Re: Why weavers didn't make fragments to begin with

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Salon ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Yon Bard on December 19, 1998 at 09:10:02:

In Reply to: Re: Why weavers didn't make fragments to begin with posted by Steve Price on December 19, 1998 at 05:12:56:

: As for fragments, while there are some that we find interesting and personally collectible, those are only collectible because intact versions are so rare as to be unaffordable. Most fragments of rugs are not good for anything except making pillows - cutting them up and destroying the weaver's work even further. None of us would consider it reasonable to take, say, your Salor juval and cut it into three fragments so you, Yon and I could share it and all get the pleasure now available to only one owner.

: Finally, if fragments in general are such wonderful items, how do we answer the question, Why didn't weavers make fragments to begin with?

: Regards,

: Steve Price

As an example of a fragment that's an object of great beauty in its own right let me cite Cassin & Hoffmeister's half Salor chuval (no. 5), or the other half that was sold in the Thompson auction. Obviously I'd rather have the complete thing, but I'd rather have one of these halves than many a complete piece that I do have.
Early in my collecting career I had a conversation with George O'Bannon. He said that beginning collectors buy rugs, then they buy rags, and eventually they buy fragments. That indeed turned out to be true in my own case, but it applies equally to exalted collections like Kirchheim's 'Orient Stars.'

Regards, Yon

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Salon ] [ FAQ ]