We gather you are the CK who posted here earlier today, right? How’s things in D.C.?
Frankly, RK is sure we are not the only readers who might be a bit confused at your post. Why are you referring to Transylvanian rugs?
We have made copies of them and post them now here for reference:
While we recognize your comments about the existence of similar minor borders are quite understandable in reference to what we said about the LACMA/dodds rug, you do err on one important point. Transylvanian rugs are not exactly ETV (Early Turkish Village) rugs and even though there are a number of different varieties of Transylvanian rugs (which signify the different places and ages of manufacture) none of them are analogous to the village rug production we mentioned.
Plus we did say not all ETV rugs have different minor borders so your example falls short of its purpose in trying to debunk our assessment of the LACMA/dodds rug.
Please know we do appreciate your trying even though you failed to make much of a dent in our analysis. You are more than welcome to try again.
As for the rest of your assertions let us put them to rest quickly. After 35 years of collecting and researching historic carpets you can rest assured RK’s views are not haphazardly constructed.
In the case of the LACMA/dodds rug we did view the rug in Philadelphia but were not able to handle it. At that time we did makes some notes about it in our catalog and those views have not changed.
We are also familiar with some of your posting over at professor price=clown’s website. From what we have seen there, and this effort you have made here, it is obvious you need remedial help with your English as well as with your knowledge of old carpets.
For your information the fragment of the Transylvanian rug is probably circa1650, which is close to your guesstimate. However, the complete carpet that you say is 16th century is, at best, circa 1750, which is a long way from your estimation.
Did you make those dates up yourself or did you take them from where these pieces might have been published.
In any event the fragment is a very good example but the
complete carpet, like the LACMA/dodds, rug is nothing but a later period piece. It is, however, far better as an example of its type than the LACMA/dodds piece is of its.
Please note we do recognize your posting it to offer comparison to the somewhat similar central medallion treatment in the LACMA/dodds rug. It is, in our opinion, superior to the other rug’s attempt at it.
All in all this is why we called the piece you posted a later period piece and the LACMA/dodds rug a later period reproduction.
That said please note we do not like it either, as it, too, has that cutesy, two dimensional appearance we mentioned in reference to the LACMA/dodds dud.
As for your finding RK’s webside aggressive? Well our aggression pales in relation to yours, Cevat.
We suggest you remain a player over at steev’s corral. It’s perfectly clear you can’t run with the bulls here on RK.com.