View Full Version : An Ersari (Ali Eli?) chuval with personality

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

David R E Hunt
June 24th, 2016, 03:24 AM
Hi Chuck

Interesting. The diagrams in "Oriental Carpets" and Marla's book are clearly opposed.
I pulled the book out and compared. Hmmm...


Chuck Wagner
June 24th, 2016, 04:01 AM
David (et al.),

....Get a beverage, this is a long one....

Regarding your question about where I think your piece fits, the short answer is - uncertain but OK with my initial guess, late 19th to early 20th century.

I haven't researched any responses to Poullada's article, or anything else he has written. Indeed, on the internet, information on the Ali Eli is sparse at best. I'm sure that people with access to academic material, particularly Russian stuff, have a more complete picture than I. After I discuss your piece, I will include several images of text hoisted from online scanned copies of old British and French field reports.

Poullada apparently has a pretty nice collection of Kizil Ayak and Ali Eli chuvals but like any analysis, it's based on the data he had, and not on data that he didn't have. Other examples are probably out there that might negate some of his definitive criteria. Asymmetry direction is one that I suspect would not survive a full disclosure of all Ali Eli goods - maybe the earlier ones, but probably not the later ones.

On to a few details. First, the minor guls on your piece do not appear in his Ali Eli examples. They do appear in several of his Kizil Ayak examples:


But, your piece is consistent with his Ali Eli criteria - AsymL, major gul characteristics, etc.

Now, in the image from Mackie and Thompson, we can see several features that are identical to those on mine and Dave's newer bags (oddly, I get a better image from my cell phone than from my scanner - go figure):

First image


- At right we can see the double-ended latch hook border element with the diagonal line inside the interior square. Ditto on mine, although it alternates with one with a floral device inside the square on mine.

- At right again, just inside the short edge bars at the edge of the bag, we can see (sometimes) a white triangle-bar motif filling the space between the edge bars and the guard border. Ditto on mine.

- The badam (almond) gul guard borders are consistent with both your and our my piece.

- We see the bars at the edge. Shorter and fatter than on mine, but there nevertheless. Ditto on yours but yours are much narrower. Note that these edge bars occur on none of Poullada's Ali Eli or Kizil Ayak pieces. But some have been cut back and may have originally had them.

Second image:


- The double motif at the center of the major gul is the same as my newer piece, as well as yours, consistent with his Ali Eli criteria.

- The minor guls are very similar to yours; mine does not have the more pronounced diamond at the center.

- Knot direction is unknown but I would bet AsymR. Mine is open right, not open left.

So, what do I think ?

- I think the bars at the sides may be a more recent phenomenon, which is why I am inclined to place yours a little later than some shown in his article.

- I think the presence of the badam gul guard border is a more recent phenomenon. None of Poullada's Kizil Ayak examples have badam gul borders, and only one of his Ali Eli examples has them.

- I think knot direction evolved. Like Mae West said: 'I used to be Snow White, but I drifted..."

So, that's what I think, and why. Also, when I say "my piece" I think that we can say the same about Dave's bag.

INTERMISSION :dancer: :dancer: :dancer:

Now, as for Ali Eli research, here are the historical references I have found. You can all read them and we can discuss later if desired. I will only note that a) the Ali Eli had a few thieves amongst them and b) apparently the nature, and then later Russians, re-routed the Amu Darya at some point, and I wonder what (if anything) that does to Poullada's working hypothesis regarding which bank these folks lived on.













Chuck Wagner

David R E Hunt
June 25th, 2016, 03:03 PM
Hi Chuck

Thanks for the Kizil Ayak images and accompanying historical data.

There seems to be a lot of transposition, between the two tribes, Kizil Ayak and Ali Eli, of these design elements
which point toward some trans-tribal migration of said design elements.

http://adamanddavid1.homest ead.com/Kizil_Ayak_ersari_Tu rkmen_chuval.jpg

http://adamanddavid1.homest ead.com/elemen_4_red.jpg http://adamanddavid1.homest ead.com/element3red.jpg

Compare a rustic Kazil Ayak from my collection with it's major and minor guls


to those of the Kizil Ayak in Peter Poullada's collection.
The minor guls are basically the same and the major guls are both of the archetypal variety,
but the internal drawing of the major gul represents the variable of interest, for this
twelve triangle banner gul found within is used as the major gul of David's bagface.


This twelve trangle banner gul also represents the signature major gul of the Ali Eli. The Kizil Ayak is the antecedent




Chuck Wagner
June 25th, 2016, 07:14 PM
Hi Dave, et al,

To support our discussion, I'll post a couple more composite images from the HALI article. But that's where I will stop; I have discussed this with Steve and we agree that we do not want to exceed reasonable use of HALI's material. I have tried to include attributions for all the material posted above as well, for similar reasons: credit where credit is due.

Let me note that Poullada's structural cafeteria for Kizil Ayak work include:
- Vertical-to-horizontal knot ratio 1.1 : 1, and as high as 2 : 1
- Very spare use of silk, largely in oder pieces
- Evenly spaced vertical rows of square knots
- No cotton in the foundation, ivory to light brown warps
- Asymmetric open right knots

I'm going to start with a chuval of my own, which I have for years called Ersari but - this thread having rekindled my energy - I am inclined to give it further consideration and wonder if any of you have opinions regarding a more narrow attribution.


Based on the dye job I would judge late 19th century for my piece, below. The borders are consistent with the diamond-in-a-rectangle motif so common on Kizil Ayak work, but that is also found on Ali Eli pieces.

The problem is, this one is asymmetric open left (see below). So, are his criteria less reliable on later pieces, or is this something else ? He says Ali Eli are open left, but makes no mention of dyrnak minor guls.:




I haven't found many chuval examples attributed as Kizil Ayak with dyrnak minor guls, but there is at least one out there (this one is very similar to mine) on RugRabbit, listed as sold, btw:


I have another likely Ersari piece I want to discuss, but I'll wait until we've run out of steam on the Poullada-style pieces. Here are the two composite sets of Kizil Ayak examples from his article, for design comparisons.



Chuck Wagner

David R E Hunt
June 26th, 2016, 09:37 PM
Hi Chuck

When our words fail us, so our definitions. I'm familiar with MM's treatment of textile structure
and of her propensity for self interpretation of the weaving process, which is all well and good
being qualified to do so, but if Marla and Peter Poullada are not on the same page in regard to labeling
knots we have a problem. Or do we?

Dichotomy abounds here, knot count, color, pile height, tribes. This is a trend, a tale of two tribes,
Kizil Ayak and Ali Eli, intertwined in both history and their textiles, the latter morphing into their
present day representatives. In the bigger picture I guess it really doesn't matter whether the knotting
is open left or open right, and the bagface Kizil Ayak or Ali Eli. But as a collector I would want to know,
and am perplexed by this knotting conondrum.

I consulted three resources, two books and the internet and found BOTH knots described asymmetric left.


Chuck Wagner
June 26th, 2016, 10:08 PM

I wonder if the Eilands provide rewards (in the form of 19th century carpet of your choice) for finding typos in their book.

Because I think you found one. I just looked at their description, for the first time, and I think it's backwards. Peter Stone's and Parviz Tanavoli show opposite relationships from Eiland & Eiland, but the same as Marla's; I'll scan and post later. But basically, all the text agrees: if the pile opens to the right of the knot and the wrapped side is to the left, it is open to the right.

Go figure.

Chuck Wagner

Steve Price
June 26th, 2016, 10:14 PM
Hi Dave

I'm more than a little puzzled when people who aren't novices differ in their report of whether a piece is asymmetrically knotted open left or open right. Making the determination isn't mysterious; it involves little more than determining which end was woven first and knowing which wrist you're wearing your watch on.

Is it possible that the knot type is non-uniform in some of these pieces? Perhaps people are accurately reporting the knot type in the small area in which they looked.

Steve Price

Chuck Wagner
June 26th, 2016, 11:19 PM

Here are the drawings from Parviz Tanavoli's "Kings, Heroes & Lovers - Pictorial Rugs from the Tribes and Villages of Iran". He has a pretty good system for coding knot geometry:



Chuck Wagner

David Katz
June 27th, 2016, 05:49 PM
Thank you Chuck for all of the technical and historical references.

I found Peter Poullada's email address online (he is president of the San Francisco Bay Area Rug Society) and sent him the images of my presumed Ali Eli juval. Here, with his permission, is his response:

"Hi David,
this juval appears to show many of the very characteristic elements of an Ali Eli although I have never seen a twenty gul version and the size seems much bigger than usual. Some of the elements that suggest this tribal attribution are: ASL knotting, (unlike Kizil Ayak and 75-80% of Ersari that are ASR), the very characteristic main gul with its little " c" forms in quarters ( whenever you see these you get ASL knotting), the chemche minor guls have typically symmetric layout ie no elongation or width, this form is shared with the Kizil Ayak. The palette seems a bit more brick red than other AE I have seen, at least in this photo, and the use of silk is normal ( almost never found in KA or Ersari) It seems to have more borders than usual but the comparison sample is probably just too small. Nothing out of the ordinary there.

So apart from the number of guls (and I don't really think that is a marker of tribal identity for any of the Turkmen tribes) I think an AE attribution is fine. Appears to have white wool warps which is more like the KA but again is not unknown with Ali Eli, but I can't tell the wefts. Often they are not the same wool color ( again unlike the Ersari who tend to use the same ).
So based on the photos you sent I would have no problem at all attributing it to the Ali Eli.

Hard to tell what age, second half of 19th ? Third quarter ? And most likely Ali Ali of Andkhoy ( Northern Afghanistan ) not Abivard, Southeast of Ashkhabad in Turkmenistan today, the other home of the AE post 1750's.
A nice piece !
all the best


Chuck Wagner
June 27th, 2016, 07:20 PM
Hi David,

A very helpful response. As you have his attention, would you mind asking him to take a look at the images I posted for mine (above) and provide any insight he might have ? It has a vertical to horizontal knot ratio of 1.8 to 1 (5 H, 9 V, on the average, counting on the back), which is one of his criteria for Kizil Ayak but, it is Asym open left, which he says is inconsistent with Kizil Ayak. And then there's the dyrnak guls.

The V to H ratio is well above the 1 : 1 he expects for Ersari pieces.

Chuck Wagner

David R E Hunt
June 28th, 2016, 12:29 AM
Hi Guys

Very good, end of the mystery :)...


Chuck Wagner
June 30th, 2016, 02:48 PM
Greetings all,

Hat tip to David and Steve :cheers: for helping me contact Peter Poullada, enabling an interesting exchange of emails. Peter reviewed and remarked on several detailed images of the pieces I posted earlier, as well as a third (mentioned, but first posted below).

A) Regarding the first , this mid-20th century Ali Eli piece:
These remarks may extend to Dave's bag as well; the two seem to be related.

Peter's remarks:

This one is almost certainly a 20th century Northern Afghan version of the old Ali Eli format.( See Loges) In my day in the 1970's in Afghanistan they would call this Labijar or Taghan, both towns near Shibergan in N. Afghanistan. The weavers themselves were probably sedentarized Ersari and almost all these are ASR, but a lot of the weaving villages were mixed up Turkmen tribal groups who had fled from the Lebab in the 1930's and had to some extent lost a lot of their " tribal " cultural identities, or at least the women didn't weave so " endogamously ". What is confusing is the extent that even in the mid-20th century some of these Northern Afghan weavers managed to continue to use vegetal dyes even though the synthetics started coming in full use in the 1890's.
I am intrigued and fascinated to see that the backs of your pieces are so decorated and wonder if we just aren't aware of the extent of back decoration in older " Ersari " pieces because they have been cut off and discarded for so long !

There was some additional discussion on the photo from Mackie & Thompson; Peter recalled that Pfeiffer's photos were taken near Andkhoy in northwest Afghanistan.

B) Regarding the second piece posted earlier
Peter's remarks:

Let me take on this dyrnak one. It is a very nice example. Sight unseen and without handling it I would say 1880's. The combination of the precise drawing of the guls which are archetypal to the Saryk,but appear in the late 19th in some of the Marv Tekke pieces ( see below for why) the use of the dyrnak-claw minor gul, that main border which is really quite rare, and that they almost always seem to use ASL knotting convinces me that they constitute a separate Lebab-region tribal group, i.e. Not to be lumped into the " Ersari " basket. And I am pretty certain they are not Ali Eli.

Just to restate the thesis and the message: from the 1650's on to the end of the 19th century there were between 25 and 30 different and well-defined
( self-identified) tribal groupings of Turkmen inhabiting this region along the Amu Darya, known from the 17th century onwards as the " Lebab" and now within the Lebap Province of modern Turkmenistan and into Northern Afghanistan.

Karpov's 1926 survey of the region, confirmed by Vinnikov in the 1950's gives us their tribal names, as well as detailing their relative populations and the locations of their weaving villages ( qishlaq). These two sources clearly and unambiguously identity and differentiate for us territories of the four main Ersari sub-tribes ( Bekaul, Kara, Ulugh Tepe and Gunesh), and confirm that there were many many tribes along the river who were NOT Ersari.
When I drove the length of the Lebab on both sides of the river in 2014, all 250 kms from Charjui to Kerki and back, we visited with my guide who was himself a Bekaul Ersari, more than 20 separate tribally self-identified Turkmen groups, including Kizil Ayak ( a silk weaving area and the location of an important sufi shrine ).

But in terms of linking tribes to weavings, we have in current use only four or five " labels " used by the trade to attach to all these Turkmen: Ersari, Kizil Ayak, " Beshir " ( which is a place not a people) and Burdalyk ( also a place ).And I am trying to add Ali Eli to the list. So unfortunately we are stuck with speculations in trying to attach more precise names to weavings even if we can be pretty sure they constitute products of a separate ( as opposed to " Ersari ") tribal group.

But we can derive some hints: in some cases we know precisely which qishlaq a weaving came from, thanks to some of the labels and acquisition cards Moshkova left us. In some cases we have hints: for example the Khalach/Khaladj are from a region north of Kerki on the west bank that has a very high volume of silk production so we can speculatively link use of lots of silk to their weavings. In some cases ( like juvals from the Khojambas region on the East Bank, north of Kerki, inhabited by the Salors) , we do have evidence of ASL knotting, depressed warps and use of " Salor-like " motifs to suggest a connection or speculative attribution. etc etc.

I know this is a long-winded comment, but the point is with regard to this juval: we know from the Persian and Bukharan chronicles that the Saryk came to the Marv Oasis in the second half of the 18th century, and mostly had concentrated there by 1785. But most of our catalogues etc forget to mention where did they come from? Most likely from the Lebab, or perhaps some from the southernmost areas of Khorezm ( Khanate of Khiva) that lies along the river north of the Lebab. And we are told by the Khivan Chronicles (principally the Firdaus al Iqbal) that they were closely associated with a large and important tribal group called the Saqar, who still live on the west bank south of Charjui. So I propose to speculate that there are weavings from this region out there in our collections that are either residual Saryks ( let us call them MAD or Lebab Saryks), who did not migrate to Marv or they could be products of the associated Saqars. But for some reason the Saqars unlike the more familiar Marv Saryks used the ASl knot rather than the symmetric ??
So to summarize, No question in my mind this juval constitutes a separate tribal group, but I have seen and handled only a half dozen of them. So the more the merrier !


Here is my version, a redder pallette and very Saryk style elem, and with yellow and pink silk highlights but I would suggest the same tribal group.

He graciously allowed his piece to be shown; a very handsome piece, and less abused:

C) Moving on to my third piece (images below), let me note a discussion back in 2006, initiated by Jack Williams, featuring an exceptionally similar chuval. Jack hypothesized a Saryk attribution; some other members suggested Ersari at the time.

Here's the link:


Peter's remarks:

On the final one, let me throw out a speculation: an early 20th century weaving of the Lebab region Khojambas Salors. ASL with depressed warps.

Well, that got my attention and I inquired further, and after some additional discussion (not argument) he added:

I am reluctant to accept arguments about attribution only on the basis of design and aesthetics, particularly for 20th century pieces. No doubt there are some very " Saryk-like " features, but then we have trained ourselves to define what is a Saryk based on Russian evidence collected only from Marv, Yolatan and Pende Saryks. And this was after their 100 year interaction sharing the oasis of Marv with the Salors of Marv. Hmm, makes me wonder. And the symmetric versus ASR/ASL technique is a powerful signal, I think.

Now, on to images of the piece in question, followed by some of my remarks and supporting images from the discussion with Peter.

The images; note conspicuous use of silk. Knots are asymmetric open left:








Now some of my remarks to Peter, with images:

CW: I would argue that the crispness of the design execution should count for something, here is mine at left, Ersari center, and Saryk right, from Mackie & Thompsonhttp://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/Mine_L_Ersari_C_MnT_ Saryk_R_MnT.jpg

CW: The trouble with a Saryk attribution is that most (but I think, not all) Saryk work is built with symmetrical knots. If you’re right about my dyrnak gul piece, that’s another argument in favor of non-Ersari. Frankly, I think it is far too nicely done to be Ersari. Snobbish, I know, but I’ve never personally seen an Ersari so well or consistently executed. So Saryk is something I would consider; still, a lot of silk for a Saryk piece. Salor work often has copious amounts of silk.

Additionally, both the pubished Saryk and Ersari analog examples are more cluttered than mine. Salor pieces always seem to have an elegant balance of space and geometrics, as does mine.

Saryk left, Ersari right:
http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/Saryk_L_MnT_Ersari_R _MnT.jpg

Kizil Ayak (left), Saryk (right):
http://www.turkotek.com/show_and_tell/KizilAyak_L_Eiland_S aryk_R_Eiland.jpg

CW: So I am satisfied with a quite late Salor hypothesis – if “feels” right, but I would love to have enough personal insight to be able to justify it to skeptics.

There seems to be a slowly growing body of evidence and opinion that the Salor were present and weaving in the very early 20th C and that they did not just disappear overnight (sneaking away, like the Baltimore Colts). Rather, they gradually dispersed and redistributed over time.

Chuck Wagner

Chuck Wagner
July 6th, 2016, 06:06 AM
HI all,

To wrap this up, I'll add a little more content from some ongoing email discussions I've had with Peter about late 19th and 20h century Salor demographics. His remarks:
There is brief mention of Salors in the MAD in the section of William Woods article " Turkmen Ethnohistory " in the Amstey Collection catalogue Vanishing Jewels: Central Asian Tribal Weavings: A Catalog of an Exhibition at the Rochester Museum,1990. See the extensive bibliography by Wood who was a Central Asian History PhD at University of Indiana and now teaches at a university in Southern Ca;ifornia. Wood refers to Salors in Sayat ( on the Left Bank even though Vinnikov makes it clear the Sayat are another tribe).He adds that the number of Salors along the river are twice the number found in Sarakhs, which most rug books show as the center of Salors in the 19th and 20th century. The map that accompanies Vinnikov clearly shows the main concentrations based on the 1926 census as being along the river north of Charjui and south on the Right bank around Khojambas.In the 1926 census after the four Ersari subtribes, the MAD Salors were the largest population of the tribes in the Lebab Region, and that is still true today in Turkmenistan's Lebap province.
As for the Salors of Northern Afghanistan, it is true there are a few mixed in with the Saryks in Maruchak, as well as with some of the Tekke north of Herat ( where they are all just called " Mauri " ) and just over the border in the Pende oasis, but most of the Marv Salors ended up in Sarakhs, fleeing the Tekke invasion in 1830

Chuck Wagner

July 7th, 2016, 11:40 AM
Dear Mr Wagner:

I did look at the closeup picture you posted of your chuval. The one where you are trying to show the type of knot.

Is your chuval woven upside down? Or did the weaving begin at the bottom? If it is woven upside down, top to bottom, the it appears to me to be open to the right. And converse if woven from the bottom to the top then open to the left. Perhaps this question has already be considered in the much comments this discussion has drawn. If so then it is my fault for missing them.

Best wishes to all,

Hans Kraklemeyer

Chuck Wagner
July 7th, 2016, 01:59 PM
Greetings Hans,

I assume you are referring to the last of the three chuvals.

Terminology: Top and bottom on a vertical loom; far and near, on a horizontal loom.

The term "upside-down weaving" is somewhat misleading. Working on a horizontal loom and starting at the far end, a weaver would have to sit on unknotted warps, making tension management almost impossible. On a vertical loom, starting at the top and working down would cause the newest wefts to tend to fall, and again make tension management very difficult.

So, when we see a bag that appears to have been woven upside-down, a more likely explanation is that we are looking at the second of two bag faces, Starting at the bottom and working upward, the order is typically:

-the first kilim back
-the first bag face
-the middle kilim saddle
-the second bag face
-the second kilim back

(authors note: Duh; wrong; see following posts)

The design on the second bag face is upside-down relative to the first so that when draped over a pack animal, the bags appear the same from both sides. It is a more likely explanation even with chuvals intended to be hung on tent frames; it would be a circumstance where the loom was large enough to accommodate two bags and the weaver had the intent to produce two chuvals on the same warp structure. If you are looking at a bag "woven upside-down" you are looking at the second bag face, likely cut away from the complete weaving.

When weaving, the weaver always pulls the knots tightly toward the completed knot/weft structure - again, because to do otherwise would result in a loose and structurally unsound mess - so the pile points toward the bottom/near end of the weaving.

So, this is definitely open left.

Chuck Wagner

Steve Price
July 7th, 2016, 02:46 PM
Hi Chuck

I don't know whether chuvals were always, sometimes or never woven in the same sequence as khorjins, but the sequence of weaving a pair of khorjins is:
1. First face (beginning at what will be the upper lip of one bag)
2. First back
3. Bridge
4. Second back
5. Second face (beginning at what will be the bottom of the second bag)

In this sequence, one face is woven from it's open end, the other from its closed end.

Somewhere in our Archives is a discussion of this question. My recollection is that it arose because the numbers of extant chuvals woven from the bottom is very different than the number woven from the top.

Steve Price

Chuck Wagner
July 7th, 2016, 03:19 PM


I knew I would get something reversed, and you are right.

Serves me right for typing before my first coffee of the day.

Here is an example of what Steve describes:



Chuck Wagner
July 7th, 2016, 04:24 PM

That said, there are exceptions to that rule, like this Sistani bag which would have to have all the back & bridge kilim work done at one end:


Chuck Wagner

Rich Larkin
July 8th, 2016, 05:25 PM
Hi Chuck,

Great posting of all that material referencing, inter alia, the Ali-Eli. Seems like a good time to make my septo-annual citation of that venerable old chestnut "The Six Blind Men and the Elephant," that so efficiently reflects the traditional approach to the study of traditional weaving from the greater Middle East. As you aptly pointed out a while back (as usual, I'm late to this parade), in regard to Peter Poullada's purported take on the distinctions between the work of the Ali Eli and the Kizil Ajak, "...like any analysis, it's based on the data he had, and not on data that he didn't have." What I appreciate about Poullada, though, is that he at least acknowledges the great complexity of the tribal situation among the Turkomans in particular in any given period. Indeed, it has to be speculative how much the putative weaving practices from an identifiable group in one period can be used in the analysis of material from a different period; and whether it is legitimate to limit the candidates for a handful of more or less similar weavings (e. g., the juvals above) to, say, the Ali Eli and the Kizil Ajak. How about those folks in the various published lists that most of us have never heard of? And where were they in 1830? Or 1873? Or whenever? And what did their weavings look like? I'm guessing we don't know.

I don't advocate ignoring what we do know. Bravo to Poullada! :cheers: Just keep in mind the analyses only take us so far, and must be considered tentative, a fact Poullada understands as well as anyone.


Chuck Wagner
July 9th, 2016, 02:50 AM
Hi Rich,

Well noted; all attributions based on supposition are inherently uncertain. While little can be "known" about Turkmen pieces outside those items properly documented at the time of original accession, I think that studied inference is worth a lot. And as you note, Peter has put some serious effort into his work, and he has not allowed "mission creep" to distract him away from his target demographic. From a separate email discussion on a different piece I own:I will have to go back and check my notes on Erik Risman's and my comprehensive knot count calculations for all known, cataloged " Ersaris" and KA.

In the case of Ali Eli bags, the fact that David's piece meets Peter's Ali Eli structural and design criteria AND also has the very rare hash lines on the sides - allows a tenuous link to be made between that bag and the Ali Eli pieces in Mackie and Thompson (and Dave and my bags). It is an indirect link, but the feature is sufficiently rare to be notable.

In the case of my last piece, I am satisfied with his suggestion of a possible turn-of-the-century Amu Darya centric Salor attribution. Witness this image (the camera strap is 1/4 inch wide):


While anything is theoretically possible, I would be interested to see someone produce a known Ersari, Kizil Ayak, or Saryk piece with a back that looks like that, with a lot of silk, and with a maximally depressed AsymL knot.

I have two Tekke pieces that have a similar appearance due to the fine un-depressed knotting (the chuval is more than 400 knots / in sq). But I have never seen an Ersari piece that looks anything remotely like this.

Not being argumentative, your point is well taken. But also, these are not SWAGs.

Chuck Wagner