Rarely does the student outdo the teacher.
It does happen but in the case of the many ruggies, who have sat at RK's knee to soak up the knowledge about carpets we freely gave,
none have yet even come close.
Such is the case with turko-mini-minds like bertram the petty thief frauenkecht and michael aka mad-mike craycraft.
Case in point, as far as craycraft is concerned, is this Yomud group chuval he recently offered for sale on the internet.
Offered for sale for by craycraft for 2,500 euro
Here is craycraft’s description:
“Early, unusual, Yomud chuval...with an unusual, if not unique, palette. I've washed this chuval once but it is still very dirty. May need multiple washings over the course of several months. The Arabatchie style "plant" design in the elem, especially the crucifix nature of the"flower" center, invokes shades of the Turkomans' Nestorian past…
Date 18th century (1700 - 1799)”
First off the “palette” is far from unique but one element is unusual.
Too bad craycraft does not how enough about Turkmen rugs -- or any for the matter any other type in our opinion -- to know when to use adjectives like unique or unusual, or what actually is unique or unusual.
That unusal element is the ground color of the inner border, a nice light mint-ish green, and the corresponding color change to blue in the outer one.
For comparison sake, and not only for the color “pallete” it shares with the craycraft example, here is one from our collection
RK collection; published Weaving Art Museum “Turkmen Trappings" exhibition, plate 9
If the craycraft chuval is 18th century then ours is 17th century or earlier, as a comparison of the two should demonstrate to anyone with expertise.
However, RK would date craycraft’s early 19th century and ours a century or so earlier.
Regardless of the actual years either was woven, craycraft has unquestionably over-dated his.
The chuval from our collection is a prototype for the craycraft example, and you turko-students should spend some time comparing them and you will learn a thing or two.
Let’s now examine the rest of craycraft’s spiel about his chuval and have chuckle or two along the way.
“I've washed this chuval once but it is still very dirty. May need multiple washings over the course of several months.”
Well, for starters, seems mr craycraft’s bathtub washing machine needs some improvement. And this is not the only part of the craycraft operation that needs some renovation.
Plus the idiotic “ May need multiple washings over the course of several months.” is a laughable statement from someone who is either too toasted to know what he is writing or too dumb to even care.
Since it is still “very dirty” it surely, not may, need further cleaning but why this needs to be done “over the course of several months” is as quizzical a statement as RK has read in months.
Why would several months be required?
Go ask turko-moron, craycraft, as we cannot even fathom a guess.
Now then, why mad mike, the turko-babbler, believes “the "plant" design in the elem” to be “Arabatchie” is completely incorrect, as this type of “flower” is far more prevalent on Yomud group weavings.
Again, this error is due to either his lack of understanding Turkmen elem panel icons or his being too out-of-it to remember those he has seen.
Of course since craycraft believes many Turkmen rugs that are not Arabatchi are, which is the topic of another thread on RugKazbah.com perhaps this is what his lame take on the elem “flower” is all about.
As poor a showing craycraft’s description of his chuval has exhibited so far, his last words are, regrettably, even worse.
“…the crucifix nature of the"flower" center, invokes shades of the Turkomans' Nestorian past.”
Yeeshhhh, wake up from your stupor,
mad mike, or are you unable to open those myopic peepers and see reality?
For his information there is no “ crucifix nature of the"flower" center” at least none obvious or intentional one our 20/20 vision can see.
There is however a very clear, present and totally intentional one in each of the four parts of the minor gol, as the detail below shows.
Detail of the craycraft chuval
RK is not surprised such a cross appears there, particularly in the minor gol, since our chuval also has a cruciform embedded in the major gol, as well as one implied in the minor gol.
Often, in later generations, major gol iconography got transferred into the minor gol, and other parts like borders and elem, leaving the major gol rather vacant and uniformly iconless as the craycraft chuval proves.
RK could continue to shred any illusions craycraft actually knows anything past the most rudimentary about historic Turkmen
rugs. And, quite frankly, we seriously doubt even that.
As for his chuval it is far superior to most and is well worth 2500 euro.
But compared to the best it falls way short, as does craycraft’s dopey belief he can properly enunciate something about a Turkmen rug, even one as mid-range and middle period as this chuval.