A couple of Cultural items

[Thorsten B.]

Michael,

thanks for that picture - it shows a pattern which did not appear within this thread yet at all.

There are four possibilities in a chronological way:

1: The visable pattern already existed in pre-TR period, means before 1933 and before the DHW was found.

2: Maybe it was developed while TR period for DHW production and has been used and remained unchanged long after 1945.

3: Maybe it was developed within TR/DHW period but due to time has never been introduced due to the circumstance of time and occupation.

4: It was newly developed let´s say during the 50ties or 60ties by one of the weaving mills formerly being in contract with the DHW and did not exist within TR/DHW period and certainly not before as well.

Looking at the weaving machine I tend to believe that the pattern was at least produced after 1945, if developed also after 1945 I do not know.


Minnesinger is right: only pics within DHW booklets will bring more light to solving these questions.

[Minnesinger]

Here is part of a huge one dated 1944. Top part has the family monogram.

[Michael Fay]

Michael,
Its right behind her. If she turned around she could operate another machine. The business closed in 2000.

I dont have access to any larger sized image so I have no ability to see behind her.
What else do you know about the rugs coming out of this 1970's business?

[Thorsten B.]

Another possibility is also by comparing if more than one piece shows up out of the same source.

An important and interesting example:

The DHW tapestry I sold here in the E-stand to Steve came from a man who sold another tapestry in the same size and of the same age with a tree of life pattern as well which was formerly judged by Steve himself to be different than the DHW tree of life pattern known from the DHW booklets.

Maybe Steve can chime in and show that specific example since it is only common sense to draw the conclusion that both tapestries were actually DHW pieces due to the described circumstances.

----------------------------------

Michael, and as a reminder for you regarding the chest:

Nobody ripped and tried to rip you off since it was only YOU who absolutely wanted to buy the piece from me.
I NEVER originally had any attention neither to sell it nor to rip you off - I just made the mistake to show you pictures of it, that´s all.

Nonetheless I did not stop to share pics and knowledge in general but if anybody thinks he is in need to attack me I will always defend myself.

[Steve T]

I dont have access to any larger sized image so I have no ability to see behind her.
What else do you know about the rugs coming out of this 1970's business?

Michael,
You can see it in the picture you posted, the large version. I don't know a lot but its busiest time was the period of the TR.

[Steve T]

Maybe Steve can chime in and show that specific example since it is only common sense to draw the conclusion that both tapestries were actually DHW pieces due to the described circumstances.

Ding-dong

Yeah sure, I'll post a picture or two and a few words.

[Michael Fay]

Michael,

thanks for that picture - it shows a pattern which did not appear within this thread yet at all.

There are four possibilities in a chronological way:

1: The visable pattern already existed in pre-TR period, means before 1933 and before the DHW was found.

2: Maybe it was developed while TR period for DHW production and has been used and remained unchanged long after 1945.

3: Maybe it was developed within TR/DHW period but due to time has never been introduced due to the circumstance of time and occupation.

4: It was newly developed let´s say during the 50ties or 60ties by one of the weaving mills formerly being in contract with the DHW and did not exist within TR/DHW period and certainly not before as well.

Looking at the weaving machine I tend to believe that the pattern was at least produced after 1945, if developed also after 1945 I do not know.


Minnesinger is right: only pics within DHW booklets will bring more light to solving these questions.

You are welcome for the picture, but it was a gift for all of WAF!
A gift to to save them all money.

The photo has a lady in it with 1970's appearance, and you you are talking about 1945 ?
What this photo means to collectors is :
Any teppich may look like one of the rugs in a TR era catalog but it might not be TR era.

Funny how you never mentioned any possibilities of "formerly contracted weaving mills with the DHW" churning out post TR teppiches before now.

[Thorsten B.]

Michael,

just re-read my comment you are refering to, ok?

So if this is your conclusion - or better say implication:


"What this photo means to collectors is :
Any teppich may look like one of the rugs in a TR era catalog but it might not be TR era."


I ask you: where is evidence to back up your conclusion?

[Michael Fay]

----------------------------------

Michael, and as a reminder for you regarding the chest:

Nobody ripped and tried to rip you off since it was only YOU who absolutely wanted to buy the piece from me.
I NEVER originally had any attention neither to sell it nor to rip you off - I just made the mistake to show you pictures of it, that´s all.

Nonetheless I did not stop to share pics and knowledge in general but if anybody thinks he is in need to attack me I will always defend myself.

You ripped me off --but you got caught. Plain and simple.
You made the mistake to believe I would not take action against such criminal behaviour.
If any one is unclear here, I will direct them to the WAF moderator who forced you to repay me.
Or are you going to lie about that?
If you did not rip me off like a common thief, then why did you finally refund me at the direction of the WAF moderator?
And why would a WAF moderator have to force you to refund me in the first place?

[Minnesinger]

Let's talk about usage of the fabrics as well. The thinner ones like the 70's photo seems to show is in my opinion upholstery and not intended for hanging on walls. I believe you sewed on loops in the corner and hanged them on your chairs for instance.

[Michael Fay]

time to do one's own research.

But what I am trying to discuss is the teppich rugs.
It is time to do careful research on our own and not take anyone elses word on these things.
No matter who they are, or think they are.

[Michael Fay]

Michael,

just re-read my comment you are refering to, ok?

So if this is your conclusion - or better say implication:


"What this photo means to collectors is :
Any teppich may look like one of the rugs in a TR era catalog but it might not be TR era."


I ask you: where is evidence to back up your conclusion?

My evidence is the Swedish rug from 1880 and the the 1970's lady working on a 1970's teppich with the drooping flowers and the unicorns.

I draw the conclusion that any one selling a teppich better prove its history, or sell at a true bargain price.
You know how you say "maybe in the style of DHW pieces" ?
Maybe you need to prove it.

[Thorsten B.]

Thank You for this picture, Michael.

As I said: the usual common hatred agenda...

Michael, that´s just boring.

It has been discussed, you got your money (more than in full) back and I apologized for it - no need for polluting this nice and informative thread over and over again.

I invited you more than once to shake hands again - that´s all I can do.

I offered help regarding a real criminal case of ripping somebody off to Steve and another WAF member - that´s more than many would be willing to do, I guess.

If you cannot enjoy discussing cultural items then I suggest you either cool down or just stay away from that part of the hobby.

Spreading out negativity over and over again does not do good to anybody.

Or are you just jealous?

[Michael Fay]

Here is part of a huge one dated 1944. Top part has the family monogram.

That is a beautiful rug. Is it not a high quality homemade item? Or just have some extra hand stiched bits to it? --I could be wrong. What area does it come from, if you know.

[USA-Alex]

Steve,
While I cropped it to allow better emphasis on the design on the teppich shown ,the photo I have access to does not show another rug behind her, perhaps it has been cropped multiple times?. I think the design is alarmingly similar to actual designs of the time. Especially the drooping flower motif...that is in a style that was used in designs and furniture(I cant say it is exact or not, but sure is too similar for comfort) i have seen on WAF and elsewhere .
So now that style of pattern is not enough to prove it is period anymore.

So what type of pattern is on the rug I have not seen yet? Does it also look like the types we are discussing?
Thanks

Hello Michael,

the picture on the wall (right side of the womens had) looks like a photo/drawing of an 1000 Deutsche Mark bill, perhaps, the release date of this bill was 7.27.1964

Alex