Home > Rug, Kelim, Soumak, Textile Post Archive >pinner Post-Sale Prices and Review Part II
Author:jc
email: jack@rugkazbah.com
Thu, May 20th, 2004 05:50:49 AM
Topic: pinner Post-Sale Prices and Review Part II

Many of pinner’s ‘better’ pieces were in the second half of the auction. Let’s take a look at them now, where we left off before, beginning with lot 52.

The 2,200 euro lot 52 sold for was both reasonable and expected. While not a world-beater of a Chodor chuval, this piece had a well conceived and executed, totally genuine elem but the proportions of the gols and main border were off mark - typical traits of second quarter and later Turkmen draftsmanship. Also the drawing of the interiors of ertman gols, this example demonstrates the early style of two different gol centers while later examples frequently forgo this convention, have that later, somewhat amorphous infill that contrasts to the icon-rich infill the earliest ertman gols exhibit.

Lot 53 is another of what Rk.com likes to call ‘foolers’. It looks early but in fact isn’t. Called circa 1800 in the catalog, the border structure and proportions negate this estimation and RK declares this torba to be closer to 1850 than 1800. The 9,500 euro paid for it was far too much, even though the field design was rare and the condition quite good. But reading between the lines of the catalog description “The individual ornaments are all known from different contexts (e.g. as elem motif in main carpets or from ensis) should have alerted the buyers to the fact this pattern doesn’t belong on a torba and finding it on one only signifies it’s pastiche rather than a traditional in character. From the beginning and throughout the 19th century it is known many Turkmen groups and clans underwent extreme social and societal change that combined to affect their time honored weaving methodologies. There were many ‘results’ of this and one was the introduction of designs lifted from their original positions and re-used in new ones. This explains why an elem design found on main carpets and ensi appeared on a torba like this one. Unfortunately for the stamp collector types or those easily influenced by the semi-ignorant palaver of maltzahn and sienknecht purchases like this will, in the future, bear witness to RK.com comments and not those contained in this catalog.

Lot 54 (Tekke torba) and 55 (Tekke chuval) are not worth much effort to discuss and their prices, 2,200 and 1,800, reflect their ‘almost’ collector quality status.

Lot 56, another Tekke torba, sold for 1,600 and in comparison to 54 shows the lack of expertise most bidders at this sale exhibited. Granted 54 is complete and 56 is drastically reduced on the left side but in any other terms it’s far superior and given the choice, considering the pinner collection is supposedly selling to “collectors”, owning a complete nothing of a torba like 54 when you have the chance to purchase a far more real and beautiful example like 56 makes no sense. That is unless you are motivated by the condition aspect, which should have absolutely no bearing on a collector’s choices of what to buy, other than as a price consideration.

Lot 57, another over-dated mid 19th century Tekke torba masquerading in the fantasies of maltzahn and sienknecht as early 19th, sold for 2,000 euro, a reasonable price for such a mid-level Tekke torba. The presence of the tertiary gol designs, which in typical mid 19th century fashion are shoe-horned into the far too diminutive space between major and minor gols, the poor proportions of those gols and the rather insipid major border all prove the speciousness of the catalog’s date guesstimate.

Lot 58, a rather boring Yomoud ensi sold for 1,700, an ok price for an ok, nothing special, ensi.

The Eagle group asmalyk, lot 59, estimated for 6,400, which was quite correct, sold for a give-away 4,600. While not the best of its type, it surely wasn’t the worst and this was an excellent buy for an astute bidder. The circa 1800 dating was, again, another fantasy brought to you by maltzahn and sienknecht and a second quarter 19th century estimate would have been far more convincing and honest.

Lot 60 and 61 have already been discussed and illustrated. The former sold for another give-away price – 3,600 euro – and again demonstrates the failure rippon-boswell’s bungled approach and effort realized in their dispersal of the pinner collection for poor old pinner in his hour of need. Lot 61, made by a still unidentified/unknown Turkmen group, sold for a respectable, but still undervalued, 7,300 euro. For many reasons this is a highly interesting weaving and the small, easily overlooked presence of two enigmatic neo-gols at both sides of the bottom of the field abutting the side borders, which dead-eyed maltzahn and sienknecht both missed, were perhaps its most curious aspect.

Lot 62, a Tekke chuval, with what a friend of mine used to call the “dancing girl elem” sold for 6,500 euro. Here is the one place maltzahn and sienknecht, under-dated a piece. Their mid-19th century dating were as dopey as their consistently foolish overdating and this chuval could rightly be called early 19th. In their usual dullard’s style of captioning they compare this chuval to Lot 6, commenting “It is up to the viewer to decide which version of the elem he or she prefers”. Gee whiz, boys, even the most novice Turk0maniac could see the superiority of 62 and RK.com is sure we are not the only ones who interpret this comment as just another example of their disingenuous cataloging.

Lot 63, one of the rarest birds in the pinner aviary has also been discussed and illustrated here on RK.com. It made a well-deserved 28,000 euro.

The mid-period Saryk chuval fragment, lot 64, made 2,200 euro about which RK.com can only say that money could have easily bought something better.

Lot 65, a Tekke khalyk sold for 9,000 euro, while not excessive it was also not what RK would characterize as a good buy, as this khalyk was neither special nor rare.

The late diamond-gol torba, lot 66, sold for 2,000 – a reasonable price for a later example of a torba with this rare gol.

The kepse-gol main carpet, lot 67 sold for a quite depressed 2,500 euro, considering its unusual and visually arresting elem panels and its open well proportioned field and main border. Good buy and another example of the boswell’s failure to achieve a good result for many of the pinner pieces that would have surely sold for more in any other venue.

Two of the best of the pinner collection bags, lots 68 and 69, preformed as expected. The former, the Salor single medallion kejebe torba, made a very reasonable 27,000 – it could have sold for more RK.com believes had it not been sold on the same days as 120 plus other Turkmen pieces – and 69 made 45,000, which under the circumstances of its condition, was an excellent showing. Both of these lots are rare, early and wonderful ‘trophy’ pieces any collector would be pleased and proud to own.

The wal-mart special, lot 70, is perhaps the only lot pinner should congratulate the boswells for their selling effort. This piece of nothing Turkmen weaving sold for 2,100 euro at least 4 times its “real” value. Congrats detlef, you finally rang the bell but too bad you did it by screwing a novice buyer and stitching them up into a purchase only fit to end up as a bathroom floor rug or one for the dog to nap on.

Lot 71, a “cute” Yomoud mafrash sold for 1,600 euro – nothing surprising there.

The Beshir main carpet, lot 72, was most probably unsold and lot 73, which was discussed and illustrated here on RK.com, made a most reasonable 1,100 euro. Another example of maltzahn’s failure to bring home the bacon for poor sick needy old pinner. This torba was very unusual and beautiful, though not the germetsch dopey detlef and his partner in dumbo-land sienknecht stated it was. It should have brought at least another 1000 euro if not more.

The Arabatchi chuval, lot 74, was a very good example and had the good looks rarely seen in Arabatchi work. It sold for a respectable 4,200 euro – a fair price both for seller and new owner.

The Saryk torba, lot 75, was another of the rare examples where the boswells got pinner a healthy return and, although the catalog boasts its circa 1800 age guesstimate, this was just another example of the rampant over dating the two stooges, maltzahn and sienknecht, engaged in.

If pinner needed one example to push in maltzahn’s face, lot 76, could surely be the poster-boy for his pique. Selling for a ridiculous, almost scandalous, 2,300 euro, this worn but elegant Yomoud group main carpet with a rare main chuval gol and unusual minor gols, which are exceptionally rare on main carpets, great proportions and borders was perhaps the biggest give-away on May 15th. One can only dun the dummies in the audience who sat on their hands as the hammer came down – shame shame.

The Tekke chuval fragment, lot 77, with small banner gols and Yomoud style skirt made 1,300 – not a bad showing for an unusual but surely not the best example of this type.

The highest price of the day was garnered by lot 78,pinners well known and published the “animal-tree” asmalyk. It has been already discussed and illustrated elsewhere on RK.com. The boswells have a house asmalyk collector and he didn’t disappoint them again this time by once more overpaying for one of these five-sided quizzical Turkmen woven artifacts. The only question RK.com might like to ask is: Was the under bidder’s name Mr Backwall?

The Eagle-group chuval, lot 79, turned in a very respectable 9,500 euro price, which puts it in the small group of pieces pinner can congratulate the boswells on selling. The 2,500 estimate was too low but closer to its real value than the hyped 9,500 it realized. Also it is not pre-1800 as the catalog supposes but rather closer to 1850 than 1800, as the borders and over all proportions tell us.

Lot 80, the youngish Yomoud khalyk with a rare but geeky design made 6,000 euro. It was another of the rare instances where the pinner collection identification and the tooth-fairy-type catalog description combined to produce a bonus result for pinner’s bottom line. Unfortunately the buyer will never recoup this in any monetary terms – hope he/she loves looking at it, it’ll be theirs for a long, long time.

RK.com would like to again point out all the opinions voiced here are strictly that, opinions, and forwarded on the basis of RK’s long standing experience and expertise studying both Turkmen weavings and the market that surrounds them.

Lot 81 was one of the more discussed lots in the pre-sale contact various dealers and collectors had with RK.com. While Rk doesn’t exactly hold this hybridized chuval in very high regard, a number of less experienced folks did and the 8,500 euro price seems a bit low considering all the pre-sale drooling this chuval elicited. Rk.com doesn’t believe for a second the pre-1800 guess-the-age-game maltzahn and slippery sienknecht published and would more readily consent to a second quarter 19th century date. This chuval has that pastiche quality in addition to the ungainly proportions frequently seen in later Turkmen work.

Good condition, rather boring design and oversized minor gols mark lot 82 as far from “um 1800” mutt and jeff declared it to be in the catalog. The “fine as cloth” texture they noted and the nondescript main border RK sees are also signs of mid-19th century work and the 6,000 euro price, in RK.com land was a grossly over-bid result, considering what else 6,000 would have bought at the pinner or general sale. Again here is the old condition factor at work overtime.

The Tekke main carpet, lot 83, sold for 20,000 euro and while it is not pre-1800, it is far better than a furnishing carpet. Rk.com suggests a first third 19th century date based on the border proportions and piled skirts, both features eschewed by genuine pre-1800 Tekke main carpets.

The “tree” asmalyk, lot 84, had no outstanding features and though asmalyk with this design are far less plentiful than the “normal” leaf-gol type, the 5,300 euro price was wayyy to much. Was this maltzahn magic or just bidder bungling?

Lot 85, which has already been discussed and illustrated, made a totally disappointing 100 euro over the estimated 3,400. Another give away where poor old pinner lost not only in actual terms, be sure he paid much more years ago, but also in accrued value. This is but another example of the boswells failure to actualize the correct prices for pinner pieces. But is it rather an egregious one, as this torba was in good condition, was rare and beautiful – shame shame to maltzahn and congrats to a savvy new owner.

Lot 86 was one of the more outstanding Tekke torba pinner managed to get his pudgy little fingers on and the 4,400 euro selling price quite commensurate with its true value.

The next lot, 87, a Tekke chuval with an interesting but not archaic elem treatment (although it most likely looked so the vast number of inexperienced eyes that gazed on it) sold for 2,700 euro. Probably a bit earlier than the ubiquitous mid-19th century date in the catalog, RK.com is positive it is not as old as the buyer believes it to be - the 4 x 3 gol layout precluding any ideas of great age.

Lot 88 is another example of a strong price, 2,200 euro, paid for an ordinary Turkmen Yomoud chuval worth maybe half that amount. And, considering what 2,200 would have bought that day, RK.com believes this a poor choice monetarily in light of the many other options to spend that sum.

For instance the next lot number 89, a Yomoud torba with a typical Chodor ertman layout, sold for 2,000, This would have been a far better choice but as someone once quipped “There is no accounting for bad taste.”.

Lot 90, a Tekke torba, with nothing worth noting about it other than the buyer’s gullibility in believing the tooth-fairy dating of early 19th century maltzahn and sienknecht cooked up sold for a strong 2,800 – a waste of 1500 euro in RK’s estimation.

Lot 91 a Tekke “Salor” chuval made 1,500 another waste of about 1000 euro says RK.com.

Lot 92, sold for a well deserved 5,000 euro in spite of the crummy and quasi-illiterate description the two stooges, maltzahn and sienknecht, struggled to compose. First, you goof balls, the border you so ignorantly call unusual – is that the best you two pseudoTurk0manics could do – would have been far better described as a subtle (later might have also worked) variation of the archaic peikam border. In fact, this rarely encountered and undoubtedly archaic motif was highlighted in Turkmen Studies, the best – in Rk.com’s opinion – work pinner and little lord franses published together (and lord knows there were a lot of other, less satisfactory efforts). Perhaps you both should dust off your copies and take a read there on page 87, as well as other places as well. Furthermore, why spin an Eagle-group attribution for this torba when all indications point to it being Tekke? And your absolutely amateurish comment: “The small eight-pointed stars( used in the centers of the chemches as tertiary motifs) might have been adopted from another tribe” flies in the face of the fact these same eight pointed stars are almost always found in the main borders of the oldest and best Tekke main carpets. Don’t cha think that is a more probably origin for their presence here? But, right, Rk.com forgot you guys are not really experts, just posers.

The Yomoud mafrash, lot 93, is unremarkable, save for the cutesy elem and the 1,900 euro price somewhat on the high side considering the buyer could have pocketed about 1000 euro, or more, and got a better mafrash by raising the paddle for the next lot, number 94. Of all the pinner Yomoud mafrash this would have been RK’s choice – congrats to the new owner, nice buy.

Lot 95 a truncated Yomoud chuval made 950.

But that money would have been far better spent by buying the next lot, number 96. Not the oldest or the best example of a Chodor main carpet, nonetheless this good sized fragment was an excellent purchase at 1300 euro in comparison.

Same for lot 97, the 1200 euro some buyer shelled out for this Ersari torba could also have bought better and more.

The Tekke torba, lot 98, was one of the worst of the gluttonous predilection pinner had for this type of Turkmen bag and the1,000 euro it made surely was less than old pinnner paid for it.

A horse of a different color, lot 99, sold for a cheap 1,500, which demonstrates the almost dead-eyed and brain dead bidder-mindset RK.com has repeatedly pointed out. This torba was a something and while not a major something it far surpassed the mostly nothingness category many of the other small Tekke piece pinner purchased. Congrats to a wise bidder and Tsk Tsk to y’all who blew it.

The 650 paid for the next lot, number 100, a danked, damaged and quite ordinary Tekke torba was not excessive but who cares – Tekke torba of this ilk are easily found in far better condition for just a few more euro.

The same could be said for the next lot, called Yomoud, an attribution Rk.com doesn’t agree with. But until the piece could be examined in the flesh we’ll leave it at that. However, the stupidly hyped statement “The rare secondary gul, a small dyrnak motif, can also be found in an ancient main carpet in the McMullan collection and a piece exhibited by Bausback in 1983…” Big deal, it also can be found in many other main carpets, it is neither unusual nor noteworthy but Rk.com guesses name dropping the word “McMullan” was behind this charade. Plus the two stooges chanting this fragment is “..archaic looking..” carries no substance. Don’t you clowns realize looking archaic and being archaic are completely different? This nothing of a frag sold for 750, so much for impressing the impressionable with “archaic looking”.

Lot 102, two slices of an ok but not important Tekke torba made 850 euro. And lot 103, another Tekke torba, sliced in half vertically made 1200. Both of these have similar pseudo-flower main borders but the former example predates, by a generation or two, the later one.

The 1400 paid for the next lot, 104, a droll ordinary Yomoud asmalyk need no further commentary.

Nor does the 1,100 lot 105, a Tekke aina gol chuval sold for.

Lot 106, a rare designed by late, Yomoud mafrash no doubt appealed to a collector suffering the stamp collector mentality, as this mafrash borders on the variety RK characterizes as airport-art.

The 2,000 spent on lot 107, another non-descript Tekke torba, bought for the new owner a later than “…1st half 19th century…”, as the catalog incorrectly boasts, example with an extremely sinuously drafted flower and box border.

The Tekke aina gol torba, lot 108, made 1,200 and lot 109 - thank god the last chance to buy one of the pinner Tekke torba - made 750.

The last lot of the sale, 110, a real but quite late, Ersari germetsch made 1,300.

Rk.com will have one more go at the pinner sale sometime soon. Hope you all enjoyed the preview and review of the sale – I’ve enjoyed writing it.

Home   Buy/Sell at the Kazbah   Terms Of Service