In reviewing the sotheby spring sale hali's interpretation, which can only be characterized as politically correct, surely differed from mine. The "what is it worth" question that is at he heart of any sale review can never be determined in the present, especially in the rug world. This question is only proven by the passage of time.
A number of the factors influencing this have already been mentioned here and anyone who thinks there is an "antique, collector rug market" is not only short-sighted but, in my opinion, extremely gullible.
The paltry number of collectors and the limited number of genuine examples do not make for anything other than an affected trading platform which is highly susceptible to manipulation and "fraud".
Again anyone who thinks differently is naive to say the least.
So reading the drivel churned out about the sale, penned I am sure by daniel schaeffer who is in my estimation a meat-headed slob that should never have been given the opportunity to be an arbiter of taste for anything other than salad bars in fast food establishments, hali as always presents nothing more than a highly specious "interpretation" of the event .
Perhaps the most ridiculous comment contained therein:
"All in all an interesting sale, with Caucasian and Anatolian rugs of known provenance performing well."
is so stupid it calls into question why anyone would countenance their reportage or believe in schaeffer's abilities to do anything more demanding than opening a can of coca-cola.
Vance Jordan was not a rug expert or knowledgeable in any manner of speaking. He was a checkbook collector who warmed a seat at sotheby's rug sales, listened to the dribble sotheby's "experts" fed him, and stepped up to the plate to purchase floor rugs masquarading as art - while in fact they were excellent post period 19th century workshop "copies". His rug knowledge was basically non-existent, like so many others who read a few books and get taken to the cleaners by dealers, rug auction house experts and "consultants". Calling a person in such a position a "collector" strains the word to the max - accumulator or "investor" might be more apt.
Theefore only an inexperienced fool would believe a Vance Jordan provenance is worth anything or will ever be and by citing it is, or not intimating anything to the contrary , schaeffer and hali again prove to me their inability to understand the fundamental mechanics of the art-world and, more importantly, to do anything other than maintain the status quo and feather the nests of their advertisers and themselves.