Today peter pap posted this sumak khorjin face for sale on the internet.
Heres what he has to say about it.
Now then, RK knows a thing or two about sumak khorjin, and pap as well.
We will leave aside our comments about his career as a rug dealer or expertise and just focus on his attempts to demonstrate any ability to say something meaningful about this khorjin.
Anyone who begins a discussion about a sumak khorjin by referring to what is known as the classical carpet tradition is not only worth being called a Luddite moron but someone who must have been asleep for the last quarter century if not more.
Yessshhhh, pap open yer peepers.
Granted there was exchange between court weaving traditions, aka classical carpet tradition, and the town, village and encampment ones.
However, it was not a one way street as mr pap so foolishly implies. Fact of the matter is way back when there was NO court weaving there was village weaving.
Both the Ottoman and Safavid courts were not born omnipotent and they, too, were once upon a time lowly villagers and encampment dwellers.
Once you have gotten yer head straight about that, mr pap, then you might be able to realize your sumak bag is not based on Holbein medallions.
What it is based on RK cannot tell you -- it's too generalized and amorphous to cite any direct antecendant -- but we can tell you it aint Holbein medallions.
And what the "distinctive Holbein derived cruciform shape centered with an octagon containing an eight-pointed star" is all about we have no clue.
Neither, we believe, do you.
Another point we take umbrage over is the quality of your bag's weave, as well as the quality of the articulation of design it tries to achieve. Both we find lacking and far from genius level.
For instance, let's look at the ashik border.
We see it as a flaccid, sloppy rendition. The comparison below with one from a sumak khorjin that is a masterpiece clearly demonstrates this beyond any doubt.
Left: Ashik border pap khorjin; Right: Ashik border RK collection
Your conclusion: "The result is a visually compelling statement" is nothing but embarrassingly hollow sales patter better never made public.
One thing pap is right about is price. A great sumak is worth all of $10,500, and in fact much more.
But not this one of pap's. Not by a long shot.
It's a mediocre mid-19th century example we would not bother to own regardless of price.
And we sincerely doubt anyone else will as well.