Antique Rugs of the Future Project

About the Antique Rugs of the Future Project
Sheep Breeds of Azerbaijan
Shearing, Sorting, Washing, Carding, Spinning
The advantages of handspun yarn to machine spun yarn
Rediscovery of Ancient Natural Dyes
Natural Dyes and Dyeing Photos

Our Natural Dyestuffs
Difference between synthetically and naturally dyed rugs
Weaving and Finishing Steps
Galleries of ARFP Caucasian Azerbaijani Rugs (sold pieces)
Current Inventory

Educational Section
Search the website
Interior design with our rugs
Antique & Old rugs and kilims for sale


back to "Historical Lotto carpets" main pagee


"Lotto" rug, XVII century, Western Turkey, Ushak Region, Ottoman Empire.

Christies SALE 15984

Art of the Islamic and Indian Worlds Including Oriental Rugs and Carpets
London|26 April 2018

LOT 259

Heavily corroded brown with associated repiling, otherwise full pile throughout, a couple of minor spot repairs, otherwise very good condition
4ft.8in. x 3ft.11in. (143cm. x 120cm.)


GBP 30,000 - GBP 40,000
(USD 42,540 - USD 56,720)

Lot Essay
The popularity of the sixteenth century 'Lotto' design resulted in an increased production of the type in the following century. The majority of these it appears were, like the Transylvanian rugs, destined for the European market. Those wove in the 17th century, like the present rug, tend to have much wider borders in comparison to their field size than the earlier examples. The two most frequently encountered border types are the cloudband and the cartouche design, as seen here, but the walnut-brown ground makes this more unusual than most. Comparable examples can be found in the Philadelphia Museum of Art from the John G. Johnson Collection (see Charles Grant Ellis, Oriental Carpets in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, 1988, no.12), and a rug formerly in the collection of Joseph McMullen, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Joseph McMullen, Islamic Carpets, New York, 1965, no.73). A third example was offered for sale in these Rooms, The Bernheimer Family Collection, 14 February 1996, lot 87. All three examples, as well as well as the present lot, have a design that is lacking an inner guard stripe between the field and the border, which Ellis suggests may indicate that they were woven in the same workshop (Ellis, op.cit.).