Archive for the Uncategorized Category

ICOC 14 Exhibition

Posted in Uncategorized on July 28, 2018 by rjohn

There was a marvelous exhibition on the occasion of ICOC 14, curated by Wendel Swan,

*

*

and mounted at the Corcoran Gallery.

*

*

This post is a virtual version of that exhibition that does not pretend to convey what it was like walking around it. 

*

*

*

*

*

*

That experience was available for about three days, but is gone.

But we will do the best we can.

What follows are overall images of the piece shown in this exhibition, preceded in each case, by one of the best gallery labels I have seen.  Here is one, out of sequence to let you see what I’m talking about.

*

*

These gallery labels were produced by Ken Kepchar, a member of the DC rug community, who produced that same sort of gallery labels for the exhibtion that accompanied ICOC 13, here.  He deserves real credit for them.

So, here we go.  We will try to avoid interrupting with comments, but can’t entirely promise.

*

*

Click once or more on each image to see a larger version.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Click once or more on the image below to see a larger version.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Click once or more on the image below to see a larger version.

*

*

*

*

*

Below are four small bags, including the one in label 72 above.  Only the one in the upper left, below, is featured in the label above.

*

Click on the image group below to get a larger version.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

I haven’t managed to have details of the pieces in this exhibition, but Dennis shared this one for the piece above.  It does help the piece show itself.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Click once or more on the image below to see a larger version.

*

*

*

Click once or more on images to see a larger version.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Click once or more on images to see a larger version.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Click once or more on the image below to see a larger version.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Click once or more on images to see a larger version.

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

17

Chodor, Embroidered Bochke

Collection of Bruce P. & Olive W. Baganz 

*

*

*

*

*

Click once or more on the image below to see a larger version.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

The Swedish rya (bedding rug), below, dated 1828 employs a 2-1-2 pattern that was also used in the preceding Konya and in many of the Turkmen objects shown, but infinitely repeating. 

It also appears, but less obviously, in the Caucasian embroidery (#12) at the end of this sequence and before the hats. 

This rya shows how widely patterns from the Near East and Central Asia were used.

*

*

Click once or more on the image below to see a larger version.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Click once or more on the image below to see a larger version.

*

*

There were four pieces without specific gallery labels.  But we provide the information on each of them below.

80

Khamseh Confederation

Small pile saddle cover

Blumenthal Nicholas Collection

*

*

81

Qashqa’i piled bag face.

Blumenthal Nicholas Collection

*

*

82

Afshar piled bag face

Blumenthal Nicholas Collection

*

*

83

Afshar sumak pipe or tobacco pouch

Blumenthal Nicholas Collection

*

*

*

Click once or more on the image below to see a larger version.

*

*

There were a number of hats displayed around the other pieces in the exhibition.

*

*

*

*

These hats were selections from the collection of Roger and Claire Pratt. 

Wendel says that this hat part of the exhibition is very much Roger’s work and that we need to thank Roger for conceiving, organizing and installing it.

*

Click once or more on the image below to see a larger version.

*

*

We’re going to look at the 42 hats in the exhibition more closely, each described by Roger.

There are eight groups of hats.

The first group were Turkmen Hats (hats 1 to 7).

Hat 1

Gojuk important ceremonial hat. Turkmenistan. Mid 19th

*

*

Hat 2

Ersarsi Tribal Hat.  Turkmenistan. Upside down tulip like motifs similar to chirpy motifs.  Yurt like shape.  19th century

*

*

Hat 3

Ersari Tribal Hat, second half of 19th Great embroidery.

*

*

Hat 4

Chodor Pointed Woman’s Cap. Fourth quarter of 19th  Colorful ikat adras separates bands of embroidery. From Khorezm in Khiva and Nukus area.

*

*

Hat 5

Chodor Child Cap. Mid 19th

*

*

Hat 6

Yomud Tall Hat. Second half 19th

*

*

Hat 7

Yomud Child’s Hat. 1st quarter 20th  Piecework attached to top with wide  bands.

*

*

The second group were Turkmen Tekke Hats (hats 8 to 11).

Hat 8

Tekke Tall Hat on old velvet.  Circa 1900.  Colorful, graphic design with fine embroidery.

*

*

Hat 9

White Tekke Child’s Hat.  Turkmenistan. Mid 19th Century or earlier

*

*

Hat 10

Tekke Female Hat.  Early 1900s.  Traditional motifs and embroidery as seen on Chirpies.  Lined with printed Russian cotton

*

*

Hat 11

Tekke Hat.  Third quarter 19th Century. Merv, Turkmenisatan. Extremely fine embroidery.  Saturated colors, two shades of purple.  Tulip like motifs

*

*.

The third group were Central Asian Non-Turkman Hats (hats 12 to 19)

Hat 12

Uzbekistan Bokhara Girl’s Tailed Velvet Hat with metallic embroidery and Tajik style ikat lining.  From Tajik side of  Samarkand area Circa 1900.

*

*

Hat 13

Uzbekistan Bokhara Girl’s Taiiled Velvet Ikat hat.  Last quarter 19th Century

*

*

Hat 14

Woman’s hat from Khiva, Khoresmian hat, Uzbekistan.  Glass trade beads and metallic embroidery with purple velvet on the sides and Arabic writing.  Second Half of 19th century.

*

*

Hat 15

Embroidered Velvet hat from Bukhara for Tajik women, mid 20th century.

*

*

Hat 16

Shahrisyabz- Uzbek/”Lakai” Hat.  Embroidery, mid 19th century. Very fine workmanship and unusual design.

*

*

Hat 17

Tajik Lakai Dome Shaped Embroidered Hat.  Tajikistan.  Fourth quarter 19th century.

*

*

Hat 18

Cross stitch hat, Bokhara.  Circa 1900  Russian printed lining.  Exuberant pomegranate design on sides.

*

*

Hat 19

Cross stitch hat, Tajikistan Lakai.  Fourth quarter 19th century.

*

*

The fourth group were Persian Conical Dervish Hats (hats 20 t0 23).

Hat 20

Black Perisan Kerman (possibly Kashmir India?)  dervish hat with long colorful arched branches framing  botehs and rosettes.  Early 19th century.  Printed cotton lining.

*

*

Hat 21

Persian Azeri  Blue Dervish Cap, second half 19th century near Ardebil.  Classic Persian embroidery design with confronting birds and cypress tree motifs. 

Wool brocade, or terme at the bottom edge

*

*

Hat 22

Persian Azeri, Ardebil area,  violet four panel finely embroidered

quilted dervish hat.  Early 19th century. One of the panels has an elaborate anomalous design pattern with confronting birds on a “nest” perhaps reflecting Shia mysticism

*

*

Hat 23

Persian Azeri White quilted Dervish hat with tulips and birds.   

  Early 19th century.  

*

*

A fifth group were Central Asian Longtail Hats (hats 24 to 27).

The next four hats, of the Central Asian, longtail variety, and are hard to show adequately.  Here they are first, together.  Left to right they are Hat 25, Hat 24, Hat 26 and Hat 27.

*

Now, let’s look at them individually. 

Hat 24

Kafir Hat from the Swat Valley, Northwest Pakistan near the  

       Khyber Pass at the Afghan border.  Circa 1900

*

*

Hat 25

Kirghiz girl’s hat with tail.  The tail covers the plaits of the woman’s     

       hair. Fourth quarter 19th century. 

*

*

Hat 26

Tajik girl’s hat with tail.  Circa 1900

*

*

Hat 27

Hunza Valley Longtail winter hat, Northeast Pakistan near the  

        China and Afghan border Hand woven wool, cochineal. Early 20th Century. 

*

*

Here is a front view of Hat 27.

*

The sixth group were Turkmen Hats from Iran and Anatolia (hats 28 to 31).

Hat 28

Yomud Goklan Hat, Golistan region of Persia near Turkmenistan.

       About 1920-30. 

*

*

Hat 29

Turkmensahra Yomud, Helmet shape design resembling Mongol descendant. 

     1900-1920

*

*

Hat 30

Turkmen in Anatolia, near Bursa. Hat with coins, shells, and beads. 

Circa 1900

*

*

Hat 31

Persian Kopet Dagh Hat near Turkmenistan. Totemic design.  Circa

1900

*

*

The seventh group were inscribed Religious Hats (hats 32 to 36).

Hat 32

Persian Dervish Hat.  Early  19th century or earlier.  Embroidery

 in green, the Prophet’s color.  Graceful Arabic script in cartouches

and panels reads in part “If you keep your prayers on the path of

Iman Ali, you will easily get rid of sorrow and unhappiness.”

*

*

Hat 33

Qadirriya Dervish Hat.  First half of 19th century.  Three circles  in

       Ottoman style, Anatolia.  Green six pointed stars are the seal of

       Solomon.  The script reads in part:

       “Descendants of the Mohammed family

       Ebu Bekr and the Prophet, peace and blessings be on them”

*

*

Hat 34

Persian felted dervish hat made of soft baby camel hair.  Early 

        1900s, Connected writing is “ALI” written endlessly.

*

*

Hat 35

Adrebil Qajar religious hat.  Mid 19th century or earlier.  Fine silk

      and couching metallic embroidery of Koranic verses.  Most of the

      writing is about devotion to God and protection of believers.  The

      side bands are designed in a pinwheel format which means

      continuation of life.

*

*

Hat 36

Blue Persian dervish hat with 12 sections.  Curvaceous cartouches.

        Circa 1875.

*

*

The eighth and final group were the Ottoman Syrian Aleppo Hats (hats 37 to 42).

Hat 37

Female Aleppo hat woven mostly with metallic

       and silk yarn in small panels and joined together. 

       Slits on two sides are laced for easy adjustment.

       Late 18th century.

*

*

Hat 38

Ottoman Aleppo Hat with tassel and stylized tulips.

        Early 19th century.

*

*

Hat 39

Aleppo metallic silk tapestry weave in unusual kilim design

       Early 19th century

*

*

Hat 40

Fine Leatherwork hat in the Aleppo style.  Mid 19th century

 or earlier  

*   

*

Hat 41

Sophisticated Aleppo Hat with fine detailed embroidery

        and elegant design.  Circa 1800

*

*

Hat 42

Unusual Aleppo round hat with a velvet base meant to secure

        a turban.  Fine metallic silk embroidery with traditional

        Ottoman floral designs with a French influence. 

Second half 19th century.

*

*

So that’s it: the virtual version of the exhibition on the occasion of ICOC 14.

Walking around it, I heard lots of experienced folks excited about the wealth of the material and the skill and effectiveness of an installation that was to be up for only a few days.

Thanks are due to the owners of this material, who generously loaned it.  You have seen on the gallery labels who they are.

While I took a few of the images here, most came from the lenders or those who were involved in the exhibition.  Special thanks must go to Kurt Munkacsi, Bruce Baganz, Leigh Marsh, Blumenthal/Nicholas, Eric Jamrich, Fred Mushkat, Roger Pratt, Michael Pratt, Karen Bennett, Ken Kepchar and Wendel Swan.  Wendel worked hard to provide images of the exhibition pieces that show themselves at their accurate best.  Roger worked hard with me to select the best photos of the hats and by providing descriptions of them.

But, finally, a huge congratulation and thanks to Wendel Swan for a virtuoso curating of this exhibition, especially since he did it while also serving as the primary producer and arranger of ICOC 14 itself.  His omnipresence act here is impressive.

I hope you have enjoyed this virtual look at this fine exhibition.

Regards,

R. John Howe

 

*

 

*

 

ICOC 14: The Concluding Show and Tell

Posted in Uncategorized on July 3, 2018 by rjohn

The concluding sessions of the ICOC’s held in the U.S. have been sumptuous show and tells.  ICOC 14 ended this way, too.

Arriving early, I encountered the Textile Museum’s Education Curator, Tom Goehner, prepared to give whatever support was required.

*

*

The Myers Room gradually filled.

*

*

*

Wendel Swan, who always facilitates these ending sessions, did so with this one, too.

*

*

I had arranged with Wendel to make an initial presentation. 

I have had, for years, a fragment of Central Asian ikat that I bought from Jim Blackmon.  I asked Melissa Keshishian to mount it for me.  She said that the material is so thin that, if she mounted it on a black background, its colors washed out, and so she had mounted it on a red ground.  This is how the mounted piece looks.

*

*

This piece was part of a robe, the ikat portion bordered by a yellow-ground edging that is not ikat.  As Melissa indicated, the ikat fabric is so thin that one wonders how one could actually wear it as a robe.

Most ikats seem to have red wefts, but this fragment has blue wefts, indicating that it may be of a particular group.

I said that I have shown this ikat fragment to Elena Tsareva, before, and that she has said publicly, and repeatedly, that she thinks it is the oldest item of Central Asian ikat that she has seen.

Well, we know Elena’s work and her presentation, here at ICOC 14, was a virtuoso performance, that many of us are anxious to have published.  I thought this might be the right occasion for recognizing her work, and I said, that, although this piece had been on the wall next to my computer for years and that I had enjoyed looking at it every day, it seemed to me that it should go now to reside with someone who could appreciate it more than I could…and I handed it to her.

Elena said that she was, positively shocked, at this gift, but then spoke to the piece.

*

*

She said that the oldest ikats known are from Yemen in the 8th century.  These pieces have narrow striped patterns.

How old is this Central Asian fragment?  She said “Next time.”

With this presentation made, the show and tell session began.

Click on most images, sometimes more than once, to get larger versions.

ST1

*

*

The first piece was one brought by Sheridan Collins.  It comes with a story.  Sheridan bought it in Uzbekistan.  It was made in the 1980s by Turgunboy Mirzaahmedov, former designer at Yodgorlik Silk Factory in Marghilan, (estab. 1972), who was jailed for 15 years under Soviets, for making ikats as a cottage industry, when it was banned.  His son is currently running the factory.  

Irina Bogoslovskaya spoke to this piece.  

She had given a conference talk the day before on the development of Uzbek ikat and the Yodgorlik Silk Factory.  She called it a “unique” piece, “important” because of who the maker was, given his history. 

Here are some detail images of it.

*

*

*

ST2

The second piece was an ikat coat, estimated by some as 1930s.  Elena thought earlier.  It was describes as “Russian,” made in a Samarkand style.  Less than 30 centimeter wide panels.  Indicates age.

*

*

Details of ST2.

*

*

*

ST4

*

Cheri Hunter brought a silk, velvet, ikat coat.  A child’s garment, seemingly composed of unmatched pieces of silk velvet ikat. 

*

*

Textiles were considered treasure in Central Asia and velvet was the most valuable of them.

*

*

Details of ST4. Made during the 20th century, in the Middle Amu Dyra area, from Bokhara velvet.

*

*

*

Embroidery on the sleeve was said to be possibly Middle Amu Dyra.

*

*

The next piece was an Indonesian wrap-around, cotton, skirt, in ikat.  Amy Rispin said that she had bought it in Ireland.  She wanted to know more about it

ST5

*

*

Details of ST5.  Comment in the room placed it in the Babu island part of the Indonesian archipelago.  Warp-faced.

*

*

*

After publication, David Fraser wrote:

“I spotted one error (I think) that you might want to correct. ST5 looks to be a man’s cloth from the Indonesian island of Savu (not Babu, as cited in the text).
*
“For your reference, I have attached the image of a Savu textile that Barbara Fraser and I purchased in the town of Badu, on the island of Savu, in 1991, and  gave to The University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in 2015.”
*
*

ST6 was an amazing, Uzbek, sleeping blanket. with wonderful color.  Brought by Michael Seidman.

ST6

*

*

It was woven in four strips and then sewn together.  Elena said that she wants a photo of this piece for a book she is doing on Uzbekistan carpets.

*

*

Very traditional. Some question about whether it could be “Arab,” but consensus was that it’s Uzbek. One commentator said that this rug is typical of Samarkand.  Another seemed to suggest that the diamond devices were originally “turtles.”

*

*

Said to be goathair warps.  These pieces are woven with symmetrical knots on raised warps only, on an open shed, and so the front color and patterns are not visible on the back.  The back is warp-faced.

*

*

ST7

*

*

ST7 is a full-pile Yomut mafrash face, with very soft wool.  Its owner said that it is the only Yomut piece he has seen, with an asymmetric knot open left, that has no other “eagle group” features ( Troost  is said to have published some others).  David Reuben’s study of Yomut weavings with asymmetric knots suggests that this is a rare piece.

Damaged hanging cords still attached.

Details of ST7.

*

*

*

*

ST8

Next three piece were from the “Okbash Collection of Frances Plunkett.”  The first one a piece that appeared in Turkmen (1980).  Jon Thompson described it, there, as a Yomut “strut pole cover, ok bash.”  It is full pile.

*

*

It was then in the Jerry Thompson collection.  Jerry said that he knew of no other in which the “syrga” element is used as the exclusive field device.  That device is frequently used as a border.  Comment in the room was that the “syrga” device likely descended from a tessellation.

Elena spoke to this piece, saying that she thinks its small size, and the fact that it in pile, make her doubt that it was made to be a tent pole cover, and that it is more likely a spindle bag, one of a pair. 

Frances, and some of the rest of us in the room, doubt whether this piece is too small to have been an ok bash.  I know that the opening on this piece (and that on some smaller ones) is large enough to admit one half of the strut poles of a usual-size Turkman trellis tent.  I have used Peter Andrew’s indications in his two-volume work on trellis tents (he gives the diameter of usual struts and how many would be in a usual Turkman tent) to demonstrate that the openings on some “smaller” pile pieces with ok bash-seeming formats, are large enough to admit a bundle of one half of the tents struts from a usual Turkman trellis tent.  Of course, this just demonstrates what is possible, not what a given piece in the ok bash-like format was made and used for.

Elena also said that she said that she prefers to place this piece in the “Caspian” group, articulated in her more recent efforts to break out parts of the Yomut group (see her treatment in her book on the Neville Kingston Collection).  She described the field motif as an “ear-ring” pattern.

*

*

Elena said that ST9 is a ‘fantastic” piece and agreed that it has a size and structure appropriate to an ok bash. Elena said there are no studies of Turkman flatweaves and so she could not offer a clear attribution.

ST9

*

*

She said maybe in the southern part of the Yomut region.  The white is cotton. Edges were added later.

*

ST10

ST10 was another flatwoven ok bash, good color, with diamond forms arranged diagonally.

*

*

Frances said that this piece was found unopened and that, in her experience, the tassels on unopened pieces of this sort seem to be original.

Now we moved to some Kyrgyz weavings: the “chavadan,” a variety of bag.  

ST11

*

*

The owner of this piece said that he would be interested to hear from anyone who knew something about the origin of the small devices in the corner of the guls (detail below).

*

*

In an email after, Elena was wiling to venture a bit about the device above:  “The pattern you ask about is rare, but very stable, which points to its old/ancient origin on the one side, and special meaning on the other. Never studied it specially, thus can’t say more than that. Will think about it, in particular, because the composition has definite relation to early Turkish carpets, which we see on Italian paintings, etc.”

ST12 was also said to be a Kyrgyz chavadan.  Comment in the room indicated that the designs, in ST12, include male and female symbols, and project notions of marriage.

ST12

*

*

I remembered that Antipina, the Kyrgyz scholar, had said that the chavadan had “it’s place in the juk in the yurt, and continues even today in the modern household.” (O’Bannon, translation in 2000 of a 1962 Antipina text).  She said “the chavadan is put at the very bottom (ed. of the juk) with the decorative side facing out so that it may be seen. 

The juk was a place in either the tent, or a recessed area in a house, where the families “wealth” in textiles was displayed.

Here is a juk in a house.  This photo is in Antipina’s book in the section where she treats the chavadan. Pulgon is a village in Kyrgyzistan. It’s not clear from this photo whether chavadans are being used.  Something is at the bottom of the right and left stacks.

*

*

In an email after, Elena said: “Chavadans: yes, their place in a yurt is at the juk bottom; in case the ‘foundation’ is made by a wooden chest — chavadan is put just above the chest — the images you sent show this very well.”

Trying to describe these chavadans resulted in a personal learning experience for me.  First, apparently, many non-Turkman groups made similar textiles.  The Uzbeks made “mapramach.” The Karakalpaks made “Qarshins.” There may be other instances.

The important thing I learned (and I may be one of the few in the world who did not know this) is that all of these varieties are box-shaped storage bags like those we see a lot made by Shahsavan and various Caucasians.  They are NOT envelope-type bags.  We see mostly the fronts and the sides for a familiar reason: dealers remove the less interesting parts of complete bags to make more salable textiles.

I have not found any images of complete Kyrgyz chavadans, but there are lots of images of parallel formats.  Here, for example, is an image of a complete Karakalpak “qarshin.”

 *

And Jozan.net currently has up this image of a complete napramach.

 

A complete Napramach from the Collection of Reinhard Blanck and Stefan Dobadka.

The front and the two sides are knotted, the back and the bottom are made of simple but strong woven cloth.

You can see and learn more on this link: https://www.jozan.net/the-napramach-–-an-ancient-suitcase-and-chest/ 

This site says that the word “chavadan” originates from the Russian word “chemodan” – a suitcase.  Duh!

Even the frequently encountered pieces with three joints make sense when we see that they are the sides and ends of a box form.

Napramach from the Collection of Reinhard Blanck and Stefan Dobadka.

As noted above, the Kyrgyz “chavadan” seems to be the same in form and use as the Uzbek “mapramach.”  The latter were sometimes woven, but also done in other ways (e.g. embroidered among the Lakai and others).

I have found one photo that seems to show mapramach being used in the way described above for the chavadan. 

The photo below shows a couple in the interior of an Kungrad Uzbek tent, again showing the use of the mapramach at the bottom of the juk.

(click for a larger version of this image)

*

By permission of Anahita Gallery Photo Archive Photographer Belkis Khalilova Karmysheva.

*

Maybe most folks knew, but the fact that chavadan, napramach and qarshin bags are box-forms was certainly not, previously, clear to me.

The next piece was a large fragment of a Central Asian tent band.

ST13

*

*

It has been brought by Paul Ramsey,

*

*

who said that it was full pile with an asymmetric knots open to the right, but that its structure is different from other Central Asian pieces he has seen.  He said that he bought it in Turkey about 15 years ago.

Elena said that it is Chodor.  Its green is typical.  Camel hair warps and wefts.  Some warp depression. 19th century. (John Wertime observed that we ought to consider more often than we do that materials in such a piece might include goat hair.)  

*

*

Alberto Boralevi said that he has a similar piece that is later.

*

*

Wendel Swan asked why such a piece would be made in full pile.

*

*

Elena said, perhaps, the weaver did not know how to make such a band in mixed technique: weaving it in full pile is like weaving a little rug, nearly any weaver could do it.  Weaving bands in a mixed technique is more difficult (Aside: Marla Mallett and Josephine Powell believe that weaving mixed technique tent bands is difficult enough that they were likely woven by specialists.)

The next piece was a fragment of a Turkman chuval with a mina khani field design.  Middle Amu Dyra.  Bought, years ago, from Michael Craycraft.

*

ST14

*

*

Closer details.

*

*

*

The opulent use of silk in this piece makes one wonder who would dare to cut it up, but, of course, we know that this happened frequently.

 The silk in this piece is insect-dyed, but there are also areas of insect-dyed wool.  Jurg Rageth found that insect-dyed wool in Turkmen pieces often had more than two plies and that this feature indicates a piece woven before 1850.

*

*

Examination of the area in this fragment with the orange-ish shade (image above) suggests that this area is wool, dyed with cochineal.  The wool in this area also has more plies than does that in others.  Suggests that this piece was likely woven before 1850.  Elena said that it is “superb work” and agrees that it is early.

The next two pieces had been brought by Michael Rothberg.

*

*

 

The first of these is the piece below.  It is so unusual that I’ve asked Michael for his description of it.

ST15

*

*

Here are his comments:

Small audience rug? 2 ft 10 in x 2 ft 4 in; mid 19th century

Asymmetric knot (pulled left)  fine weave: 108 knots/sq in.

Weft: dark brown wool (2 shoots); warp: light & darker brown wool, twisted together (z spun)

Colors (10):  aubergine, light green (faded to teal), dark green, red, cobalt, pale yellow, mid-blue, peach, ivory, undyed brown.

Dense handle, not ‘floppy.”

Design: very unusual; bands with white cloud band “aksu” pattern; series of horizontal octagons with “C” motifs inside, plus other forms

Color palette and border treatment strongly suggests CHODOR tribe, but the knot is usually pulled right in old (proto) Chodor pieces. (Proto-Chodor, a term coined by Hans Sienknecht (??) refers to older, finely woven Chodors that have a different weave and color palette from the Chodor pieces dating from after 1875 or so).

Elena Tsareva mused that it might be from an “Eagle Group” source, but I don’t see it. The colors are completely different, and the design is not seen in “Eagle Group” pieces.

Further, this rug does not really have the dimensions or look of a chuval, despite its size.

The Chodor are known for one-of-a kind designs, as in their “prayer” rugs, so perhaps this weaver was just left handed?

No known similar examples. (Find one, please!)

My thanks to Michael for this fulsome comment.

Details of ST15.

*

*

*

The second of Michael Rothberg’s pieces was the one below. 

ST16

 *

*

Here is Michael’s description of it after this session.

Arabatchi audience rug, mid 19th century. 2 ft 9 in  x 2 ft  5 in; asymmetric knot (pulled left)

Weft: camel hair and undyed cotton (2 strands); warp: wool; pile: wool with bits of silk highlights (four colors: yellow, light green, light pink, purple)

Design:  ll-over “tree” motif, with the ones in white forming an “X”, similar to some ensis: Grote Hasenbalg and ICOC exhibition example, only in a small format.

Border: cross-hatch design on ivory border, as in the ensis.

This piece was likely made for on honored (male) guest to sit on near the hearth; there are a number of Tekke rugs of this size and with the SAME cross-hatch border,

*

*

suggesting a particular use. No other examples of this type in Arabachi are known to me—–published in my first article on Arabachi in HALI.

The next piece was the kilim below.  Its owner invited comment.

ST17

*

(overall shot a little out of focus; following details are better)

*

*

*

Paul Ramsey said that this was a type kilim seen in the 70s.  Woven in Afghanistan and called “Kaskari.”

The next piece was a large, fragmented Middle Amu Dyra chuval face with an ikat design. Its owner thought it was older, but wanted an opinion. Elena spoke to it.

ST18

*

*

She said that it is older, Southern Amu Dyra, with an open left aymmetrical knot.  The warp is goat hair.

Details of ST18.

*

*

Elena said that it is rare to see the eight-pointed stars that are in the borders.  She said that it was likely made for sale and may have been a rug rather than a bag face.  The dyes are all natural despite a lower area where the red ground has a faded look.  Elena said that the bottom elem design that we can only see the beginning of was beautiful.

*

*

She said that the bright blue in the upper gul interiors is unusual for this area.

The next piece was very long.  If you look at the bottom of the image below, you’ll see that it goes on for a considerable extent beyond what could be shown on the board.

ST19

*

*

This rug drew lots of comment.  This piece is John Wertime’s.  It will appear in his forthcoming Hali article.  John spoke to it, saying that it has a goat hair ground and dyed sheep’s wool pile. Symmetric pile knots.

He said that, too often, technical analyses say “wool” when goat’s hair would be more accurate.  He argued that if we do not get the basic materials from which textiles are made right we are doing a disservice to analysis.

*

*

Elena said that its length suggests that it was used for a gallery or porch.

*

*

Alberto Boralevi said that his first impression was that it might be Moroccan.  Attribution suggestions included: Afghan, Pashtun, Central Asia and non-Turkman Central Asia.  Wertime has said that this rug is of uncertain origin.

*

*

*

The designs and colors on the pile side are visible on the back.

*

*

The next piece was a pile rug brought by Fred Mushkat.

*

*

ST20

*

*

Fred said that this rug was woven in Jiroft, Iran.  South Central about 140 miles south of Kerman (the dot is Jiroft).

*

*

He said that this is described as a “gabbeh” pile carpet.  This is a little known group with minimalist designs.  The foundation is goat hair and the pile is wool. Pile not quite as long as southwest Persians rugs that are also given that name.

Details of ST20.

John Wertime said that this is a great example of this genre. *

*

He pointed to the use of countered weft twining.  He was referring to the single row of chevrons at the top and bottom of the rug. You can see them in the image below.

*

*

*

*

In the image below, the back of this rug is folded up over the front showing that the knotting is of the most usual kind.

*

*

The next piece was a fragment with great color, drawing, and monumental design devices.  It was brought by Michael Seidman.  This is part of a very large Kurdish rug woven in the Saujbulagh area of Northwest Persia

ST21

*

*

Comments included praise for the quality of the wool and the sensational colors that Kurdish weavers often produced.  Also their wonderful drawing with large scale motifs.

Details of ST21.

*

*

*

The next rug was another Saujbulagh Kurd, over 20 feet long.  You are seeing less than half of it here.  It is Austin Doyle’s who said he acquired it “from a Boston estate and Ali Aydin.”

ST22

*

*

Again the spectacular color and the monumental drawing that does not neglect smaller devices.

Let me try to bring you closer with details that walk down its visible part.

*

*

*

*

*

And, here, is a bracketed section of its border system.

*

*

ST23

*

Colin England brought the next piece and said that it is a 20th century copy of a well-known Mughal rug.  Made in India, probably Kashmir. Pashmina, likely sheep.

*

*

The field pattern is a tessellation, marked off by the white lines.

Deails of ST23.

*

*

*

*

*

The next rug was brought by Michael Seidman.  He said that is a Kurdish variant on a serrated leaf motif seen in “vase” carpets.  The Burns book on Kurdish rugs has several.

ST24

*

*

Elena said that it could be Karabagh.  That there are two groups, one with long pile and the other with dense, short pile.

*

*

*

Michael said that the outer border is typical of Central Asian embroideries.  The main border is found in flatweaves of NW Persia and the southern Caucasus.

*

*

The next two pieces were brought by Gerard Paquin.

*

*

ST25

*

*

Shahsevan sumac.  Woven in the Moghan-Savalan area.

John Wertime said that, “with the variety of motifs, it almost looks like a sampler of Shahsevan designs, though it is of course it is not a sampler.”  He also said that it is a premier example of fine Shahsevan weaving, and that he did not know of a comparable, published example. 

Gerard said that this piece is very finely woven and cited its range of colors.  

Gerard also mentioned that he had purchased it recently from Rodney MacDonald, an upstate NY dealer who had gotten it locally out of a house over 15 years ago, and had kept it in his own collection, until parting with it recently.

*

ST26

*

*

Gerard’s second piece was a small sumac bag with tassels. It’s less fine that ST25.  Again, the range of color was noted and the fact that the field devices are outlined in different colors to increase their visibility against the dark blue ground. Transcaucasus.

 He said that it presents itself, at first, as a mystery piece, since the tassels hang downward from the opening on the bottom of the bag, and, unlike to most bags, instead of having a plain weave back, the front and back are in  identical patterning, as though the bag was meant to be seen in use from both sides. 

Gerard, in conversation afterward, supplied an image of a comb and a wooden cover used for protection from the sharp spines for when the comb is not in use.  This comb is likely Turkmen, based on the stamped decoration.  

*

*

But the Shahsevan, and other groups, used combs of the same configuration.  Below are Shasevan women combing wool on such a combing tool.

*

*

In the image below, a wooden cover is about to be placed over the two rows of pointed teeth in the Turkman comb.  It’s clear that a covering is needed for safety, especially in the close quarters of a tent.

*

*

And in the image below, the wooden cover is being slid onto the two rows of teeth.

*

*

Below is Gerard’s “comb cover,” placed over the Turkmen comb, as a demonstration of its possible use.  

*

*

John Wertime said that this comb cover is not a form that he is familiar with, and that, if correct, it is a rare item.  The downward hanging tassels are fashioned from wrapped warps, and so appear to be original to the piece. 

Gerard is not aware of any pictures documenting such use, and would be very interested if any could be found.

It may be redundant with many readers’ experience but “combing” wool is distinctive from “carding” it.  Combing fibers is a much older process, probably because it employs a simple and logical tool, such as the one illustrated here, consisting of one or more long, slender, pointed teeth.  Drawing the wool through the comb removes all the short fibers and tangles from the wool.  Spinning the combed yarn yields a “worsted” yarn, which is stronger, smoother and more lustrous than the softer and more “wooley” yarn produced by carded wool.  Combing wool can result in the loss of as much as half of the fleece, depending on the breed of the animal and the quality of the fleece. 

The next piece was another brought by Fred Mushkat.  

ST27

*

*

Fred said that he’s working with John Wertime on minimalist pieces.  This one was Turkish.  Kurdish.  Probably a sleeping rug.  A typical interpretation of an animal pelt design.

*

*

It is composed of three square pieces. The knotted pile is of unspun 6-inch wool.  The back has a quite different appearance.  The lower half of the back is being held up in the image below.

*

*

Below is a larger detail of the back.

*

*

This back is wonderful and not minimalist.

The next piece was another sleeping rug.  A little wilder looking.  Two pieces sewn together.  Long, heavy pile is from unspun wool.  Initial impression was that it was possibly made in Eastern Europe.  The brown in this rug is from goat and the yellow pile is from sheep.

ST28

*

*

One reason for suspecting an Eastern Europe making is that this piece has a possible good purple in it.  Purple from natural sources had died out in Turkey for a long time, until Josephine Powell discovered how to make it in her kitchen sink.  In the interim, after natural purple has died out in Turkey, it was still being made and used in Europe. Post conference, a chemical analysis showed that the purple is a chemical dye.

*

*

The back is not elaborate.

*

*

*

ST29

The next rug was another in this minimalist group.  This was described as a Moroccan rug.  This piece may have been dyed after completion of the weaving.  There was also comment in the room that the gradual chromatic progression could have been the result of using different shades from the animals.  The browns from goats, the yellows from sheep (although there are goats with different color coats).

*

*

This is knotted pile with multiple rows of weft between pile knot rows.

*

*

*

ST30

Wertime said that this piece is from mohair.  It is called a “filikli.”  Unplied pile is knotted on four warps.

*

*

*

*

*

The last of the minimalist rug was the one below.  It was woven in the Siirt area in southeast Anatolia, using variously colored mohair taken directly from the goat.

ST31

*

*

It was woven in plain weave on cotton warps, 

*

*

and then had the surface brushed up with a dried thistle, on one side,

*

*

to form a faux pile in some areas.  These pile fibers are not the ends of knots.  They are pulled up parts of continuous wefts.

*

*

The back remains entirely flat-woven.  Wertime has said that this structure is one of the oldest versions of pile known.

*

*

The next piece had been brought by Connie and Jim Henderson, a recent gift.   It featured a wide, rich palette (10 colors) and dense, precise weft-float, brocade patterning.

ST32

*

*

Here is a slightly closer image of ST32, taken with a different camera (click twice to see a much closer version).

*

*

Two seeming separate flatwoven panels that Wertime said had been made to be a single bag.  Wertime placed it in the northwestern Caucasus.  A source, after, said that it is probably Kurdish.  There are hints of similar work in Wright & Wertime, Caucasian Carpets and Covers (1995) from considering combined comments and patterns about pieces shown on pages 111, 114, 146-147.

Here is the back of ST32.

*

*

Additional details of ST32.

*

*

*

*

ST33

The next piece was a complete mafrash bedding bag.  It was described as “trans-Caucasian.”

*

*

Zili weave.

*

*

Some brocading.

*

*

The next piece had been brought by Marshall and Marilyn Wolf.

ST34

*

*

This is a 20th century Central Asia (Kyrgyz) tent band.  Great graphics.  Elena suggested Uyghur, a bit farther to the east.

*

*

That’s Marilyn on the right in the photo above, returning to her seat, after demonstrating how best to show this piece by doubling it back and forth across the board.

The dark blue ground is on cotton and may have been dyed before the designs were applied.  Almost no repetition of design elements.

*

*

The designs are entirely in silk embroidery: double chain stitch.

*

*

The next piece was the second of several Caucasian pile rugs brought by Austin Doyle.  He said it was southern Caucasus, from the 1975 Shurman Marshall estate sale. Possibly Kurdish.

ST35

*

*

Details of ST35.

*

*

*

*

*

T36

Austin said that he got this second piece from Grover Schulz in Chicago.  Similar to a piece in the Rudnick Collection.  An older south Caucasian rug.  Has never seen another like it.

*

*

Details of ST36.

*

*

*

Austin’s next piece was a Marsalli rug with a niche field design. Silk wefts.

ST37

*

*

It has a curvilinear niche, seen to be an indicator of age.

*

*

And the color patterns of the field compartments make a “V” shape.

*

*

Two additional corner shots of this nice piece.

*

*

*

Austin’s next rug was from NW Iran, likely Karadagh.

ST38

*

*

Attention was called to the cartouche borders.

Here are some details images of it.

*

*

*

*

ST39

Austins’ next rug took us back to the Caucasus.  An unusual Fachralo Kazak, with a niche field design.  Again a shallow niche. 

Interesting hands but also feet at the bottom of the field.

*

*

The main border design’s large palmette devices tempt an “insect” description,

*

*

More detail images of ST39.

*

*

A cartouche above the niche that seems to be intended to carry a date, but the marks on it are not legible characters.

*

*

ST40

The last piece of the day was small “city” rug brought by Colin England.  Made in the early 20th century, known as a “Kum Kapi.”  This rug is signed in multiple places by Zareh Penyamin, one of the most famous weavers of the Kum Kapi school.

*

This rug has both silk pile (as well as warp and weft) and silver-wrapped flat-woven sections.  About 500-600 knots per square inch.

More detail images on ST40.

*

*

*

*

Marshall Wolf stood in the audience and said what good session this had been, with interesting, quality material and knowledgeable comment.

Wendel Swan brought the session to a close and ICOC 14 was over.

After, gifts were given to the three presenters who gave talks in the academic sessions.  The lady on the left is Shirin Melikova, director of the Azerbaijanian Carpet Museum in Baku. She has a small Kyrgyz pile rug.  The lady in the middle is Irina Bogoslavskaya.  She was given six books on Russian printed cottons, but they were too heavy to hold up.  The lady on the right is Elmira Gyul and has a rolled up Uzbek kilim.  Irina and Elmira are experts on Uzbek, embroidery, textiles and carpets.

*

*

My thanks to those who helped me construct this virtual version of the concluding session of ICOC 14.  Thanks, especially, to Margaret Jones, Jim Henderson, Fred Mushkat, John Wertime, Gerard Paquin, Michael Rothberg, Elena Tsareva, Saul Barodofsky, Andrew Hale, Colin England, Austin Doyle, Frances Plunkett, Alberto Boralevi and Ivan Soenderholm, at Jozan Magazine. 

I hope you have enjoyed it.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Dealers’ Fair at ICOC 14: A Second Look

Posted in Uncategorized on June 11, 2018 by rjohn

Dear folks –

ICOC 14 is over and the associated dealers’ fair is no more, but there was a second reception on Saturday, June 9, and I thought you might to enjoy having a second look.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Again, the participating dealers were:

*

Fair Dealers directory

Amir Textiles and Rugs                     

– Amir Oskouei –

141 Park St., Beverly, MA 01915/USA

Tel. +1/ (603) 205 41 49

Email: amirtextilesandrugs@yahoo.com

Internet:  http://www.rumirugsandtextils.com
Booth No. 17

 

Aydin Oriental Rugs                           

– Ali Aydin –

22 Grotto Court

Germantown, MD 20874 / USA

Tel.: +1 / (301) 792 72 26

Email: rugsdc@yahoo.com

Internet: http://www.aorientalrugs.com

Booth No. 9

 

Gallery Aydin                                      
– Adnan Aydin –   

Küçük Ayasofya cad. 5/B,

Sultan Ahmet Istanbul, Turkey

Tel. +011/ 90 (212) 513 69 21

Email: adnanaydin73@gmail.com

Internet: http://www.galleryaydin.com
Booth No. 1

 

B. Bolour                                              

– Noah Bolour –

932 N. La Cienega Blvd

Los Angeles, CA 90069/USA

Tel.  310-289-7959

Email: noah@bbolour.com

Internet: www.bbolour.com

Booth No. 11

 

Fred Hazin                                            

– Fred Hazin –

1452 Broadway

Burlingame, CA 94010 / USA
Tel.  +1 / (503) 351 11 75
Email: fredhazin123@yahoo.com
Booth No. 4

 

HALI Publications Ltd                        

– David Young –

8 Ability Plaza, Arbutus Street,

London E8 4DT, United Kingdom
Tel.  +44 (0)20 3727 4945

Email: david.young@hali.com

Internet: www.hali.com

www.cover-magazine.com

Booth No. 10

Fazli Solak                                            

– Fazli Solak –

2417 Ellsworth St  Suit A

Berkeley, CA 94704 / USA

Tel. +1/ (310) 254 5075

Email: fazlisolak@att.net

Booth No. 15

 

Hazara Gallery                                    

– Mohammad Zavvar –

6042 College Ave.

Oakland, CA 94618 / USA

Tel. +1 / (510) 655 3511

Email: hazaragallery@gmail.com
Internet: http://www.hazaragallery.com

Booth No. 16

 

Ibrahim Tekin                                      

– Ibrahim Tekin –

Binbirdirek Mh, Peykhane Sk.

Ersoy Apt. No 48-2,

Fatih, Istanbul, 34122, Turkey

Tel.: +90/ (530) 881 26 44

Email: rugspecialist@yahoo.com

Booth No. 14

 

Lote Hali                                               

– Fahrettin Isik –

Binbirdirek Mah.Klodfarer Cad. Servat Hani No: 29/206 34122
Fatih, Istanbul, Turkey

Tel: 0 90 532 331 4366

Email: fahrettinin@gmail.com
Internet: http://www.ottomangallery.com

Booth No. 17

 

Owen Parry                                         

– Owen Parry –

The 5 Bells, Llanelli Church,

Gilwern Abergavenny, UK

Tel. +44/ 7771 901130

Email: owenrugs@gmail.com

Booth No. 7

 

Ramazan Boga                                   

– Ramazan Boga –

Klodfarer Cad. No. 29/D

Sultanahmet Istanbul, Turkey

Tel. +009/ (054) 2689 10 68

Email: anatolianrugs34@gmail.com

Booth No. 9

 

Remart Antique Galleries, Inc.        

– Rodney McDonald –

24 Strathallan Park Rochester,

NY 14607 / USA

Tel. +1 / (585) 259-6156

Email: rodneymcdonad.remart@

gmail.com

Booth No. 13

Yoruk Rug Gallery/Minasian Rug Co.

– Mete Mutlu –

1244 Chicago Ave

Chicago, IL 60618 / USA

Tel.  +1 / (773) 600 9130

Email: yorukrugs@gmail.com

Booth No. 12

East of the Bosphorus                       

– Nicholas Wright –

Tel: +1 / (413) 458 5841

Email: wrightnh@roadrunner.com

Booth No. 6

 

Fine Rugs                                              

– Hamid Rafatpanah –

16 North Bryn Mawr Ave Unit 465

New York City, NY/USA

Tel.: +1/ (212) 696 0510

Email: oldcarpets@aol.com

Booth No. 8

 

James Cohen Antique Carpets         

– James Cohen –

Park Royal Oriental Carpet Centre London NW10 6NF, UK

Tel.: +44/ (0) 7747 610 248

Email: jamescohen50@hotmail.com

Internet: www.jamescohencarpets.com

Booth No. 3

 

Semerkand Textiles                            

– Osman Balbaros –

Yaglikcilar caddesi Astarci Han Kapali Carsi No 3. Beyazit – Istanbul, Turkey

Tel. +0/ (212) 526 2269

Email: balbaros.osman@gmail.com

Booth No. 5

 

Seref Özen Tribal Rugs and Textiles

– Seref Özen –

Küçük Ayasofya cad. No 15,

Sultanahmet Mah. Fatih

Istanbul, Turkey

Tel. +90/ 5337606792

Email: serefozen@gmail.com

Internet: http://www.serefozen.com

Booth No. 2

 

Serkan Sari

– Serkan Sari –

Waldstr. 71 76133

Karlsruhe Germany

Tel. 0 49 721 267 13

Email:  info@serkansari.com

Internet: http://www.serkansari.com

Booth No. 8

 

Hope you enjoyed this second look.

R. John Howe

*

A Walk Through the Dealers’ Fair, ICOC 14, 2018

Posted in Uncategorized on June 8, 2018 by rjohn

 

Image may contain: sky, twilight and outdoor

This afternoon the Dealer’s Fair for the ICOC 14 opened here in Washington, D.C. in the Hamilton Hotel at 14th and K Sts. NW.  The dealers had a reception and my wife, Jo, and I walked around it and took some photos.

What follows in this post is a series of these photos without text.  There’s a lot of good material being shown.  The dealers’ fair is open to the public without charge.  You could still get there is you are close enough.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

That’s what I could manage, in a comprehensive ,but interrupted, walk – lots of folks to talk to on the way.

The dealers’ fair with be open:

Friday, June 8       11:00am – 10:00pm

Saturday, June 9  11:00am – 10:00pm

Sunday, June 10  11:00am – 5:00pm

Again, it’s free and open to the public.  You could get here, if you’re close.

Here’s a list of those dealers participating:

Amir Textiles and Rugs – Amir Oskouei 141 Park St. Beverly, MA 01915/USA Tel.: +1/ (603) 205 41 49 Email: amirtextilesandrugs@yahoo.com Internet: http://www.rumirugsandtextils.com Booth No.: 17

Aydin Oriental Rugs – Ali Aydin 22 Grotto Court Germantown, MD 20874 / USA Tel.: +1 / (301) 792 72 26 Email: rugsdc@yahoo.com Internet: http://www.aorientalrugs.com Booth No.: 9
Gallery Aydin -Adnan Aydin Küçük Ayasofya cad. 5/B, Sultan Ahmet Istanbul / Turkey Tel.: +011/ 90 (212) 513 69 21 Email: adnanaydin73@gmail.com Internet: http://www.galleryaydin.com Booth No.: 1

B.Bolour -Noah Blour 932 N. La Cienega Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90069/USA Tel.: 310-289-7959 Email: noah@bbolour.com Internet: http://www.bbolour.com Booth No.: 11 East of the Bosphorus – Nicholas Wright Tel: +1 / (413) 458 5841 Email: wrightnh@roadrunner.com Booth No.: 6

Fine Rugs, Fred Hazin – Fred Hazin 1452 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010 / USA. Tel.: +1 / (503) 351 11 75 Email: fredhazin123@yahoo.com Booth No.: 4

HALI Publications Ltd -David Young8 Ability Plaza, Arbutus Street, London E8 4DT United Kingdom Tel.: +44 (0)20 3727 4945 Email: david.young@hali.com Internet: http://www.hali.com http://www.cover-magazine.com Booth No.: 10

Hazara Gallery -Mohammad Zavvar 6042 College Ave. Oakland, CA 94618 / USA Tel.: +1 / (510) 655 3511 Email: hazaragallery@gmail.com Internet: http://www.hazaragallery.com Booth No.: 16

Ibrahim Tekin – Ibrahim Tekin Tel.: +90/ (530) 881 26 44 Email: rugspecialist@yahoo.com Booth No.: 14

James Cohen Antique Carpets – James CohenPark Royal Oriental Carpet Centre London NW10 6NF Tel.: +44/ (0) 7747 610 248 Email: jamescohen50@hotmail.com. Internet: http://www.jamescohencarpets.com Booth No.: 3

Karavan Art – Owen Parry The 5 Bells, Llanelli Church, Gilwern Abergavenny UK Tel: +44/ 7771 901130 Email: owenrugs@gmail.com Booth No.: 7
Ramazan Boga -Ramazon Boga Klodfarer Cad.No.29/D Sultanahmet Istanbul TURKEY Tel.: +009/ (054) 2689 10 68 Email: anatolianrugs34@gmail.com Booth No.: 9

Remart Antique Galleries, Inc-Hamid Rafatpanah 16 North Bryn Mawr Ave Unit 465 New York City, NY Tel.: +1/ (212) 696 0510 Email: oldcarpets@aol.com Booth No.: 8

-Huseyin Kaplan Binbirdirek mahallesi,peykhane sokak, Ersoy han,38-4/9 Sultanahmet, Istanbul Tel: +90/ (538) 833 50 10 Email: karavanart1@gmail.com Booth No.: 1

Lote Hali -Fahrettin Isik Binbirdirek Mah.Klodfarer CAD servat hani No:29/206 34122 Fatih Istanbul Tel: 0 90 532 331 4366 Email: fahrettinin@gmail.com Internet: http://www.ottomangallery.com Booth No.: 17 Owen Parry– Rodney McDonald 24 Strathallan Park Rochester, NY 14607 / USA Tel.: +1 / (585) 259-6156 Email: rodneymcdonad.remart@gmail.com Booth No.: 13

Semerkand Textiles -Osman Balbaros Yaglikcilar caddesi Astarci Han Kapali Carsi No 3. Beyazit – Istanbul Tel: +0/ (212) 526 2269 Email: balbaros.osman@gmail.com Booth No.: 5

Seref Ozen Tribal Rugs and Textiles -Seref Ozen Sultanahmet Mah.  Kucukayasofya cad. No 15, Fatih Istanbul / Turkey Tel.: +90/ 5337606792 Email: serefozen@gmail.com Internet: http://www.serefozen.com Booth No.: 2

Serkan Sari – Serkan Sari Waldstr. 71 76133 Karlsruhe Germany Tel: 0 49 721 267 13 Email: info@serkansari.com Internet: http://www.serkansari.com Booth No.: 8

Fazil Solak -Fazil Solak 2417 Ellsworth St Los Angeles, CA 94704/USA Tel: +1/ (310) 254 5075 Email: fazlisolak@att.net Booth No.: 15

Yoruk Rug Gallery/Minasian Rug Co -Mete Mutlu 1244 Chicago Ave Chicago, IL 60618 / USA Tel.: +1 / (773) 600 91 30 Email: yorukrugs@gmail.com Booth No.: 12

Regards,

R. John Howe

Sign Up for The 14th International Conference on Oriental Carpets: Washington, D.C, June 7-10

Posted in Uncategorized on April 21, 2018 by rjohn


 

The International Conference on Oriental Carpets will hold its 14th International Conference here in Washington on June 7 -10, centered at, and for the benefit of, The Textile Museum, with events on the campus of George Washington University.  The format will be familiar: a Carpet Fair, with 16 international dealers, from Thursday through Sunday, an exhibition of collectors’ rugs and textiles, at the Corcoran Museum, academic sessions on Friday and Saturday, and a show and tell, on Sunday, with various receptions throughout.

To register, go to the ICOC website and click where it says for further information, etc.  That will guide you into and through the registration on our conference planner’s website.

http://icoc-orientalrugs.org/

ICOC is seeking rugs and textiles for inclusion in the collectors’ exhibition at the Corcoran.  There is no particular theme, so high quality objects from any region will be considered, from small bags to textiles to large carpets.   There will be many pieces from Central Asia and Turkey and Northwest Persia.   Please submit an image and dimensions of what you would like to have included in this world class exhibition to Wendel Swan at wdswan@erols.com for transmittal to the ICOC vetting committee.

ICOC is also seeking volunteers for several aspects of the conference, including help in installing the exhibition at the Corcoran, general help at the conference, help in advertising and promoting the conference and the Carpet Fair, especially through social media.  If you would like to volunteer for any of these tasks or would like to help with anything else, please contact Wendel Swan at wdswan@erols.com or by phone at (703) 960-2021.

ICOC will soon receive copies of a fabulous new book from Hali Publications, entitled Stars of the Caucasus, which is about Caucasian embroideries, and an exhibition of some of them held last year in Baku, Azerbaijan. ICOC is offering the book to those who support The Textile Museum and ICOC at the very favorable rate of $49.  It will be considerably more expensive elsewhere.  If you are interested, please contact Wendel Swan.

Lighting Your Carpets by Michael Kaplan

Posted in Uncategorized on June 20, 2017 by rjohn

On June 3, 2017 Michael Kaplan

*

*

gave a talk at The Textile Museum, here in Washington, D.C., providing practical suggestions for safely lighting your carpet collections in a manner that brings out the beauty of their colors.

Michael Kaplan is a recently retired veterinarian who loves carpets and the collection of the same. He joined IHBS and the Textile Museum to become more involved and knowledgeable about this field and to meet fellow collectors.

He was involved with lining up continuing education veterinary programs for the Greater Baltimore Veterinary Medical Association and served as the group’s vice president and president for the last 15 years before retiring.

Michael began:

(You get a larger version of any image below by clicking on it.)

*

*

I am a newbie to this level of collecting although I bought my first rug over 50 years ago. Aesthetics drove my purchases then as it does now. I want to love the rug. Natural dyes with saturated colors, excellent well thought out designs, lustrous wool and carpets in good to excellent condition are what drive my purchases.

Those criteria do not preclude new rugs. Actually it pushes me towards them since I do not have unlimited funds for antique rugs that meet those goals. Some new rugs can cost up to $300 a square foot but there are companies that come close for less than $100 a square foot. One line I favor is the James Opie Collection. I have nine of his rugs. Structural technical analysis interests me some but less so than many collectors. Unfortunately, one of my other interests is modern architecture and my home has much glass and thus light and thus fading.  I have lost many rugs due to this.

Most rugs show best with spot lighting and wall mounting.  The light frames the carpet and allows the reds and blues to “pop”.  I have found that Soraa MR16 LED bulbs in WAC track lighting fixtures work well and are cost effective.

After that quote we are still going to suggest rugs be wall mounted and spot lighted for preservation and to bring out the beauty of the carpets.*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

LEDs are preferred over incandescents such as halogens and fluorescents for lighting textiles.

 

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

Most home users can afford a visible light meter but not a UV meter.

*

*

*

*

Many MR16 LEDs can be dimmed but watch for flicker. Read specs on bulb and wall switch. When halogens are dimmed the color temperature and CRI can change but not so with some high end MR16 LEDs. LEDs can be dimmed to 5% of their normal output without affecting the CT or CRI. 

*

*

                                                         *

Be very careful with warranties. Incandescent bulbs usually fail before their CT or CRI changes.  With LEDs their CT or CRI usually changes sooner than the actual bulb’s failing. Most manufacturers will warranty the bulb for luminance failure (the bulb blows) but not for changes in CT or CRI, although some warranty for both (or all three). 

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

The above 39″ distance will vary with the bulb specifications. See spec chart for each bulb on manufacturers web site.

*

*

*

*

In Harald Bohmer’s book “Koekboya” he lists different natural dyes and grades each dye on “lightfastness” from inadequate to very good so you can predict to some extent how they will do beforehand. *

*

*

*

Below  (bottom of the following paragraphs) is a You Tube video link that explains the SORAA Snap System.  

You can also access this video by going to Google. Then entering SORAA Snap System. Then click onto “videos” and finding the SORAA Snap System video.  

It is important that you watch the “snap” video. It’s about one minute long.   You may also want to watch a video clip entitled “SORAA LED MR16 Full Spectrum Light Bulb Overview & Comparison.”  This  video is a over five minutes long.  It is usually the third video down on the right side of the page.

There are additional videos listed which also may be of interest but most are advertisements for SORAA or other manufacturers. Thus you may want to exit after viewing the “SORAA LED MR16 Full Spectrum Light Bulb Overview & Comparison” video.

If you enter a loop which repeats the same video just click onto “cancel” and then click onto the video you want to watch. When you are finished watching the videos click onto the <  icon  which will send you “back to previous page”. Keep clicking onto the < until you reach the “lighting your carpets lecture” again and proceed through the slide show. 

https://youtu.be/gfpxHOKizqU

 

 

 

*

*

*

The monopoint is only one option. There are 2′, 4′ and 8′ tracks also available. 

*

*

*

I usually use a white fixture and not the aluminum.

*

*

Least expensive option is to order direct from Garvin although Amazon also offers. This ring allows one to change a 6″ recessed opening to a 4″ opening for a monopoint.

*

*

Works for 4′ x 6′ carpet.

*

*

Works for 3′ x 5′ carpet.

*

*

Changes color temperature. See manufacturers spec sheet for details.

*

*

*

PAR36 VNS (very narrow spot) are low voltage but higher wattage than MR16LEDs. May offer more “pop” than MR16. Are being discontinued.

*

Do not use Velcro with adhesive added. Order online as hard to find this version in local stores. Preferred to most other mounting methods and usually will not damage the textile. Never vacuum the fringe part of the rug. 

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Will not fully block out visible light thus fading will still occur although to a lesser degree. See spec sheet.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Above shows skylight at the end of this room. Brightest source of light in this room. 

*

*

The edges of these vinyl album covers faded due to the exposure to light.

*

*

*

The red rear of carpet faded to brown on the front.

*

*

*

This carpet did not fade at all with extensive light exposure after 28 years. I suspect it has chromium synthetic dyes but could be natural dyes. The beige is just the original wool color.