So-called by grogan 17/18th century Turkish prayer rug that is in fact a reproduction, probably dating circa 1900
Our grogan sale preview has clearly provoked someone. They are upset with what RK has written about the sales quality, as well as grogan himself.
We do not know who this person is, nor do we really care, as what we wrote is true and factual.
To explain why we have no respect for grogan, or why we do not like anything well enough in the sale to agree it equals the hype attached to it, we publicly offer the following.
In discussing grogans duplicitous actions in offering of lot 199, the (reproduction according to RK) Turkish prayer rug pictured above, RK needs to make something clear: That is the only way to describe it, duplicitous.
Dictionary definition duplicitous: marked by duplicity
: deceptive in words or action
The auction business, whether selling rugs, furniture, cars, watches, wine, etc, has been likened by many to a Las Vegas gambling casino where the buyer must be aware that things may not be as they seem, so to speak.
Do not be fooled auctioneers work for themselves, though they at times side with the consignor against the buyer and vis-versa at other times with the buyer against the consignor.
This is only natural, but when the auctioneer owns or has personal interest in what he is selling, and this is undeclared, RK believes it crosses the line of propriety and becomes duplicitous.
Massachusetts is the state where grogans auction is located. It is one of states in America that allows the auctioneer to place his own merchandise in the sale without declaring he is the owner.
And while this is legal in Massachusetts, it is illegal in many other states.
Do not get us wrong, grogan is within his legal rights to sell his own rugs without declaring this to possible buyers. Is that really honest and fair? Of course not, that is RK's point.
Can you imagine calling grogan and asking him about something in his sale, something grogan owns but you do not know this?
What kind of objective and HONEST report could you expect?
RK believes if grogan was the honest broker many ruggies believe he is, he would not sell his own merchandise without identifying it as his own.
Fact is grogan refuses to reveal his ownership or interest in what he is selling and RK thinks this is dishonest, regardless of what the law says.
OK* so grogan uses this to his advantage, fine, his choice.
*Not many people know about this law and fewer know grogan is a major and very active buyer of rugs in his area(New England) and is then selling them through his own groganco.com auction. Not nice.
As for lot 199 in the current sale?
First and foremost are the questions: What is it? Where was it made? And how old is it?
RK is not going to spend our time trying prove our position it is a reproduction. Rather we are glad to await the sales results and then if the rug sells, and sells well, we will demonstrate why we believe it is a reproduction, not even 18th century let alone 17th.
However, we will offer further evidence of grogans duplicity in presenting lot 199 as anything but a circa 1900 reproduction.
When grogan first catalogued the rug he might really have harbored thought it might be real and his original online catalog listing just said 17th/18th century Turkish prayer rug with no further qualification(seen above).
But since it has been altered, the following qualification age uncertain, has been added, as photos below evidence.
Above: Original groganco.com online catalog listing; Below: subsequent listing date uncertain" added
This makes it crystal clear grogan now knows the rug is a reproduction.
But instead of doing what any HONEST and fair broker would do, and remove it from the sale, mr grogan still hopes some buyer will think uncertain still gives a chance it could be real.
Sadly for grogans reputation as an honest man his actions here have blown that, showing what a greedy self-interested slob he is.
RK might guess the rug is his but really who cares as his actions are already revolting enough.
Lot 199 is a fake. We are 99.97% sure of that. But where was it made and by whom?
Perhaps one day we will see it in the flesh and not have to only rely on excellent digital photos several exhibition goers made for us.
Then we could see the actual dyes, the materials, carefully examine the structure and then maybe wed take a guess at its origins.
For now caveat emptor to any buyer, and while to novice eyes it might look right to well developed critical ones it is garish, sloppy and nothing but fools gold.