When RK decided to go “public” with the tale of rug-woe the dodds/LACMA piece has kicked-up, we knew the established lumpen leadership of rug world ignore our position, or attempt to make light of it. Why? Simply put because most of them either sell similar goods or own them. It’s called protecting vested interest.
We also knew some of the lower wanna-be members of that hierarchy would attack us not for what we said (fact is most of them are just too rug-ignorant to understand our argument or even to want to try) but for besmirching one of their supposed infallible “leaders”.
So here comes steev, call me rug-idiot price, on his amateur-hour rug chat website. This is not surprising to us, as we well remember the song “Fools rush in…”:
“Right this minute, one self-annointed expert is busily ranting about a rug sold to a leading museum. The museum curator and at least three highly respected figures in the rug world attribute it to the 17th century; their antagonist insists that it does not predate the 18th century. The criteria he uses look to me to be ad hoc , based on little or no hard evidence. The important question is, who's right? If I were a betting man, I'd bet on the threesome. But I also believe that a definitive conclusion is beyond anyone's reach.”
Calling price a rug-clown and ignoramus gives him far too much benefit of doubt, as this fool hasn’t a scintilla of rug-intellect and couldn’t cogently discuss any antique rug with even your six-year son or daughter.
Let’s take a quick look at what price=clown wrote:
Calling me “self-anointed”, price can’t even spell the word, is perhaps even more hollow than his cranial capacity. Plus the type of anointment he infers, from the likes of dodds, little lord franses and the rest of the icoc/acor grandees, is as meaningless as having that dr. next to his name – just another worthless title. As far as we are concerned he can wipe his fat ass with his dr. or his anointments, that’s about their real world worth.
“Ranting” – come on price, you over stuffed impotent excuse for a man, go learn to read before you characterize a well-put argument as a rant.
The “museum curator” you refer to, ms Gluckman unlike dr. price=clown, readily admits she knows nothing about Oriental Rugs, be they 17th century or 21st. The “three experts”, or should we call them wise-men/woman since it is presently His season, be they highly respected or not, screwed up at the least or, at the worst, had some other agendas to run.
And besides, their reputations are not associated with circa 1600 Turkish Village/Town rugs – something price=clown would have known had he ever actually read anything they wrote.
“Little or no hard evidence”? You clown, what RK presented is as hard as evidence gets in the rug world. But right then, a baby-sitter teaching pseudo-scientist like you believes mouthing meaningless homilies to ‘scientific methods’ negate what Rk has laid out about dodds’s late period reproduction rug.
“The important question is who is right”? Doesn't steev have a brilliant way of analyzing and encapsulating issues, we’re sure he dazzles those freshman he's paid to baby-sit every time.
A rug-putz like price reads as poorly as he spells. Since the three wise-folks and curator date it to circa 1600, that’s early 17th century or somewhat before in RK's book. Our position is the rug, like the bogus ex-hecksher Dragon/Phoenix fragment hardly predates circa 1800, that’s 19th century.
As for his mentioning a bet? To that RK says: Well meat-head put your money up and RK will take your action anytime. That or quit talking priceclown, your hot air is, comme d’habitude, mere flatulence.
And as far as “definitive conclusions go”? A rug-a-dope like him couldn’t make nor appreciate one about any antique rug, even if it were possible.
The only thing definitive here is that something is wrong with this picture – dodds’s rug is a dud – and the few who genuinely know early Turkish rugs will all attest to that.
So readers, rest assured price=clown’s is just the first salvo now that RK has exposed dodds’s rug for the fake it is – remember he claims and sold it as circa 1600.
We realize many others will try to take us on and hopefully they will be better equipped than steev the rug dunce was - price’s attempt nothing but petty character assassination and wishful thinking on his part, wishful in the sense he could even understand our arguments about why dodds erred big-time in masquerading that fluffy pile of wool as a 400 year old weaving.
In closing let RK predict the future:
1. eventually those far above Gluckman in LACMA will learn the facts about dodds’s dud and pressure him to do something about it. This would be the best solution for all, even dodds, as a scenario could be easily constructed to “save his face”. This would spare him a legacy of ignominy he would be associated with long after LACMA’s money is spent.
2. eventually those far above Gluckman in LACMA will learn the facts about dodds’s dud , take the rug and, like the Getty has done with their ‘mistakes’, hide the mistake in the basement behind the furnace. Out of sight, out of mind. This is a regrettable but somewhat commonplace solution many museums have chosen rather than appear in public with egg dripping from their face.
3. a ground swell of rug world finger-pointing at dodds’s dud will force LACMA to do something and then either #1 or #2 will be the result. RK trusts #1 not #2 will out but, even if it doesn’t, at least the rug community will have spoken up, showed some gumption and responsibility to regulate itself.
There is no doubt dodds’s dud is not circa 1600 nor is it worth the price LACMA paid and RK will bet the farm more and more people will realize this and, unlike steev the rug-clown, not be so foolish as to bet on denny, thompson, mackie and gluckman.
So, steev, let me leave you with this last thought: When you go to your bed tonite, say a prayer for Rk’s respect for civility, otherwise you’ve have been put down for a dirt-nap long ago, you impertinent piece of crap.