Foul weather did not keep rug buyers away from the Skinner auction of December 9, held at the Boston gallery. On the contrary. Heavy snow which turned to rain during the day, making both walking and driving perilous, seemed to have a stimulating effect. People must have figured, as this reviewer did, that here would be a good chance to pick up some bargains since anybody with half a brain would stay home on such a day and we few fools who ventured out would have the place to ourselves. So the house was packed, bidding was spirited, and bargains were few.
Skinner, for its part, presented its customary good selection of modest Caucasian rugs, small tribal pieces, and enough furnishing carpets to pay the rent, one hopes, and in the end 80 percent of the offerings sold, a good proportion for any sale.
| Marasali prayer rug, Lot 91 |
In retrospect, the piece seems to have been distinguished by the spaciousness of its design. The botehs in Marasali prayer rugs are usually closely packed, which creates an almost electric effect. Probably the best example to have come up in recent years was a silk-wefted one that sold as Lot 89 at Sotheby's on December 15, 1994, bringing $21,850. In the tightness of its composition and brilliance of its colors, it positively sparkled. The Skinner piece was more open in its design -- that is, with more space between the botehs -- than the Sotheby's example or others commonly pictured in the literature, and that feature along with crisp drawing may have attracted collectors.
A pair of cousins to the Marasali also sold, Lot 156, catalogued as a Shirvan prayer rug, and Lot 157, of nearly identical ivoryground lattice design, catalogued as Daghestan. Close inspection failed to reveal why one was attributed one way and one the other. Ulrich Schürmann1 postulated that Shirvans have flat backs and Daghestan ribbed, but there seems to be little evidence for such a distinction, and in any case these two were equally flat. Ian Bennett tried to separate the two types and finally declared it "a task so subjective as to be almost meaningless."2 The one here called Daghestan was more finely drawn but with duller colors than the one labeled Shirvan and sold for $1,093, compared with $2,300 for the Shirvan.
A design similar to that of the two eastern Caucasian pieces, ascending palmettes within a lattice, was found on a handsome Kazak long rug, Lot 94, where it was framed by the so-called crab border characteristic of the Kazak and Karabagh regions. This hybrid piece had thick pile and solid colors and was not expensive at $9,775.
The crab border was better executed on Lot 85, another Kazak long rug, where it framed a stack of hooked diamond-shaped medallions. It was more intricate and dynamic and really made the rug, which eventually brought $6,900 against an estimate of $6,000 to $7,000. (All sale prices are rounded to the nearest dollar and include a 15 percent buyer's premium.)
Another interesting rug catalogued as Kazak was Lot 86, which some observers thought not Kazak at all but more likely Zakatala. |  |
Of greater perplexity to tapetologists at the preview was Lot 207, a strange and not necessarily beautiful thing catalogued as "northeast Caucasian," which some thought might be Bijar on the basis of its extremely tight weave -- so tight that the wefts were barely visible. It was squarish (5'4"x4'10"), had a jagged, Caucasian-looking, reciprocal main border, and a cluttered central medallion on an otherwise nearly empty dirty-ivory field, the whole thing set off by a synthetic-orange outer border. This curiosity, estimated at $800 to $1,200, sold for $4,485. In all, 32 of the 35 Caucasian pile rugs offered found buyers.
 |
Among the 16 other Turkoman pieces offered, a decent Yomud asmalyk (Lot 27) sold for $1,380, a coarse Ersari kapunuk in standard curled-leaf design (Lot 73) went for $1,610, and a good-looking Yomud main carpet with dyrnak guls (Lot 174) brought $3,450, which was the top price for a Turkoman lot.
For Baluch collectors, the chief attraction was Lot 88, a handsome bagface that was featured on the catalogue cover. This had a nicely drawn design of fan-tailed animals marching in opposing directions, row by row, and was done in the silky wool characteristic of good Baluch work. |  |
A nice-looking Baluch camel-ground prayer rug (Lot 136), intricately drawn, brought $2,530 against an estimate of $800 to $1,200. A conventional Baluch rug (Lot 26) with an unusually jagged and interesting variation on the standard narcissus border, but with a hint of synthetic red in the field, sold for $1,093 against an estimate of $1,000 to $1,200. A very large (9'10"x5'7") and quite handsome mixed-technique rug brought $2,990 against an estimate of $1,000 to $1,500.
Of the 30 Baluch lots offered, 27 sold.
 | A pretty pair of Shirvan slit-weave bags, Lot 126, |
A pretty pair of Shirvan slit-weave bags, Lot 126, did less well. These had a design of comb-edged hexagons on an ivory ground, a design that Richard Wright and John Wertime report was popular in the Karabagh region.4 Though catalogued as "last quarter 19th century," they had no apparent signs of age or use and might well have been more recent. As an example of pleasing, harmonious colors and simple design effectively rendered, they should have been desirable, but they failed to reach their low estimate of $800 and went begging.
Three Shahsavan soumak lots -- 11, 183 and 185 -- were available in the same dynamic design, sometimes called the eagle design, but none of them were prime pieces. Lot 11, a chanteh, or single bagface, was rather drab of color and murky of drawing. Estimated at $800 to $1,200, it sold for $403. Lot 183, a pair of bags made into pillows, had a crisper design but colors so washed out as to be almost invisible. Equally estimated at $800 to $1,200, the lot sold for $1,035. Lot 185, an intact if battered pair of bags, was also anemic of color and, estimated at $700 to $900, went unsold.
The origin of such weavings remains to be determined. The long-recognized authorities in the field, Jenny Housego and Parviz Tanavoli, attribute them to the Shahsavan of northwestern Iran, while Wright and Wertime in their recent book on Caucasian textiles give examples from the Karabagh region of the Caucasus and say they were probably made by the Azeris. A non-scholar in the field can only tag along after the practice of dealers and auction houses, which so far continues to favor the Shahsavan attribution.
The top price for a non-Baluch, non-Turkoman bagface was given for a Lakai embroidered piece, Lot 150, with a diamond-lattice design meticulously rendered in characteristic bright colors. This brought $1,380 against an estimate of $1,200 to $1,500. Also offered was a small Lakai purse, Lot 152, which failed to sell, and a Lakai saddle cover of vibrant design and shot colors, which brought $1,150 against an estimate of $1,000 to $1,200.
Among the approximately 14 lots of kilims and related flatweaves, the top price was paid for Lot 77, a conventional Caucasian soumak carpet with three blue medallions on a red field. Of more interest were several Shirvan kilims, Lots 127, 129 and 147, all of the horizontal-stripe variety that Wright and Wertime identify as "palas" and say come predominantly from the Baku district.5 Lot 147 appeared to be of the type identified specifically as "chii palas," that is, with wrapping wefts carried across several ground wefts on the front of the textile, creating small squares and diamonds. Of these three attractive pieces, Lots 127 and 147 failed to sell (estimated respectively at $600-$800 and $1,000-$1,200), while Lot 129, estimated at $600-$800, brought $690.
A rather unusual Baluch sofre, Lot 68, measuring 9'x2'10", with simple zigzag bands brocaded in dark tones on an ivory ground, sold for $518 against an estimate of $600 to $800.
A Senneh kilim, Lot 199, with rows of polychrome botehs on a black field, brought $1,495 against an estimate of $1,200 to $1,500.
Of the 11 Turkish village pieces offered, all sold, with the top price being paid for Lot 92, a folksy Konya prayer rug that had the curious design feature of paired columns ending in mid-air, as arrows, supporting nothing. It had fair wool and color, and its selling price of $8,050, against an estimate of $7,000 to $9,000, may indicate a resurgence of appreciation for such weavings, when considered with similarly healthy prices at other recent sales.
 | Another folksy prayer rug, Lot 103,sold for $3,565 against an estimate of $2,000 to $2,500. This was of the Kirsehir-Mudjur type, with typically prominent cochineal in both mihrab and cross panel. |
Another folksy prayer rug, Lot 103,sold for $3,565 against an estimate of $2,000 to $2,500. This was of the Kirsehir-Mudjur type, with typically prominent cochineal in both mihrab and cross panel. Its many borders created a clutter, but the use of a large-scale Persianate border design in the cross panel was an interesting and attractive touch.
Several yastiks found new homes. The top price of $2,300 went for Lot 87, an aggressive example with some odd red flecking in its deep aubergine border but no hesitation in its shield-like design.
None of the 10 or so Persian tribal rugs offered were noteworthy, and only about half of them sold. The highest price was given for a largish (8'6"x5'4") Khamseh, Lot 122, with a square medallion superimposed on a crowded indigo field, which brought $2,645 against an estimate of $1,800 to $2,200.
The Heriz-type carpets, however, were exceptionally good for Boston. Usually if you want to see good Herizes, you have to go to New York, but this time Skinner offered at least six handsome examples of this under-appreciated art form (under-appreciated, that is, by tapetologists; much appreciated by dealers and decorators). Skinner's market may not have been ready for them, since only three sold, but if word gets out perhaps the situation will change. The top price of $21,850, which was also the top price for the sale as a whole, was given by a local dealer for Lot 115, an 11'5"x9' carpet catalogued as Serapi, with wonderful colors. Lot 90, catalogued as Bakshaish, with an all-over design of ascending trees and plant forms, brought the second-highest price, $20,700, against an estimate of $15,000 to $20,000. (Distinguishing Herizes from Serapis from Bakshaishes is as arduous an exercise as separating Shirvan from Daghestan prayer rugs, but auction houses never shrink from the challenge.) Also selling was Lot 99, Serapi, which brought a more modest $7,188 against an estimate of $8,000 to $10,000. Going unsold was perhaps the loveliest example of this genre, Lot 89, with a central medallion consisting of three elongated hexagons, excellent drawing and beautiful warm colors. Estimated at $20,000 to $25,000, it failed to attract any bids. Also failing were Lots 101 and 117, both called Serapis, both room-size, in typical central-medallion design, one estimated at $10,000 to $12,000, the other at $12,000 to $14,000, and both handsome.
Among the miscellaneous lots attracting attention was a pretty Indian bed cover, Lot 95, of silk embroidery on cotton, in a lush and graceful foliate design. Estimated at a modest $800 to $1,200, this sold for $4,140.
In all, 184 of 229 lots sold, for a gross of $392,639, about $40,000 more than was realized by the December sale of the previous year.
