Re: Rarity

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

Posted by Marvin Amstey on March 25, 1999 at 09:01:11:

In Reply to: Re: Rarity posted by Tom Cole on March 24, 1999 at 21:24:55:

: : : : : Dear folks -

: : : : : My take on "rarity" is that it is fairly far down the list of criteria in terms of which I usually collect.

: : : : : I think that the reason for that is that "rarity" says nothing by itself about some of the other quailities that I find important like "do I like it?" and "what is its quality?" It is obvious that some things that are "rare" aren't beautiful. I'm not attracted to most Arabatchi weavings because I find the color palette of the great majority of them unattractive. Yet dealers seem never to fail to mention "Arabatchi' nowadays if there is any suspicion that a given piece could be one. Rarity apparently both sells and pays.

: : : : : Now having said that I admit that I sometimes too have tendencies in the direction of rarity. The fact that I had not seen one "in the wool" before, was a factor in my purchase of the humble little Tibetan pony neck band that I have up on our show and tell board. And I also plead guilty to having a taste for quirky weavings, and part of this quirky-ness is usually that they are unusual (this latter tendency is strong enough that I probably own some things I shouldn't own). This aspect of my taste is hard to distiguish from the humbler varities of rarity. Notice, too, that rarity can be a factor in quite inexpensive weavings as well as in those at the top of the market.

: : : : : Regards,

: : : : : R. John Howe

: : : : You certainly hit the nail on the head when you used Arabathchi pieces as examples of "ugly". The piece on offer in this issue of Hali - in the gallery section - is a good example of very rare and "ugly". Who wants it? That's not to say that there are not beautiful Arabatchi pieces, but this one is not one of them. Marvin

: : : Declaring a piece on the market as "ugly" from a photo in HALI seems to me a bit out of line. I would confine yourself to the discussion at hand rather than rugs you probably have never seen. I have seen this torba, in Tucson, and it is not "ugly". Your statements regarding its desireability in a collectors's market is something to be left to the marketplace in general and not your unilateral declaration. I am sure Mr. Terry does NOT appreciate your comments nor would you in a similar position. Taste in rugs is subjective.
: : : To the discussion at hand, I am glad someone else flashed on the postage stamp mentality in collecting, something I mentioned previously which brought no response at the time.

: : I did not mean to disparage anyone; I only voiced my opinion about the aesthestic quality of a particular rug. Clearly we can all have and voice opinions about whether we like a rug or not - or anything else for that matter. Just because a dealer has it and is trying to sell it is irrelevant; it is published and open to comment. You may like a particular painting that I don't. Obviously you like this rug; I don't. Marvin

: You miss the point again, have you SEEN the rug? If not, you cannot judge with any degree of certainty, you are just guessing. There are many published Arabatchi pieces in the literature without having to pick out a piece being currently offered for sale. You would not like, nor would anyone else. And it is not irrelevant. Have you seen the rug? You still fail to mention if you have or not.

No, I have not seen the rug. However, a photo tells me how crowded it is, the overall dark effect, and the poor drawing of a border that is spectacular on some rare Tekke pieces. I grant you that the wool and the texture may be outstanding, but I still have to look at it, and I still do not like it. Marvin

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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