Some months ago RK wrote about the kejebe torba sold at Nagel auction from the Logis collection.
It returned the highest price for any of the pieces Werner Logis consigned.
We revealed we formerly owned it, sold it to Logis in 1986, and were glad to see he got a good return on his investment.
He is not the only one, and we defy anyone who ever bought anything from us to state they did not receive a substantial return on the price they paid. Note: RK never sold things cheaply, but we sold great things and they have preformed extremely well for anyone who stepped up to the plate with us.
So much for the past: In the latest issue of that rag hali the torba is mentioned and this is the reason we are revisiting the subject. We present a scan of that mention below.
At this point it time, RK feels it imperative Turkmen collectors, dealers and researchers face an important fact -- the ridiculousness of the name-game rampant in Turkmen studies should now be buried.
There is not one shred of evidence to support the provenance of any Turkmen rug made prior to 1850 to any particular group or tribe. And since these are the ONLY Turkmen weavings of interest it behooves change and the introduction of a far more factual, and descriptive, classification system.
Also by continuing to perpetrate the name game RK feels it signals the failure of Turkmen carpet research to reach any sort of bedrock or ground zero.
By this we mean establishing a framework to build knowledge and fact upon.
So what is RK talking about here?
Fortunately there are obvious structural differences in Turkmen weavings, and the more closely one looks and inspects them, the more of these differences appear.
Grouping Turkmen weavings under the present name-game -- Tekke, Yomut, Salor, Saryk, Ersari, Beshir, etc, etc does little to really communicate anything other than someones guesstimate of the weavers supposed group/tribe.
This is totally inadequate, and times ripe for using the structural/technical differences rather than worn-out, and probably incorrect, nomenclature.
Granted, this requires work: the desire and ability to inspect and to know how to do itbut this is not rocket science and anyone with two eyes, hands that operate, and a good magnifying glass can easily learn.
So where is this going?
When RK read the amateurish blurb written about the Logis torba it truly made us disgusted, and annoyed.
What obvious patter, cant those who scribble this crapola at that rag hali do better?
Clearly they cant, and this is an issue as large as ending the name-game.
First off there are not numerous Turkmen weavings from the Middle Amu Darya region with Salor features.
And there are none with the features the Logis torba displays.
This generalization is typical for the Turko-dunces in that rag halis editorial department. Either learn more and write better or shut-up and just publish pictures.
But as poor as their generalizing is the following is worse on a magnitude of 10:
Sometimes it is better not to think too much: if it looks like a Salor, it probably is one.
As a clever someone once said: You cant fix stupid.
RK will eventually create this new classification system, and we will do so by grouping pieces according to their structural characteristics, and then more specifically on their dyes and other constituents associated with the dyeing process.
The forensic analysis we have been squawking about for 30 years, and now almost 20 on the internet, is an essential part of this work and until we have support to put this into action it will remain a project for the future.
RugDUMB has not only proven it has no foresight, it cant even maintain the present, as interest in historic oriental carpets, save Classical ones, has been ground down to almost nothing compared to what was happening in the 1970s-1980s.
You all can thank your leaders.
Who are those leaders?
Just look at the hali whois and the icoc whois pages.
These self-serving twits are responsibleand of course in theory all you, the silent majority, are equally as guilty.