Recently, michael craycraft, a true turko-clown posted this belouch khorjin face for sale on the internet for 2000 euro.
It's not a bad weaving nor is it a great one -- rather average is what RK would say.
However, to craycraft, a person who falsely believes he can pull provenance out of his hat like a circus magician pulls rabbits, this bagface is a "cradle" and not only that but get his description as to why it is "rare":
98% of the weavings from the Qainat 'Arab' tribes are rugs.
Khordjin, balisht, salt bags, chanteh, soffre, etc., are exceedingly uncommon.
Of these, perhaps cradles are even more scarce.
Few rugs or other weavings from the tribes in this area have a design that we could call Turkoman and fewer yet employ cochineal.
Though from my perspective it is perhaps a mistake to call this gul, which appears to be the prototype of the Saryk chuval gul, 'Turkoman'.
Though many scholars have based writings on the premise that one tribe or another has copied court designs, urban designs, each others' designs etc., the likelihood of this practice is practically nil (Kurds excepted) unless we are speaking of post 1880 work.
In this case this tribe is geographically (and possibly culturally, though this is debatable) far removed from the Saryk tribe.
In addition, this very same gul may be found in the weavings of other Khorassan tribes.
Perhaps the term 'Turkic' might be more appropriate than "Turkoman".
The same could be said for many of the guls seen in Kirghiz and Uzbek weavings."
RK will leave examining the questionable assertions craycraft has penned for others who are far more interested in belouch "scholarship".
However, RK would like to just mention the eminently stupid "cradle" part, forget the reference to the "Saryk gul".
Where did craycraft get the idea this khorjin face is a cradle?
Is there any other cradle anyone has seen that looks like this?
Is there any cradle that is the same size as this (63X61 cm; 24.8X24 in)?
Of course the answer is NO, and only a complete idiot would believe what craycraft has written and claims.
This is not the first time craycraft has pulled provenance and assertions out of that dark place he sits on, but why RK will ask does no one but RK comment?
The answer is one that places as much guilt on readers of craycraft's bull-crapola as the person who has written it.
Wake up rugDUMB and shake out the turko-clowns like craycraft; the grifters and greedy like dennis dodds; the in such high regard pseudo-experts as jon imreli thompson, walter denny and louise mackie all of whom can't tell a bogus bellini from a real one, and the rest of the mediocre and worse who enjoy the freedom to spin nonsense and have it go unquestioned.
And by the way, instead of trying to prove it is "rare" craycraft should have spent his words trying to support his stupid "cradle" idea.