CONTEXT AUCTION PRICE GUIDE

narrow field (“rare to find any

where”). Julius Orendi attributed a related example to Genje

(Das Gesamptwissen uber Antike und Neue Teppiche des Ori

ents, Vienna 1930, vol.II, pl.734). A very similar runner with more

vibrant colours, attributed to “possibly Talish”, was sold at

CLO on 1 May 2003, lot 168, for a considerably higher $37,525

(see HALI 130, p.128, where many comparisons and auction

prices are discussed).

was exhibited in Jerusalem in

1986 (Hasson, pl.8).The price is more or less in line with those

paid for other trefoil bordered rugs: Skinner, 2 December 1989,

lot 118, $19,800;Nagel, 20 April 1991, lot 2520, $22,730 (HALI

59, p.171); Nagel, 14 October 1991, lot 1103, DM30,000; SLO,

15 October 1997, lot 77, $9,315; and a rather late piece, sold for

$4,180 at CNY on 9 April 1988, lot 30. The only other published

example we know with this border is Bausback 1982, p.31.

CAUCASIAN RUNNER (DETAIL) LATE 19TH CENTURY

0.91 x3.25M (3'0'' x10'8'') CHRISTIE'S NEW YORK

12 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 75 EST:$4,000-6,000

SOLD FOR:$9,000 Most experts would assign this

runner to the southern Caucasus, but Raymond Benardout,

writing about a very similar rug in his Caucasian Rugs(pl.74),

suggests that his example was “conceivably woven in the nor

thern sector of Talish, close to Shirvan, it could be the by-pro

duct of marriage”. He further comments on the apple-green

SHIRVAN SAF DATED 1292 AH (1875 AD) 1.40 x3.28M (4'7'' x10'9'')

SOTHEBY'S NEW YORK, VOJTECH BLAU SALE

14 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 74 EST:$10-15,000

SOLD FOR:$39,000 This dated ex-Frank Michaelian

Shirvan multiple niche prayer carpet is the oldest known

example. It has been widely exhibited – at the TM in 1974,

‘PINWHEEL’ KAZAK RUG LATE 19TH CENTURY 2.16 x2.59M (7'1'' x8'6'')

SOTHEBY'S NEW YORK, VOJTECH BLAU SALE

14 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 25 EST:$10-15,000

SOLD FOR:$21,600 While no ‘pinwheel’ Kazak can

any longer be considered rare, those with the reciprocal trefoil

border seen here are much less common than thosewith the

‘proprietary’ white-ground border of a continuous line of

hooked rectangles and concentric diamonds. Published by Herr

mann (Von Konya bis Kokand, 1980, no.21, retail DM69,000, it

the Montclair Art Museum in

New Jersey in 1975, the Barry Fine Arts Pavillion in 1984, and

the L.A. Mayer Institute in Jerusalem in 1986 – and is

much published – Ettinghausen et al., Prayer Rugs, pl.30,

Grogan, Town and Tribal Carpets, fig.1, and Hasson, Cauc

asian Rugs, pl.25. For a list of Caucasian safs see HALI 148,

p.113, discussing a Genje saf sold at CNY on 23 June 2006.

KAZAK RUG EARLY 19TH CENTURY 1.5 x2.23M (4'11'' x7'4'')

SOTHEBY'S NEW YORK, VOJTECH BLAU SALE

14 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 62 EST:$30-40,000

SOLD FOR:$60,000 Most rugs with this rare design

of rectangular panels with eight-pointed stars at their

centres are attributed to Borjalu. See RB, 24 May 1997,

lot 46, $12,010, HALI 94, p.133, where the origins of this design

and comparisons such as Schürmann, Caucasian Rugs,

pl.12, are discussed. A late addition to the corpus of compar

able examples is Bennett & Bassoul, Rugs of the Caucasus,

pl.18, where Ian Bennett comments: “…this rug has an unus

ual design, one I cannot recall having seen on a Caucasian

rug from the 19th century or earlier”. The present rug, dated

to the early 19th century by SNY, was exhibited in

Jerusalem in 1986 and was published in Rachel Hasson's

Caucasian Rugs(pl.11). It differs from the cited examples in that

the three panels are octagonal rather than rectangular, and it

has a floral ‘crab’ border, with a variant of the reciprocal trefoil

border seen on the other pieces used here for guard borders.

KAZAK RUG LATE 19TH CENTURY

1.70 x2.21M (5'7'' x7'3'') SOTHEBY'S NEW YORK,

VOJTECH BLAU SALE 14 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 41

EST:$25-35,000 SOLD FOR:$57,000

Raoul Tschebull, in his important article ‘The

Development of Four Kazak Designs’ illustrated a similar

3-medallion Kazak described as “…the apparently early

form”of this type (HALI 1/3, 1978, p.257, fig.10). That

rug and a similar piece in

Herrmann’s SOT VI, 1984, no.25 (retail DM54,000, purchased at

Skinner, 24 May 1984, lot 85, for $5,500) feature serrated leaf borders, called “typical” by Tschebull, while the present rug has

a green-ground rosette border. Based on drawing, proportions and the intensity of the dyes, it is tempting to anoint it best-of

type. As with a number of Vojtech Blau's rugs, it was exhibited in 1986 at the L.A. Mayer Institute for Islamic Art in Jerusalem,

and was illustrated in Rachel Hasson’s catalogue Caucasian Rugs(pl.72). Other similar rugs with this green ground rosette

border include Bennett, Caucasian, no.11; SNY, 16 December 2004, lot 54, unsold against a $12-18,000 estimate; and a

uncommon four-medallion variant, Bennett & Bassoul, Rugs of the Caucasus, pl.6.

KAZAK RUG LATE 19TH CENTURY 1.42 x2.03M (4'8'' x6'8'')

SOTHEBY'S NEW YORK, VOJTECH BLAU SALE

14 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 8 EST:$20-30,000

SOLD FOR:$39,000 Oddly, this rug, of a popular

Kazak type that usually performs well at auction, was pictured in

Thomas Kell and Jay Friedman's 1977 booklet Oriental

Rug Price Guide(p.37) with a recommended price range of

$1,000-$1,500! The most recent auction review of a similar rug,

sold at CLO on 28 April 2005, lot 29, for $25,210, appeared in HALI

141, p.93, where the auction track records of similar rugs

and published comparisons are discussed in some detail.

164HALI ISSUE 151
● PERSIA

● CENTRALASIA

CONTEXT AUCTION PRICE GUIDE

THREE SHAHSAVAN SUMAKH BAGFACES LATE 19TH CENTURY

0.48 x0.51M (1'7" x1'8”) 0.58M (1'11") SQUARE

0.53 x0.66M (1'9'' x2'2'') SOTHEBY'S NEW YORK,

VOJTECH BLAU SALE 14 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 16

EST:$1,500-2,000 SOLD FOR:$3,900

Not everything in the Blau sale fetched exaggerated prices.

This bargain lot comprised three Khamseh region north

west Persian Shahsavan sumakh bagfaces, of which the

prize, a large medallion piece (top), was alone well worth

the price: related bags include: Wertime, Sumak Bags, pl.2

(best of type, Greenblatt & Gelman Collection = Opie,

Tribal Rugs,pl.14:7 = Eiland, A World of Carpets and Text

les, p.144); HALI 120, p.105; RB, 15 November 2002, lot

122, $1,825 (HALI 127, p.146, described as “one of the rarer

designs on Shahsavan sumakh bags”);CLO, 6 April 2003,

lot 93, $5,098 (a complete double bag); SLO, 21 October

1992, lot 45, $6,237 (a pair); SNY, 3 December 2002, lot 84

(unsold, estimate $3,0005,000; and Austrian Collect

ions II, pl.76. The other two faces in the lot were a very

nice bonus,one with two panels of fantastic animals

(middle), the third with bird-like

central motifs.Other lots of good quality antique tribal bags

and bagfaces, both Caucasian and Persian, also performed

well against enticingly modest estimates: lot 19, a typical

Afshar boteh design knotted pile panel (with two Shahsavan

sumakh bagfaces), also fetched $3,900; lot 17, a cruciform design

Shahsavan sumakh bag, with a blue and red striped flatwoven

back (instead of the standard blue and black), predictably

sold for $6,600; and lot 18, a complete pair of Qashqa’i

hooked diamond pile bags, made $5,100.

ESFAHAN CARPET 17TH CENTURY

1.78 x2.77M (5'10'' x9'1'') SOTHEBY'S,NEW YORK

14 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 274 EST:$20-25,000

SOLD FOR:$114,000 Although not a Vojtech Blau rug,

the coat-tails effect produced a very strong price, more than

four times estimate, for this classical red-ground Esfahan

wool pile rug, similar in design to one in the MMA, New York

(Dimand & Mailey, p.71). Rather worn overall, repaired and rep

iled, but essentially complete, it is well drawn with lovely colours.

Earlier in the sale, three 17th century Esfahan fragments also

sold well: lot 111, a cloudband and palmette field fragment,

fetched $7,800; lot 112, a narrow horizontal palmette and sickle

leaf field strip from the Kirchheim Collection (Orient Stars,

pl.73) made $2,160; and lot 113, a blue-ground palmette border

section, sold for $5,100. In a market where certainties of age,

attribution and authenticityare at a premium, it’s hard to lose

with classical carpets, irrespective of their condition or rarity.

SARYK TURKMEN CHUVAL CIRCA 1800

1.04 x0.60M (3'5" x2'2'') SOTHEBY'S NEW YORK

14 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 190 EST:$5,000-7,000

SOLD FOR:$20,400 This regal 9-gül Saryk chuval of

undeniable age and presence from the collection of the veter

an Ohio-based Turkmen specialistE.B. Long was published in

Oriental Rug Review8/2, 1988, p.34, and was included in ‘Rugs

of Rare Beauty’ at ACOR 6 in Indianapolis in April 2002, with the

rectangular patch at the upper left temporarily replaced by red

plainweave. Itis analogous to a rather later 12-gül Saryk chuval

published in the Chicago Rug Society’s Mideast Meets Mid

west, pl.55. It has impressively generous spacing, with particu

larly well drawn, tall and fully articulated güls. The primary

border, too, is lovely. It was bought by a well-known dealer

for a price that does not offer much room for profit, even in

the eternally buoyant Turkmen collector market. Another early

9-gul Saryk chuval (Cassin & Hoffmeister, Tent Band-Tent Bag,

pl.7) was sold at SNY on 8 December 1990 for $6,600, later to

appear in a Ronnie Newman advertisement (HALI 60, p.129),

dated to the 18th century.

TEKKE TURKMEN TORBA MID-19TH CENTURY

1.14 x0.41M (3'9" x1'4'') SOTHEBY'S NEW YORK

14 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 188 EST:$2,500-3,500

SOLD FOR:$6,900 A six-gül Tekke torba from the

Long Collection, published in ORR 8/2, p.34. Prolific Tekke wea

vers produced many torbas in this style. This is a goodrather

than great example as the güls are slightly elliptical in shape.

On the other hand, the compartmented border is a desirable

type. The price paid is fair market value for a true dowry item.

TEKKE TURKMEN CHUVAL 19TH CENTURY 1.22 x0.71M (4'0" x2'4'')

FREEMAN’S PHILADELPHIA 14 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 857

EST:$1,000-2,000 SOLD FOR:$6,500

A lovely example of Tekke weaving, not Arabachi as tentatively

suggested by the auctioneers. Although the border is fairly

standard, and the 16-smallchuval-gül format is not deemed

the most desirable type, the elem is outstanding, and was

undoubtedly the reason it achieved the price level that it did.

Against a very low estimate that proved to be irresistible to Turk

men collectors, it was bid up to a level that may have been more

difficult to attain in a specialist auction venue with a stronger

estimate. Damage notwithstanding, it is a fair price for a

very nice tent-bag face. An almost identical example app

ears in Mackie & Thompson’s, 1980 Washington Turkmen

catalogue, p.205, fig. 66.

ARABACHI TURKMEN ENSI LATE 19TH CENTURY

1.40 x1.45M (4'7'' x4'9'') SOTHEBY'S NEW YORK

14 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 137 EST:$3,000-5,000

SOLD FOR:$8,400 From the estate of the late M.

Allen Swift, who acquired it in the Black & Loveless sale at SNY

in December 1984 for $3,850. Arabachi ensis are undeniably

rare, if not always beautiful, and they have a limited track

record at auction. Since the B&L sale, only three others appear

in our files: one at Christie’s East in June 1988, which fetched

a paltry $4,620, and two at Rippon Boswell, the first, in May

1995, made a healthy $31,725 (HALI 101, p.136); the other, in

November 2005, selling for

$10,540 (HALI 145, p.119). Catalogued as “late 19th century”, it

is possible that the dyes of the present lot included somesyn

thetics, but the art is true to the older examples. Clearly the

Arabachi tradition was not much influenced by external

commercial demands, even at this late date, unlike that of the

Tekke whose design pool and artistry were greatly dimin

ished by contact with Tsarist Russia and market forces.

YOMUT TURKMEN CHUVAL LATE 19TH CENTURY 0.74 x0.99M (2'5'' x3'3'')

SOTHEBY'S NEW YORK 14 DECEMBER 2006,LOT 189

EST:$3,000-5,000 SOLD FOR:$7,200

One of the four pieces illustrated and discussed in ‘A Conver

sation with E.B. Long’ in ORR 8/2, 1988, where it was sugges

ted that the lobed primary gül is similar to a ‘dead göl’ desc

ribed by Jon Thompson in Turkmen, 1980, p.63, fig.34. The gül

is indeed archaic, similar to those in early Yomut main car

pets (Turkmen, pl.67; HALI 136, p.145) and on an early Eagle

göl group trapping sold at RB in May 2004 (HALI 136, p.118).

Similar elem motifs appear on chuvals in David Reuben, Guls

and Gols I, pl.68; Hans Elmby, Antike Turkmenske Taepper III,

pl.18 and Uwe Jourdan, Turkoman, pl.160. Most like the pres

ent piece, so similar that it might have been a mate, is a chuval in

better condition in Herrmann's SOT X, no.94a, with identical

major and minor göls, borders, elem motifs and even the chev

ron stripe along the top. But despite the archaic quality of

the drawing of the lot, and its damaged condition, the fact

that the wool is not particularly lustrous and the weaving a bit

coarse suggests that it was correctly catalogued, probably

third quarter 19th century. A strong price or a rare if not alto

gether beautiful example of Yomut tribal weaving.

HALI ISSUE 151165