Home > Turkmen Rugs >"pre-'S' group" nonsense
Author:jc
email:
Mon, Oct 24th, 2011 05:05:35 PM
Topic: "pre-'S' group" nonsense

As someone once quipped: You can't fix stupid.

Today RK saw online some pictures of the Turkmen 'show' at the Capri motel, which included this one and its caption.

The photos were credited to michael craycraft, someone RK has demonstrated is, to say the least, one of the more rug-challenged magpies who believe their outlandish and outrageous ideas about Turkmen rugs are anything but.

Since genuinely little is really known about pre-1850 Turkmen rugs the field is wide open to speculation; however when that speculation becomes nothing but dumbass pontification, as mr craycraft's cockamamy declarations repeatedly prove themselves to be, one has to wonder about his mental competence.

Now why would even a proven turko-moron like craycraft need to call this chuval "pre-'S'group", as if he had not only discovered there is a "pre-'S' group", which RK absolutely knows he hasn't ('cause there isn't) and then knows this chuval is part of it.

There is no doubt there are a number of characteristics this chuval displays which are both unusual and lead to the impression it is an early example, one we can believe is pre-1750.

But why the need to gild the lily and make up a ridiculously conceived story that it is "pre-'S' group"?

The only possible answer is: "You can't fix stupid", something turko-moron craycraft has proven time and again.

Author: jc
email:
Mon, Oct 24th, 2011 05:05:35 PM

RK needs to make a few things clear in this discussion.

1. Even though we believe the chuval from the Capri show is very likely to be pre-1750, we do not believe it is the group's archetype.

2. Frankly, there are several features which imply it is not, the most obvious is the compression of the minor gol.

3. Also the outline or shape of the major gol, which is decidedly unusual, has strong overtones of "Tekke" style, rather than archaic/classical "S" group.

4. Also one of the centers of the major gol, there are two versions there look carefully and you will see them, are likewise "Tekke" style and not "S" group.

The chuval below, which at one time was ours and is illustrated in our Tent Band Tent Bag publication, is in our opinion the model, or archetype, for a major portion of the Capri example's features.
Notice the special way the main border kotchak are depicted, as well as the same, and far less compressed, minor gol. Also the positioning of half-minor gol at both sides and the top and bottom.

And the tall, perfectly sculpted, stepped-outline/shape of its major gol, see the detail below, surely seem to have provided the impetus for the development of a major gol like the one on the Capri example.
Also the elem panel on our ex-collection bag displays a far more archaic and potent version of what some call a "flower skirt.

RK has no qualms in stating our belief if the Capri chuval is pre-1750, our ex-collection chuval is pre-1650....

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service