Michael Bischof to KilimJun 30, 2017 and citations on Cassin's rugkazbah.com website.
Cassin wrote about dodds's "bellini rug" :"Should you question any of this you will be immediately proven wrong. As for the structure of the Bellini carpet there is not 10 to 15 % warp depression..."
Bischof wrote: This Hugh Reister account tonight went down the drain similar to what happened with this Thomas Singer, Jon Anderson, Dieter Schmidt64, and Jay Singer accounts. It is claimed this whole situation has to do with trying to suppress the information published here.I am not party in this. I just dislike censorship games.dodds letter of expertise
RK wrote Subject: dodds letter of expertise:
Hi Dennis: and thank you for a one sided litany of half truths and worse.
1. There was no THEY at LACMA. You were dealing exclusively with Ms. Dale Gluckman who was the curator of the textile department Mary Khalenberg formerly ran. She, Dale Gluckman, approached you and asked for a great carpet. You readily supplied the Bellini. I spoke to Gluckman and she told me you told her the Bellini had been in your PERSONAL COLLECTION and had never been offered for sale. She also told me you said it was a masterpiece and a museum worthy acquisition. This is why she agreed to try and get the Collector Committee of LACMA to purchase it for her department.
2. In the "Letter of Expertise" you sent to Gluckman and which Jack Cassin published in 4 parts here:http://rugkazbah.com/boards/posts.php?topicno=40you did state the Bellini was 16th/17th century but it turns out now everyone concerned believe it is closer to 1750.You also stated "Charles Grant Ellis and other scholars placed the origin for this carpet in the environs of Konya"and I am 100 percent sure Ellis nor any other 'scholar' ever wrote one word about your Bellini carpet. Go prove me wrong if you can Dodds.The only person you could claim is michael franses who had a vested interested as an owner and former owner of the Bellini. So you were again shooting your mouth off.
3. In that "Letter of Expertise" you included photos of real 16th century carpets and tried to compare them favorably with your Bellini but none of them live up to the oblique andfaulty references you wrote.
4. In that "Letter of Expertise" you mention the Bausbak exhibition and quote what michael franses wrote as a review in hali without revealing you got the Bellini from him. His clearly vested interests should have been revealed and not presented as independent and unprejudiced. So here is another gross violation of fair and honest dealing.
5. In franses review he states, and you did too "Examples of this rare family of early village rugs have survived mainly in fragmentary condition; by contrast, the Bausback example is almost complete, except possibly for a few rows of knots at each end and some at the sides.
You Dodds then wrote "There is expert minor repiling in other areas of the field.Whereas in fact, and according to the tests LACMA did much after the purchase(see below), at least 30 THIRTY percent of the Bellini rug is reknotted.
But it is not the rug's condition that is important. It is first of all your hiding facts of the restorations and the biggest one is the Bellini is a late revival copy, not a real Bellini.
6. You then wrote in the "Letter of Expertise" sent to Gluckman "Sometime between late 1981 and 1983, the carpet was sold and entered the noted Planar Collection in Graz, Austria. It was exhibited at the International Conference on Oriental Carpets, which was held in Vienna in 1983 and was published as Plate No. 7 in the conference catalog, Antike Anatolische Teppiche aus Osterreichischem Besitz. A few years later, the carpet was acquired by Mr. Franses and I purchased it from him in 1987, adding it to my personal collection of early Anatolian village carpets. ADDING IT TO YOUR PERSONAL COLLECTION OF CARPETS?
Please Mr dodds what a complete and outrageous lie. You were offering the Bellini for sale almost immediately after getting it.
You lied again.This is full so of half truths to be almost totally a lie because and in fact Planner returned the rug to Bausbak because he learned it was 18th and not 17th forget 16th century. Planner told me this himself when I called him years ago, and Peter Bausbak reaffirmed it as well.You did not tell Gluckman that, did you Dennis.
And you could not even get the references right as this exhibition was NOT part of the Vienna International Conference on Oriental Carpets in 1983.That conference was in 1986.The exhibition and accompanying catalog dodds reference did occur in 1983, but not in Vienna it was in Graz, a town in southern Austria that boasts a rather active group of rug collectors. Nor could Dodds spell Planner's name correctly. It is Planner not Planer.
7. But the following Dodds statement in the "Letter of Expertise" he sent to Dale Gluckman takes the cake for duplicity and outright fabrication. "Dale, other knowledgeable collectors and specialist dealers have commented in the past couple of years that this is the best early Anatolian village carpet of its age and type available."How anyone after trying unsuccessfully to SELL the Bellini rug to any and everyone in the carpet world for almost TWENTY YEARS could make such a false and misleading statement is impossible to believe that person is honest and forthright.
That Dodds is crooked is all one can surmise.8. In the scientific report LAMCA commissioned well after acquiring the carpet the museum's head scientist, Dr Mark Gilberg prepared and published a report.
Cassin has published that with his comments here:http://rugkazbah.com/boards/records.php?refnum=1719&id=1719In that report Dr Gilberg states "Visual examination of the front and back of the carpet, both with and without the aid of a binocular microscope, reveals evidence of extensive reknotting"
And a second quote from Gilberg "Technical examination of LACMAs central Anatolian village carpet suggests that it has undergone extensive restoration in areas as evidenced by ultraviolet reflectance and fluorescence photography and x-radiography.
"So, Dennis Dodds, is the extensive knotting Gilberg discovered anywhere near what you told Gluckman, i.e. the rug has little reknotting? Of course it is not and you are caught telling lies again.Sorry Dodds your replies are weak and untrue.The reason LACMA did not return the rug to you is the complicated issue of fiduciary responsibility the museum faced.
The museum did not buy it with their funds from you. The Collectors Committee, an outside organization, of the museum used their funds and they did so on the basis of the information supplied to them by the museum. That information came from you and was fraudulent as this short expose I have written here makes clear.
There is far more documentary evidence on http://rugkazbah.com and I suggest interested readers learn all the fact before making any judgment.Best Wishes,Thomas.....
Hi Dennis Dodds: Here is a photo taken of Dennis Dodds standing in front of his Bellini carpet in the selling booth he occupied at the 1990 ICOC Dealers Fair.This is less than approximately two years after he supposedly had the carpet in his PERSONAL PRIVATE COLLECTION like he told and represented in writing to Dale Gluckman..Here is more proof he lied to Gluckman again.
Sorry for you Dennis Dodds to be proven such a boldfaced unabashed cheat, liar and crook.Regards,Thomas
2Hello Mr Dodds and thank you for your reply.However, you misstate many pints and completely avoid others. The most significant is the factyou were unable to sell the Bellini carpet for 20 years for less than half of the price you soldit to the Collectors Committee. But it is not the price but the fact no collectors ever wanted to buy it.
You got the carpet from michael franses, who consigned it to Bausbak who sold it to Heinz Planner, an Austrian collector.
He put it into a show in Austria and it is illustrated in the show's catalog. Afer the show Planner returned the rug to Bausbak because he learned it was not as early, 17th ceentury, as he had been told.
Bausbak had to take it back, and then returned it to franses. You then got it.
This history speaks volumes in support of Cassin's statements the rug is a late genre revival copy.There is ample and 100 percent proof of this history listed with photographsand citations on Cassin's rugkazbah.com website.
Should you question any of this you will be immediately proven wrong.
As for the structure of the Bellini carpet there is not 10 to 15 % warp depression but more like 50 percent.
I have examined the carpet very carefully with Sharon Takeda, Mark Gilbergand other of the staff of LACMA watching me.
Walter Denny also agrees with this analysis and the dating circa 1750 Cassin suggests.
So again you are only talking fantasy.
You sold the rug as 16th century.
Proof is pictured below.
Cassin has published a copy of the Letter of Expertise youwrote and sent to Dale Gluckman the curator who championed the Bellini rug of yours to the Museum and the Collector-s Committee.
They bought it based on that and other fraudulent statements you made.
She lost her job thanks to your duplicitous actions and lies. Proof of this, your claiming the rug was 16th century, is again shown in incontrovertible photographson rugkazbah.com.
The two examples you show are totally unrelated to your Bellini carpet. They have no relevance but the statements I just recounted surely do.
LACMA was deceived and that is why they have relegated the Bellini carpet to the sub basement forever.
Your greedy actions destroyed their desire, and other museums as well, to add to their collection. This is the greatest upshot of the effects of your actions.
Actions that effect every dealer and collector ofantique rugs and carpets.
You have no ground to stand on, you know that.The facts speak for themselves and until you admit your errors and not impertinently tell me I need more study to realize what your carpet is.
I know what it is a late genre period revival reproduction made ina western Anatolian city workshop.
This is what Heinz Planner knew and made him return the rug to Peter Bausbak. And this is what every collector and dealer you tried to sell it to for almost 20 years at prices from 150,000 to 85,000 dollars knew.
Dale Gluckman trusted you and you defiled her trust and pawned off the Bellini carpet you could not sell for 20 years on her.
She paid the price and lost her job. So did the Museum Director Andrea Rich who quietly "retired" less than a year after the story of your caper became public.
So no more phony and fake excuses and silly comparisons to other carpets that are in no way, even by your own admission here, relatable to the bogus Bellini.
So if anyone's rug knowledge and expertise needs tutorial assistance it is yours, Mr Dodds, not mine or Jack Cassin.
Your Bellini rug is a two dimensional copy and none of your obtuse comparisons or high faulting imperious statements will change that.
The market spoke and you could not sell it, and you really tried hard to sell it, to anyone and everyone and no one except a trusting and naive curator who ended up unemployed for placing her trust in you, Sir, bought it.
PS here is the photo of the cover from the Austrian show where Planner exhibited the Bellini and the text description for it in that catalog.........Here is a photo of the only time the Bellini carpet was ever on public view in the museum.
It has a wall tag that reads 16th century.
This was written before Jack Cassin on http://rugkazbah.com publicized the truth.
The next photo shows the museum now recognizesthe rug is 1650 - 1750.
That was Denny's reassessment but he added 1650 - 1750 BUT AT THE END OF THAT CONTINUUM.
By the way Denny changed his mind after Cassin apprised him of his error he had made, and he then went to Los Angeles and publicly recanted his mistake in believing the carpet was 16th century.
Sorry Mr Dodds but when any buyer, especially an important art museum like the Los Angeles County Museum of ArtBut LACMA did not want to get embroiled in a messy affair so you got away with the rug crime of the century.
Hope you are proud of yourself.
I can only say I am totally embarrassed for you. Regrds, and cheers !Thomas.........
@Dennis Dodds: And by the way one of the two rugs above that Dodds referenced, lot 14 from the Nagel action sale of March 2012, was reviewed on Jack Cassin's http://rugkazbah.com -- (http://rugkazbah.com/boards/records.php?refnum=2322&id=2322).
In his review Cassin wrote "Called Ushak area, west Anatolian, a provenance we tend to often see for rugs of this type, would rather place farther west and south into Melas region.
Regardless of where it was actually made, this rug is not really a 'village rug' nor is it 17th century,as the catalog tries to advance.
While it is a pretty rug, as walter denny once publicly described the dennis dodds/LACMA bogus Bellini that is a weaving the Nagel rug bears some not coincidental similarities with, it is surely not historic, evocative or genuinely interesting.
We'd date it circa 1750.
It is decorative, RK will gladly admit, and the price believe it or not was determined by this factor and not any other.
This rug is destined for the floor of some wealthy individual and most likely will be a dog or cat's napping placeand not the highlight of any Turkish village rug collector's collection, at least none RK has even met.
We could spend several paragraphs proving how formulaic and rote this rug is by comparing its featuresto other examples which are 17th century and genuine village production.
"So Mr Dodds there goes another of the flimsy legs you are trying to stand on.
My advice is go to LACMA and buy back your bogus Bellini revival copy.
Take it home with you where it belongs. It does NOT belong in any museum, particularly one as important and significant as LACMA.
Better in your basement than theirs.
All the best,Thomas
dodds j'accuse [email protected] Dodds: And as the final nail in your own coffin, Mr Dodds, Jack Csssin also wrote on http//rugkazbah.com( http://rugkazbah.com/boards/records.php?id=2894&refnum=2894 ) about the other of the two rugs youThat review, published in September of 2011 states:"Plate Ten sets up an interesting comparison, as it is, in fact,The Milestones text offers an end of the sixteenth century date, which RK thinks isAgain the two dimensional quality of the field pattern, the visible vertical compression the ancillaryoctagon/stars in the field suffer, and the lack of any abrash in the red background of the field, all point to the later dating we suggest.
Over the years RK has spent some time analyzing how the pattern seen in the wide main border developed, as we formerly owned a late 18th century Anatolian village rug with a similar one.
We came to the conclusion this border is a very abbreviated version of the far more involved cloud-band on Plate 9.
Notice the minor element placed between each group of four S has been lifted from Plate Nines border, and, in fact, the curvilinear S motif and their perfect placement are actually a simplistic attempt to recreate the cloudbands from Plate Nine.(plate 9 shown below)
This might, on first take, appear far-out but when you let your eyes relax on each group of those S motif,which are exactly and uniformly repeated in each group of four, they simulate the movement those cloudbands to the borders overall design.
The lappets in both end borders thompson says are probably the relic of a style fashionable in medieval times and preserved in rural communities.
This is laughable hogwash when thompson offers not one iota of evidence to support such a contention.
And besides didn't thompson place himself on record, as we quoted this earlier, believing village weavers were too ignorant of the history of their design vocabularies to know their histories?
If so, then, how could such a design remain potent for such a long period?
"That's it Mr Dodds.
All your efforts here to demonstrate I am wrong, and so is Cassin, have failed to deliver anything but more proof Cassin is way ahead of you.
His research on your Bellini proves his calling it a late genre period workshop revival reproduction is spot on.The rug is not 16th century as you foolishly told Gluckman and she then told the Collector's Committee who spent 250,000 dollars trusting they were buying a rug from Bellini's time period and not a revival reproductionthat dates 200 or more years later.
You fooled them but you did not fool me or Jack Cassin.
Plus we know many others who now know this as well but they are too afraid to stand up and voice their opinions.
Lucky for you so far, Mr Dodds, but remember truth always wins, while falsehood and deceit always gets discovered.
All the bestThomas
Hello Mr Dodds: A rather off topic discussion but I was wondering since this is the first time I have gotten a chance to address you and this topic what you can tell me and everyone else here about the Bellini rug controversy you have been embroiled in since 2004.
I have heard many people, not only Jack Cassin, state that they do not believe the Bellini rug you sold to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art is any older than the middle 18th century, that it is not a masterpiece of its type and that it is not a museum worthy object.
Also that you had been trying to sell it for almost 20 years and found no one wanted to buy it.
You did not of course tell this to the museum.
I realize you do not wish to discuss this publicly but I and others believe it is high time you did.
The proofs Jack Cassin documented and posted on http://RugKazbah.com and http://rugkazbah.com/boards/posts.php?topicno=40 are very convincing and support his statements that you cheated the Los Angeles County Museum of Art's Collectors Committee who purchased it from you and immediately donated the Bellini to the museum.
It was originally displayed for a brief time with a 16th century date, as per your letter of expertise and other statements you made to them, but since they have updated it to the 17th century, something among others professor Walter Denny does not agree with according to his public statements.
So Dennis Dodds what can you say in your defense.
Surely it is time for you to address this serious issue publicly. After all how many rugs have been purchased by museums in the past 50 years?
Very few I can tell you that. Not even as many a fingers as you have on your right hand.
Thank you, Best Regards,Thomas.....
Hi: I am not trying to sabotage this thread but Dennis Dodds owes us all explanation.
And since he refuses to face these most pertinent and true accusations I thought this would be a good place to allow him to express his position.
As his silence breeds nothing but complicity.
So where do we start a new thread for my post, Christina. Can you help do that, as I am totally unfamiliar with any of this type of use for the fb platform
Thank you, Regards,..........
dodds and bellini icoc 1986this picture shows dennis dodds at his stand in the icoc dealer fair in 1986.
He is standing in front of his bogus 'bellini' rug trying to sell it.
Let's all remember dodds told the Los Angeles County Museum of Art curator, Dale Gluckman, that the rug was in his private collection since he got it.
He also wrote those very words in his letter of expertise used to convince the Collector's Committee topurchase the bellini for 250,000 dollars, which they did in 2004.
Here is proof dodds lied again.
Congratulations dodds, you lying thieving crook.dodds...
This tells the story of dodds and the Bellini rip off."The Los Angeles County Art Museum's Questionable Rug Purchase Revealed"http://rugkazbah.com/boards/records.php?id=827&refnum=827
The only thing not questionable is the fact dodds lied and cheated hisway into selling his rug to the museum.Read and learn: