misunderstood, or mis-read, what I wrote, and meant by writing, about the number of Turkmen tribes

From my reading on the subject it appears to me there were many, many more than just the 15 or so you know

Therefore, is it not possible one of the unknown tribes, or a sub-group, made this chuval?

You, like many and I am not criticizing here so please do not misunderstand, seem to feel you can tie up Turkmen tribal attributions in a nice neat package.

This appears to me to be rather naive.

But no matter who made a chuval like the one you recently bought it belongs to a group of others and comparing it to them is for me far more important than trying to ascribing a tribal attribution

From: "bt" aoptions@pacbell.net

Hello Mario,

You are absolutely correct, there is indeed a strong possibility that this may belong to a yet unidentified group; that is if it is 18th century or earlier (which is a strong possibility).

The only groups that we (or perhaps 'I') know from the 19th century that seem to have not been identified would be smaller clan groups (dead tribes) attached to the main tribes such is the Afshar, Bayat, and Karai.

The literature tells us that they were present but I've yet to see anybody come up with definitive data on them.

Admittedly, I have not completely kept up with progress that the Germans are making with some of the Yomud tribes but I don't think this chuval fits into that group(s).

While we're speaking in this vein, I've identified an structural and design group that I've yet to find a comfortable name for.

And yes, there are fewer "nice neat packages", especially in relation to the Amu Darya region, than messy conglomerates.

I don't think that we are in disagreement.

In fact, since I am rarely in complete harmony with the current Turkoman scholarship, you would be foolish to not doubt or question my attributions.

I haven't finished this yet but I've attached a list of Turkoman tribes. The first 17 I believe I can identify.

As for the Kinik, we cannot include them since they apparently are not in Central Asia anymore but I have now seen enough of these nomadic weavings from the 13th and 14th centuries ( I'm not speaking of the big 'Seljuk' carpets in the museums; I think they are atelier production) in Anatolia that I can usually quickly identify them.

Whew, there goes mike the turko-motor mouth, impossible as it might seem, out-doing himself again.

Speaking of throwing the kitchen sink at the wall to see what sticks, you’d have to give craycraft credit were his facts and conclusions not so ridiculously absurd and contrived.

And, just think, he even has seen enough “nomadic” 13th and 14th century weavings -- what he is referring to here is anyone’s guess – to be able to “quickly identify them?

Yesshh, mikey needs to get a grip here, as we guess he forgetting he is not talking to his usual group of know-nothing collectors and sycophants who lap up this nonsense and occasionally open their wallets.

Again, read on, it gets even more slippery and you’ll watch craycraft slide down to the bottom.

From: marioseventyone@yahoo.com

Michael:

For some (u)nknown reason this email ended up in my spam folder and I just saw it after replying to your other email

I appreciate your sending me a price and would counter an offer of 1500

sorry but that is all I might pay for the chuval

From: "bt" aoptions@pacbell.net

I understand.

It may well be that I am more enchanted with this chuval than the market is.

I'm going to raise the price to £3,000 (to discourage immediate sale) and take it to London tomorrow.

Poland is a long way from here and I would rather get it into a collection that I have easier access to until I figure out what it is about.

Thank you for your interest and kind offer though.

Best wishes,
m

Raising the price after receiving a offer lower than your original price is about as insulting and outrageous as it gets.

If any readers had any doubts craycraft is a turko-moron this little move should vacate any of them.

Plus what is to figure out?

Never underestimate the stupidity of a dull mind and the one between craycraft’s ears is about as dull and dumb as it gets.

After receiving his raise the price email RK came out of the bag and identified our self to mad, as in crazy as a loon, mike.

So read on…

From: marioseventyone@yahoo.com

crayfish, you schmuck:

we were going to keep the charade going longer but your raising the price is about enough, and all we can take

what kind of ignorant slob would do that?

don't strain what's left of your limited cranial capacity and let us answer that for you -- only a turko-jerk like yourself

you will soon read about this exchange and should you miss it, don't be alarmed, we will be glad to send you the url

jc

PS: the chuval was ours, we put it in Nagel and you are right about one thing -- it is earlyish, probably late 18th but no buyer in your lifetime will be smart enough to twig on that and buy it fo(r) more than the 650 plus premium you paid

and regardless of the fact you believe it is early, tho mostly for all the wrong reasons, we can't be bothered to congratulate you...

what a schmuck you are, raising the price?

incroyable

PPSS: and remember: You knew nothing about Turkmen rugs before we befriended you and after our lessons you haven't really gone very far...

so, keep reading those travelogues and fantasizing more nonsensical turko-drivel

PPPSSS: you figuring what "it" is all about?

don't make RK laugh any harder, my sides hurt already...raising the price, hardy har har....

From: "bt" aoptions@pacbell.net

Hi Jack,

Do you mean that I should ask £4,000?

Btw, you are completely, utterly, impossibly delusional.

Taught me?

Taught anybody?

Get a grip. Go back and read your drivel.

If somebody else wrote it you would crack up.
m

From: marioseventyone@yahoo.com

you are nothing but a turko-moron and fool

your comments about what i do and have done are worthless

when it is all said and done we will see who is who and what is what

and rest assured yours will be at the bottom lining the barrel

so keep schlepping around to those stupid "shows" and peddling your less than sterling merch

and BTW raising the price typifies the idiotic way you destroyed what i believed was a friendship...

you learned alot from me, michael, and not to admit it is also typical behaviour for a pompous fool

From: bt" aoptions@pacbell.net

Again delusion.

You have stolen ideas from everyone you've met, then condemned them, and claimed these ideas for yourself.

You have never had an original thought and everyone knows this.

Wake up fool!

You're a joke.

Get help.

Find a way to end your misery and rejoin the world.

And by the way, at least I don't live off my momma's money.

From: marioseventyone@yahoo.com

well first off, tell me one idea i stole from anyone?

and fyi: my mother had no money and neither did her family

as for my father, he was at one time a major millionaire but lost it all before i was three and his family had nothing

speaking of delusional and full of shit, you-- you moron, take the cake

and as far as rejoining the world..please go jerk off in a closet you fool, as your world is none i want any part of

and as far as getting help?

double please if anyone needs help it is a chimney like you

so let's hear your response and don't strain that limited cranial capacity we wrote you about and just provide one idea i stole

From: "bt" aoptions@pacbell.net

are you completely incapable of rational thought?

you have it ass backwards. i'm not going to read your crap, itemize your transgressions, and report back to you.

name something original that you have contributed to the field and by original i mean an idea, a hypothesis, a theory, a solid piece of information, anything except one of your attacks on some/everybody.

but don't bother, i have no interest in this dialogue or any interaction with you.

basically i don't give a damn. leave me alone. do not contact me again.

DO NOT PISS ME OFF.

find a friend if you can. oops, sorry, you can't. but this is not my, or anybody else's problem. it is yours, and only yours.

From: marioseventyone@yahoo.com

only idiots make accusations without knowledge of what they speak

only idiots believe they know when it is obvious they don't

only idiots raise the price on a customer after receiving an offer

piss you off?

suck my torba, craycraft, you low level rug peddler and dumber than a warm dog turd turko-moron

and speaking of drivel what you write doesn't even qualify as dribble let alone drivel -- it is pure unadulterated crapola

you play the fool, craycraft, not i

you're nowhere man, nothing but a pagliacci in turkoland

go read what I write, you will learn something, you schmuck, instead of mouth-foaming nonsense about what you don't even know....

and BTW the chuval you bought is not Arabatchi, you dumbass, it is Beshir -- open left is a sign post but not one leading to Arabatchi-land

Amazing?

No, not really.

After all this is rugDUMB, a place where even a turko-schmuck, bullshitting dull mind like a michael craycraft can exist.

And please tell RK why anyone in their right mind could first off write the nonsense craycraft feels empowered to write and second, and this is the 64,000 dollar question, who in their right mind would believe it?

Should dull mind mike write us back we will be glad to memorialize his pique here on RugKazbah.com for all to see and read.

Until then put craycraft in your prayers this evening – he sure as shootin’ needs them.

Author: Jack.is.an.asshole@rugkazbah.com
email:
Thu, Apr 7th, 2011 02:17:57 PM

RK Replies

Yo, meat-head:

Who are your friends?

And who but the unfortunate whose collections are mostly like risman's, or those like a generous jim burns who need the ego-massage of believing they are somebodies, wants to enter any rug show or event?

New Jersey has always been the arm-pit of the nation and you must be one of those crinkly-hairs in that odiferous hollow, right?

Lastly, thanks for the compliment -- we like being God's curse, especially if a schmuck like you believes he is god's gift to righteousness.

Enjoy

====================

Jc. Do you have any friend? Name just two! Almost everyone hates you, and you are not allowed to enter any show or rug event. You are God's curse.

Author: jc
email:
Mon, Apr 4th, 2011 04:06:30 AM

A bit more on mr. craycraft's penchant to run off at the mouth trying the redefine the Turkmen rug.

First we readily admit much of the 'accepted' lore of Turkmen rug collecting is questionable and needs much more credible research and work.

But craycraft's idea of how to do this is about as meaningful as taking a child's beach sandcastle shovel and pail to Fukushima, Japan and offering to help fix the problem.

Yesshh, never underestimate the stupidity of a dull mind.

We surely don’t have the time, or desire, to catalog all of turko-challenged mike's declarations but many of them make his calling the Nagel Beshir chuval an Arabatchi appear tame and “well, gee, it could be…." in comparison.

In that vein we must admit falling for a similar Beshir to Arabatchi name game craycraft played on us 24 years ago.

This was during the period RK was working on the texts that eventually became published in our Tent Band Tent Bag book.

The chuval below was then, and still is, part of our collection.

Turkmen chuval; RK collection; published Tent Band Tent Bag, 1989

One day in the fall of 1987, while visiting with craycraft, we showed him this chuval and he suggested it was Arabatchi because it, too, has an asymmetric knot open to the left.

RK first became friendly with craycraft in 1982, and back then he was not at all interested in Turkmen rugs, as he and his wife, Anne Halley, were collecting belouch rugs and had little to no interest in historic Turkmen ones

During this period 1982-1989 RK spent many hours talking with craycraft about Turkmen rugs and sharing with him our research and collecting successes.

It would not be fair to say RK introduced craycraft to Turkmen rugs.

But it would be fair and correct to say we did introduce him to appreciating the finer points of Turkmen rug collecting (something he knew nothing about), as well as sharing our involvement in the state of the art information (again something he was not at all privy to) we, and other researchers and collectors we knew, were generating.

RK had been seriously collecting and studying Turkmen rugs for 10 years or so at that point and while we knew quite a lot about them then we definitely knew a whole lot less than we do now in 2011.

So back then when craycraft made the observation/declaration this chuval was Arabatchi it seemed quite plausible.

RK has never stolen an idea from anyone and craycraft's saying we have is complete nonsense.

For example, we credited craycraft in the description of our chuval published in Tent Band Tent Bag book’s for his idea it was Arabatchi.

Never be surprised or amazed at the lame straws a dull mind will grasp to try and prove their senseless accusations.

Does RK today, after almost 25 years more years of research on Turkmen rugs, believe it is an Arabatchi?

Let’s just say we would not give such an idea even a minute’s consideration, forget about believing it.

Same goes for craycraft’s trying to repeat his act by calling the Nagel chuval “Arabatchie”.

Both provenance are nothing but fantastical tooth-fairly land musings, just like craycraft's ridiculous proclamations that RK has " stolen ideas from everyone you've met, then condemned them, and claimed these ideas for yourself."

RK is still waiting for craycraft to back up this stupid bullshit with even one example of our alleged idea stealing.

But back to open left does not an Arabatchi make.

If it don’t walk like a duck (no other so-called Arabatchi weaving has the iconographic characteristics either of the two chuval display) and if it don’t squawk like a duck (no other Arabatchi weaving has the coloration either of the two chuval display), it ain’t a duck.

And neither are these two chuval Arabatchi.

What then are they, you might ask?

First off both are early examples, though the Nagel chuval is quite a bit younger and far more common than the other.

Second, we would stop at just calling them Turkmen, and then if pressed further we'd reply they are part of an unknown 'Beshir' group on account of their unusual structure – asymmetric knot open left.

RK does not like to play the name-game or the pin the age on the rug one – we prefer to group pieces according to their technical characteristics and date them comparatively.

That said, we often do use group names, ie Tekke, Beshir, Ersari, Yomud, Arabatchi, etc, but do so only in what is referred to in sociological/ethnographic circles as “operational definition”.

RK is long on the record for debunking the Turkmen rug collecting lore that a Tekke is necessarily a Tekke and a Beshir is necessarily a Beshir.

These names might work for post-1870 weavings but not for older ones.

And when it come to pre-19th century and earlier they most assuredly are questionable at best.

But let’s get back to mad mike and another of his dumbass attempts to redefine Turkmen rug provenance.

The following appeared here on RugKazbah.com in April of 2008.

Have a read and know there were prior to this, and since, a number of mad mike’s other equally as stupid pronouncements RK could have just as easily picked apart and debunked.

-----------------------------

Today’s internet rambling uncovered this engsi which is offered for sale by someone, mister michael craycraft, who’s ridiculous attributions outdo even the lunacy of a steev price or a jimbo allen.

RK is the first to admit provocative ideas can sometimes lead to discovery and innovation, however, there are those in RugDumb like mad michael, as we have decided to nickname him, and another former employee and compatriot of his tom, aka sneak-cheat, cole whose ideas are not provocative -- they are down right stupid.

They personify RK’s Stupidity in RugDumb label and we will demonstrate by posting the following pictures of rugs they are presently hawking.

This is the engsi and while it is a rather ordinary looking, not very distinguished, version of a typical one ascribed to the Tekke, mister craycraft doesn’t think so.

He states it is “Chodor” on the website we spied it on, and then on his own he calls it “Tekke(?) Chodor”.

And on what does mister craycraft, a turko-idiot supremo, base this outlandishly dreamy attribution?

Here’s his description, you figure it out:

orderly weave but low knot count. Knot is similar to Chodor work. It is certain that a Tekke spindle was not used in the spin. Scale of iconography is very generous while the Tekke style elem is perhaps the most perfectly executed that I have seen. 70% of the wefts are dyed a copper orange. The material of the colored wefts might be cotton but is most probably wool. The top 15% and the bottom 15% of the engsi is natural ivory wool. The natural dark brown wool in the elem is fuzzy on the back like angora or camel wool. The separator bars between the major compartments composing the main border lack the variety of typical Tekke work. A rare and unusual engsi”

Is it the knot that is “similar to Chodor work”, or the “70% of wefts…dyed a copper orange”?

The “fuzzy” wool?

“The separator bars”?

In all seriousness we don’t have a clue and believe neither does mister craycraft.

Is he “fuzzy” or has he been spending too much time lifting glasses of separator bars to his lips?

Probably, but we’d offer his desire to create some “sensation” about this uninteresting, rather ugly and totally unimportant engsi might be the real reason for his taking the plunge and trying to float the idea it is “Chodor”.

We know mad michael is a reader of RugKazbah.com so let RK inform him we have seen some other mid-19th century Tekke engsi with dyed orange, or red weft.

His equally as dubious declaration the “Tekke style elem is perhaps the most perfectly executed that I have seen” is nothing but worthess patter.

We suggest after mister craycraft either gets some new glasses, or learns how to remember the rugs he has seen, he will realize the elem is OK but it surely does not deserve any special mention, let alone exclamation.

But as dumb and stupid as the aforementioned points of his description we have ridiculed his “It is certain that a Tekke spindle was not used in the spin.” takes the cake.

We laugh as we write this but it is painfully clear it is mister craycraft that is spinning and if he actually believes he can differentiate between a “Tekke spindle” and a Chodor one, or ones belong to any other known or unknown Turkmen group we’d like to have some of what he is smoking!

Regardless of his state of sanity or inebriation this is complete BullShit that reaches a level RK has rarely encountered in our 40 years of reading rug literature.

BTW: this “rare and unusual engsi” can be yours for 1,285 euro but before you open you wallet might we suggest doing some further study and discussing this with your local rug dealer, who we are sure can talk you out of it over a cup or two of overly sweetened tea?

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service