Listen up, cheese-doodle.
We and you both know you are EH, so quit the subtrafuge, something you are well-versed playing.
How do we know?
Your IP address from your first post locates very close to Luzern, Switzerland, where EH lives.
And the internet provider is the same, Bluewin, that we know for a fact EH uses.
Which means, hands down, you're busted; so quit the play-acting, mein Herr.
Also, the quasi-admission you erred in accusing RK of not being 'dispassionate' likewise reeks of dishonesty.
Why not just speak the truth and say you made a mistake rather than hide behind cloaking it as 'misinterpretation'?
But we guess RK is foolish to expect someone like you to ever admit wrong....as we often say "Big people make mistakes, little people are always right".
As for teaching you why one of the "S" group chuval might be better than the other, when we never said it was?
Why should we bother, you're the big expert, huh, and you should know, right?
We will say this: they are very different weavings.
Each belong to a separate group of "S" group weaving, and differentiating those groups is something no writer has discussed.
We have long recognized, and publicly noted, the fact there are different groups of "S" group weaving -- and we are talking about real "S" group, those open to the left, and not the wannabe open right ones.
Perhaps one day will take up the mantle and write about them.
But for now we have other fish to fry, and frankly "S" group weavings do not interest us.
Basically because mostly all of them are cookie-cutter Turkmen weavings, which lack historic connection.
Yes, they are pretty and glow, the best of them having superb dyes and wool quality.
However, pretty and touchy-feely isn't RK's bag -- we go for archetypal iconography.
That's why we have never kept an "S" group piece and we have owned a number of the best and earliest.
To bring this waste of our time to a close we will say it is meaningless to debate which of the two chuval is earlier, though as we wrote the profusion of silk in the Russian example leads us to believe it is somewhat later than the former one we owned.
Which by the way is the other half of the one sold in the thompson sale -- we both got them from John Turner.
And BTW the one we owned was the one Turner kept, and preferred, selling the other one to thompson sometime before we got ours.
NB: none of the history of our piece means anything, we recount it only to add some perspective.
So EH, go back to your compass and ruler and don't knock on our door again unless you can come here honestly, that means in your own name, and with something worth our time to discuss.
Who is EH? Not me. I beg your pardon, but maybe I misinterpreted you when you wrote:
"And comparing it to the fragment we formerly owned, and published in the Tent Band Tent Bag book, shows a very similar, but still nowhere near 500 year old, example. The profusion of silk in the Russian Collections example leads RK to place it somewhat later chronologically but regardless of this or any other criteria the Russian Collections chuval is not 16th century."
So, do you agree with me that the one you published in TBTB is a later example than the Russian Collections one? Then yours much be no earlier than mid-19th century, I suppose. If you think yours is older please give reasons why.