Posted by R. John Howe on March 22, 1999 at 21:19:12:
In Reply to: Re: Rarity posted by Michael Wendorf on March 22, 1999 at 19:05:27:
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.
R. John Howe
Post a Followup