The vase carpet's sad outcome, however, merits closer attention as another case in which matters have not been exactly what they seemed. It had indeed never belonged to the Berlin museums. When it had come into Sotheby's hands for sale, they consulted various people in the field, including one authority who told them off hand that he believed it to be the Berlin rug, sold to buy a treasure (mentioned in the catalog), and referred them to the former Berlin curator cited in the catalog, who apparently confirmed the story. A few days before the auction I received from Dr. Jens Kroger, who has been in charge of the Museum fur Islamische Kunst in Berlin during the extended illness of the Director, Dr. Brisch, a letter complaining about the entry in the Sotheby catalog as "all wrong." He pointed out that there were actually two carpets, Pope having illustrated the Baltimore carpet in the Survey as the Berlin one; and that there is no entry of the vase carpet having "ever left the Schlossmuseum." Having a reasonably good photograph of the complete Berlin rug, Schlossmuseum 98.1 , I could check it against the various illustrations. It was clearly not the same rug as the Baltimore carpet but a quite close counterpart to it, in far better condition. The Berlin carpet's lower part is shown as Pl. 6 of Vol. II of Sarre & Trenkwald. A section across its center appears as fig. 96 of the 1955 Bode & Kühnel and later versions of the same. The upper part is shown as fig. 70 of Erdmann's 1955 Der Or. Knupfteppiche and its later versions. The Baltimore Vase Carpet, and a detail showing the sixth row of palmettes filled with tiny millefleur rosettes. At Sotheby's it was estimated at $100,000 - $150,000. It opened at $50,000 and reached $95,000, failing to sell.

The clearest difference between the two carpets is in the two light-colored panels which lie in the sixth row down from the top of the field, diagonally below the panels with inverted vases. It can best be seen by comparing the cuts in the Survey, Pl. 1222 for the Baltimore rug, with fig. 70 of Erdmann's Oriental Carpets for the Berlin piece. These light panels are ornamented with tiny millefleur rosettes lined up along thin red stems which rise at sharp angles from a central stem, but at the top of the panel these stems are horizontal and this horizontality is carried farther down the panel and handled more obtrusively in the Berlin carpet. These little stems cannot be followed in the color plate in the auction catalog, their redness tending to disappear in a general orange cast. Careful comparison of the two carpets will yield a number of small discrepancies between them, as in the decoration of the inverted vase mentioned, at the left. The Berlin carpet appears to have been in much better shape, without the discolored streaks of reweaving which disturb the effect of the Baltimore piece. Their measurements are very similar. Sotheby gives for the Baltimore carpet 23'6"x8'9". Beattie gave 23'2"x8'10", and the San Francisco catalog 23'2"x8'10". Erdmann gave 23'5"x8'6" (715x260 cm.) for the Berlin rug, three inches narrower. A carpet of that size can vary that much from end to end, even more!

I notified Sotheby's carpet department by phone several days before the auction that they were not selling the Berlin carpet, but its pair. Apparently, however, there was no announcement made at the sale.

There remains the question of what has happened to the Berlin carpet. I have myself long had mental indigestion over that problem, having been told many years ago that Berlin had sold the small Kashan silk carpet, this vase carpet, and the armorial Spanish carpet 07.151 (most recently mentioned in May Beattie's article in OCTS II) to raise money to purchase an excavated treasure. I was assured in Berlin that this vase carpet, Schlossmuseum 98.1, had burned with the others that were stored in the Mint, in the 1945 bomb conflagration. When Erdmann reviewed the carpet section of Pope's Survey in Ars Islamica, published in 1941, and discussed the Berlin and Baltimore rugs as a pair on pp. 180, 181 and p. 136, the Baltimore piece of course then being Mackay, he spoke of the Berlin rug as still in the Schlossmuseum. In the 1955 Knüpfteppiche, which I translated, it was (1945 verbrannt) and in the 1955 Bode & Kühnel it was vernichtet, which means that it was, not just burnt, but a wipe-out, completely destroyed.

I still did not feel entirely satisfied about all this, and when I examined what burned fragments and pieces and bits there were in the East Berlin storage in 1964, and then again with Dr. Beattie in 1965, there is no record in my notebooks of my seeing any bit whatever from 98.1. If it was in the fire, apparently it was indeed vernichtet. I still must wonder just a little. The people concerned with the carpets in Berlin have come to the museums since the war and are too young to have had personal acquaintance with the events of 1945 and this vase carpet's previous story. They must speak from museum records, which are not always perfect or complete.

In his series of articles on carpets in Heimtex, no. 13, "Die Kriegsverluste der Berliner Museum Verbrannte Teppiche" in issue 10 of October, 1961, Kurt Erdmann illustrated 10 rugs which were considered to be Persian, with comments. Carpet 98.1 was not included. He started the following article, no. 14 in the issue 11 of November, "In der leztien Nummer der Heimtex wurden die zehn persischen Teppiche besprochen, die gegen Ende des Krieges im Tieftresor der Münze verbrannt sint" (the 10 Persian carpets were discussed which were burned toward the war's end in the deep basement of the Mint). These articles were republished in I966, after Erdmann's death, as Siebenhundert Jahre Orientteppich. The same 10 "Persian" rugs appeared, pp. 77-82, as the first part of the chapter, "Die Friegsverluste der Berliner Museen", without mention of 98.I. However, beginning on p. 246 a tabulation of the illustrations was added by the editor, providing comparative and other information. For fig. 83, which was the ruined vase carpet 1.2656, we find a very confused note, which has been very closely translated for fig. 157 of Seven Hundred Years of Oriental Carpets as "...(inv. Nr. 1.2656....Lit. A. U. Pope, Survey Pl. 1229. A companion piece formerly in the collection of Lady Baillie (A. U. Pope, Survey, Pl. 1225, in colour. Another in the Cl. H. Mackay Collection. Sarre-Trenkwald, II, Pl. 7 and A. U. Pope, Survey, Pl. 1222). The Berlin piece was destroyed during the war and the Mackay piece is in the Baltimore Museum." Of course the Baltimore carpet and Berlin 98.1 were not counterparts of Berlin 1.2656 and the Baillie carpet, which were normal three-plane vase carpets, and the Survey 1222 caption was incorrect. There is still the question, did 98.1 slip Erdmann's mind, or did he omit it deliberately when he said that 10 Persian carpets only were burnt?

Clear evidence may yet be forthcoming that carpet 98.1 was still in the Berlin museum system at the beginning of World War II, or appeared in a contemporary list of the pieces deposited in the Mint by 1945. Otherwise it may to this day lurk somewhere in the world, like the Spanish armorial carpet, to reappear some day. That day, however, was not December 5th last.

Nevertheless, the Baltimore Museum of Art's vase carpet does represent a very rare type. Unless the Berlin 98.1 survives, it is the only known complete carpet of this variety, in which panels of many different colors have been marked off by sprightly, budded vines with small rosettes and other floral forms where these vines meet, and a single, prominent blossom or a vase upon a bracket in each of the panels. The upper part of a somewhat later example, formerly in the collection of Miss E. T. Brown (Survey, Pl. 1221) was reportedly in an English private collection some years ago and almost surely the right-hand portion of its lower half, with new borders, was in the hands of Vitali Madjar in Cairo (Wiet 1935, P1. 18). Nothing else. An imitation of the Brown piece, more successful as a magazine cover than when seen at the back, was in the German art market at one time. There is apparently an excellent market for handsome classic rugs. The reports on this Baltimore carpet, from various sources, were that it showed too much wear and past damage to please such purchasers and that as a 17th century piece, it was woven too late in that century to excite them.

"Contrary to other carpets from the Kunstgewerbemuseum (Schlossmuseum), we have no records which would show that it was ever on loan to the Islamische Abteilung. Possibly that is why it never features in any official list of burned or lost carpets of the Islamische Abteilung.

"The inventory of the Kunstgewerbemuseum clearly says that the silk carpet 98.48 now in Lisbon was exchanged against pieces of the Welfenschatz according to decree of February 2, 1936. There is however no entry of the sort for 98.1."

Qashqa'i rug, circa 1900

Unfortunately, Mr. Haas's anticipated star of this sale had not yet arrived. This carpet is an l8th century "shield" rug, dimensions 6'x4'6", and will appear in the auction house catalog. Its estimate is $7,000 to $10,000. Described by Mr. Haas as having an overall pattern of small shields and an arcane, serrated leaf border, the carpet and several other Turkish rugs come from a West Coast estate.

Karachov Kazak, third quarter 19th century

A small Seichur Kuba runner, 6'6"x3', with a few structural problems but with largely intact, attractive, thick surface wool, was estimated at $1,000 to $1,500. Its color palette was not of the classic type, though its "running dog" main border and minor borders were, said Mr. Dixon, adding that the small rug's atypical field design of compartmentalized floral variations did not seem artistically too well combined with its complicated, same-scale and kinetic borders.

A turn-of-the-century Kerman, brought by its consignor from her family's Paris apartment, was a very nicely drawn, decorative piece. A bit smaller than room-size, it had a pale cream field and cochineal red and cobalt blue detailing. There was a little wear in its surface, but what impressed me was its overall gracefulness of appearance.

Another carpet appealing for its refinement of execution and coloring was a silk "meditation" piece, 10'4"x6'9", with a cream field, estimated at $2,000 to $3,000. It had a limited area of wear in the lower field and a light stain as well.

A pair of well drawn, decorative 1920s Dabir Kashan carpets, 7'x4'3", had cream fields, very pleasing coloration, and were in perfect condition. They were estimated at $2,500 to $3,500 each.

There were three oversize carpets in the sale. A 1920s Kerman, 29'x14', tree of life carpet with red field and repeating row-above-row pattern of small trees leading up to a mihrab of willow branches was in perfect condition and estimated at $20,000 to $25,000. An even larger Yazd, or perhaps Kerman, 30'x15', had a darkish palette with a peculiar purpley-red field, with indigo as the dominant color; its estimate was $25,000 to $30,000. The third rug Mr. Haas referred to as a fantasy Tabriz. Its field had colors that shifted between rose and indigo, and was well sprinkled with archaic animals, including birds, combative dragons, monkeys, and camels, and various plants and flowers. With shiny wool and in pristine condition, it had three-inch blue kelim edges. Its size was 25'x14'5"; its estimate $35,000 to $45,000. An inscription named the workshop of Sadigigh Yani, and Mr. Haas referred us to a recent article on Pahlavi court production in Hali for a listing of this particular workshop.

A Chinese silk, circa 1910, had fresh, bright rainbow colors and excellent condition. Estimated at $3,000 to $4,000, its field color was coppery red, and the central and spandrel dragon figures were situated on grounds of metallic brocading. The woven inscription alluded to its being intended for use in governmental offices. One of the rugs which held our attention was a deep blue Qurabagh, 8'9"x5'3". Its main field element was described by Jim Dixon as an elongated variation of the Goradis gul, with an allover and beautifully balanced scattering of the European and Chinese elements typical of Seichurs. The cabbage roses and other small forms were in hues of vivid pink, cream, a rather intense red, specks of green, and three shades of blue. Mr. Dixon thought it a late weaving. He and Mr. Haas were enthusiastic about this interesting rug, calling it an attractive "oddball...an eccentric," and expressed the desire to see it in a good outdoor light, not only to consider the authenticity of its pink and red dyes but simply to enjoy its lovely composition and the blueness of its field. Its estimate was $2,500 to $3,500.

A Daghestan/Kuba soumak, about 9'x6', estimated at $2,000 to $3,000, had a good composition of three and a half medallions, eight-pointed stars within octagons, mainly in blues and reds. There was an early, somewhat faded blue reweaving, but not too noticeable. I wasn't enamoured of the stone-green or the tan used to color the medallions.

A South Persian rug, possibly Qashqa'i -- missing its original selvage wrapping -- with an overall paisley design, had immediate appeal. Judged to be from the last quarter of the l9th century, it measured 7'8"x4'. Its large botehs, three across and four down, interspersed with small ones, contained beautifully executed flowering trees. Between the rows of botehs were little pinwheels, animals, and all the conventional South Persian devices. Except for the selvage repair, the rug's condition seemed perfect -- shiny wool, crisp delineation. I liked its balance of about 10% cream color with the darker, mid-range harmony of warm browns, yellow, apricot, blues; its filigree patterning had a textural effect. An estimate of $2,000 to $3,000 was given it.

We had a quick glance at an excellent mafrash panel, reverse soumak, possibly Shahsavan, estimated at $1,000 to $1,500, and at a Baluch bagface, 2'6"x2'6", with lovely coloration, lustrous wool, possibly Mushwani, with a number of "horses" (peacock tails radiating from their backs) marching across its surface. The latter was estimated at between $700 and $900.

Another tribal piece having lovely coloration and condition was an otherwise fairly standard 1870s Afghan Ersari. It caught Jim Dixon's interest because the ornamentation of its guls tended toward the Karakalpak and its field color was "bronze" with nice blue-greens and apricot shades. Its estimate was $2,500 to $3,500.

Another fairly standard but interesting, fine Ersari with a Tekke brocade pattern -- whose color combination of deep salmon, blue-green, and others I found subtly jarring -- was in excellent condition except for a minor color run. Its size was 8'7"x4'2".

A Persian Tekke, 9'6"x7'5", with five guls across and 13 down, had sumptuous wool predominantly colored a medium reddish-brown. We all found it appealing. In impeccable condition, its estimate was $4,000 to $6,000.

There are several Sennehs. I always like the 1930s paisley design in brilliant Kurd colors, and the one at Butterfield's was in good condition. It was about 6'6"x4'6" and was estimated at $2,000 to $3,000.

My personal favorite piece at this preview was a 2'x9' Turkish silk saph carpet. It was dated to the 1890s to World War I period. Its pale greenish light tinged the atmosphere around it, with other, fainter beams of soft creamy pink offset by a sprinkling of glowing corals. It was covered in rows of miniature prayer rugs, all different, and set diagonally in each of the carpet's four corners was an even smaller coral rug. I immediately loved it. Its designer must have been inspired by the apple blossom clad, light green spirit of Spring, and I hope whoever buys this graceful enchantment takes very good care of it. It was estimated at $2,000 to $3,000.

In conclusion, I would like to add that although relatively new as the head of Butterfield's rug department Jim Haas is already gaining respect in the Bay Area carpet community. His combination of genuine good nature and willingness to research his stock is all too rare among West Coast rug auctioneers.

Lot 114. A Kuba carpet, c. 17th century, 18'8"x8', estimated at $50,000-60,000

Lot 29. A Soumac runner, c. 19th century, 10'x3'8", estimated at $4,000-6,000