Five 'Karapinar' carpet fragments, Central Anatolia, Konya Province

acquired from Gary Muse, London, 1989

Oakley. P., 'fact or fiction 'Karapinar' rugs from Central Anatolia', Hali, Winter, 2010, issue 166, p. 50 also p.48, fig. 23, a fragment from the matching pair to the offered lot, the Museum of Islamic Art, Doha. (Ed) Dodds. D & Eiland M., Oriental Rugs from Atlantic Collections, Philadelphia, 1996, p. 24

Alexander, C., A Foreshadowing of 21^st Century Art The Color and Geometry of Very Early Turkish Carpets, New York, 1993, pp. 246 - 247, ill pp. 77, (detail), 246 & 247 (detail).

RELATED LITERATURE:

Grogan & Co, Boston, 12 January 2009, lot 16, a smaller fragment from the matching pair to the offered lot.

Each panel - Top - 108 by 73cm Below top - 109 by 41cm Middle left - 213 by 82cm Middle right - 179 by 12cm Bottom - 109 by 68cm Rewoven patch top right corner. Generally even 2-3mm pile down to knotheads in localised areas. Some minor dark surface marks, as visible on the left side of the larger of the two central panels and top edge of lowest section. A section of the purple guard at end is a different texture, possibly section of re-weave or may have come from another piece, approx. 37 by 3cm. Where the carpet was tacked to the frame of the sofa there are rust marks from the tacks themselves along the arm sections, there is a later re-weave top right hand corner. An image outlining these areas can be requested from the department and condition notes correspond to the below - 1) re-weave measuring approx 6.5 by 2.5cm 2) A hole measuring 4 by 2.5cm 3) Irregularly shaped hole 4 by 2.5cm 4) Old marks from the tacks when fragments previously attached to the sofa 5) A re-attached section, likely from the same piece (so in reality a very small additional fragment) join approximately 20cm 6) A hole measuring approx. 6 by 4cm 7) Area of purple guard with differing texture, approx. 34 by 3cm Please contact harry.grenfell@sothebys.com for this image.
"In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

In her article on the myths surrounding Karapinar weaves Penny Oakley cites a fragment now in the Museum of Islamic Art, Doha, which would, presumably, have formed part of the pair to the offered lot, Oakley, op cit, fig. 23. When referencing this other piece she includes it in her loosely chronological ordering of known Karapinar works into group 4, Oakley. P., ibid, p. 50. She also records that there are seven known fragments, the aforementioned in Doha and one small fragment sold at Grogan in 2009. All seven fragments were once upholstered to a sofa which was found by respected dealer Berdj Achdjian in Paris, see Oakley, ibid, pp. 51 & 51.    The other elements to further suggest a Karapinar origin are the white flowerheads with red ’stars’ and blue and white details, see in Sotheby’s London, 7 November 2017, lot 65 and an abstracted version in the border of lot 85, although with a similar patina of aubergine. There is also a relationship to the floral motifs in this example and also lot 28 within the sale. Of course the brilliant white is characteristic of the genre, see Beattie. M., ‘Some Rugs of the Konya Region’, Oriental Art, London, Spring, 1976, vol. 22, pp. 60 – 75. In terms of scale and colouring there is an example in the Türk ve Islam Eserleri Müzesi, Istabul, inv. no. 677. The TIEM piece with Chintamani pattern, to which some of the flower clusters in this example could conceivably be related, from the Alaaddin Keykubad mosque, Konya, is catalogued as 15^th-16^th century. The present lot seems to be an abstraction of a Safavid compartment carpet design. Another highly comparable piece with so called ‘kilim’ design, formerly in the John D. McIlhenny Collection and now the Philadelphia Museum of Art, with very similar use in colour tone can be seen published in (Ed) Dodds. D & Eiland M., Oriental Rugs from Atlantic Collections, Philadelphia, 1996, p. 24 and Ellis. C., Oriental Carpets in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, London, 1988, p. 108, pl. 36.