We banished cevat kanig to the dunce corner not only because of his incessant pestering and foul-mouthing off but more so for the dopey interpretations his feeble command of rug-knowledge led him to champion.
In his last vain attempt to disprove our analysis of the dodds/LACMA rug he offered as reference this photo to substantiate his cockeyed fantasy:
The photo comes from a website called Virtual Istanbul.
This carpet, while not a world-beater of a re-entrant, is far superior in every respect (save condition) to LACMA’s recent purchase.
It dates, in our opinion to the first quarter of the 18th century. That said, there are, in fact, huge differences their ages, which we believe are closer to 100 years rather than the 50 or so denny has acknowledged, belie.
But before expending some effort to prove this, let’s examine kanig’s supposed raison d’etre for offering it - the designs in the elem:
Previously, we referred to them as “The unknown 'design' (11 above, 10 below) repeated across the two additional borders, or elem at the top and bottom of the rug, are also highly suspicious and weird. They look as if they were lifted directly from an early 19th century yastic, they surely never graced a circa 1600 main carpet. Novice eyes might consider them a ' nice touch' but for experienced viewers they are wrong, wrong, wrong”.
According to kanig, they are the same as those on the carpet pictured above and he offers them as proof we erred concerning our assessment of that rug .
We will agree they are vaguely similar however novice eyes, especially like kanig’s when they are trying to prove a point, often mistake vague similarities for exact matches.
Here they are side by side you be the judge:
In Part II we will use the carpet kanig offered to demonstrate, for all those who are still doubt, why the dodds/LACMA rug is leagues below even one of this ilk and is, as we have maintained, nothing more than a late period reproduction.