First, my congratulations to Vincent on an imaginative topic and a very effective use of graphic devices both to illustrate and to demonstrate.

Do/did weavers often use compression and elongation deliberately? (it seems clear to me that these these effects can happen by accident) If so, is the weaver sometimes doing so to portray the way in which she (usually) "saw" designs? (and even perhaps the "world") Does this mean that we should be cautious about applying the word "sloppy" in our evaluation of a given piece? Did I understand your questions, Vincent?

I think this is an imaginative tack to attempt and I think it no accident that Vincent, who has noticed it here, is a repairer of rugs, with some considerable familiarity with rug structures and the variations in them.

And I think the discussion here can be useful but I think that there is also lots of chance for us to confuse one another with speculation. This is a salon where it would really help to be a weaver.

P.S: With regard to the image of the Turkmen "eagle group" piece: you asked what would it be appropriate to say about it. Nowadays, among Turkmen collectors, words about such a piece are pointless. One merely "drools" in envy.

Regards,

R. John Howe

Thank you. I'm happy you did understand the salon. I've been a litle worried because things can be very clear in the brain, but to get it in black and white is a different subject.

It helps to be a weaver. The problem with this is, the weaver works on a loom that is equiped with the technical facility to re-adjust the warp stress. I do not see Indian rugs that show elongation or compression. I do not see new Persian Tabriz rugs that show elongation or compression. I do see cottage production that show compression in the upper halve. I do not see cottage prodution that show elongation in the upper halve.
Elongation in the upper halve is mostly in old, pre-1900 Asian rugs. Why?
The Turkman shows elongation of the gul. Why? It's a beautiful rug that deserves a balanced repetition of the design. Why ending it messy? Couldn't the weavers get it right?
I'm not speculating on historical, long forgotten ideas or whatever, I'm only reflecting on this very aparent aspect in the old rugs that even a weaver can't explain. A weaver said: "They didn't adjust the warp tension...sloppy job.

It didn't convince me. Looking in "The Books" it struck me that a lot of rugs show elongation in the upper halve and....a lot of rugs are upside down....like looking at paintings upside down. If we think a rug is art, the least we can do in "The Books", is show the rugs upright.
(I didn't use Spell Check, sorry)

Best regards,
Vincent

Regards, Yon

That was the first thing I did, counting the knots. Then the problem wouldn't be that difficult. If elongation is the result of extra knots in the top halve of the rug, it is done deliberately. I was disappointed to find: In medallion rugs, no extra knots are inserted. Knot counts in new and old rugs tend to be exact at both sides, but the center isn't in the middle. As a result of the exact knotcount, it looks as if the weaver did not have any influence, they were ordered or programmed to do so. But if they have been that exact with the knotcount, why couldn't they be exact with the center?
I did an effort, with the help of Marla in the other posting, to construct some basic technical aspects that could explain it. If there is a technical reason, and I think there is, why doesn't this affect French, Portuguese, Spanish production.

Best regards,
Vincent