It is a common fallacy, that the yarns of Oriental carpets are dyed solely with vegetable dyes, and that those dyes are intrinsically superior to aniline and alizarine dyes, such as are employed for yarns for machine-made fabrics. The latter have been used for many years now by European carpet manufacturers, not because they are cheaper than vegetable dyes, but because they are easier to use, more accurate for matching purposes, and faster to light. There are, of course, good and bad synthetic dyes, but the best are immeasurably superior to dyes made from plants, barks, and berries. This fact has long been recognised by those who control the production of Oriental carpets, for the yarns for which aniline and alizarine dyes are now extensively employed.
The subject of dyeing naturally leads on to that of doctoring or “faking,” which is commonly adopted with a large proportion of Eastern carpets. The object is twofold: to soften the original brightness of the colours, or to give an appearance of age; and to obtain a gloss which the wool does not naturally possess. This is generally done by the collectors or agents, and not by the people who weave the carpets. It is often known by the innocent name of washing, and consists in treating the surface with some chemical such as chlorine water, or glycerine, followed by ironing with a hot iron. It can hardly be supposed that this treatment does not detract to some extent from the life of the carpet; but this consideration appears to be outweighed by that of the more attractive appearance.
It has been stated that it is not an uncommon practice to expose a carpet to use in the bazaar or street with the object of enhancing its commercial value by giving it an artificial appearance of age. It is to be hoped, however, that this very insanitary method of faking is rare; but those who wilfully give preference to a carpet because it is dirty and faded, and apparently old, do not deserve too much sympathy.
There are varieties of Asiatic carpets far too numerous to be mentioned here. They differ widely in origin, design, colour, and quality, each town or district having its characteristic pattern and ornament, which is followed with more or less persistence. The finest carpets, both in pattern and quality, are the Persian, the worst are some of the Indian, which are coarse in texture and devoid of artistic merit. In between are the standard Turkeys, which are in great and steady demand all over Europe.
Reference has been made to the very different position occupied by Asiatic and European, or at any rate British hand-tufted carpets. Practically identical in manufacture, they are in different categories commercially. The Eastern carpet trade is a large one, healthy, well organised, and profitable. The British hand-tufted industry is artificial, and maintains a precarious existence.
It may not be considered quite outside the scope of this chapter to examine the reason for this position. The question is in reality purely an economic one. British hand-tufted carpets cannot be manufactured on a basis of cost that enables them to compete in price with the imported Eastern carpet. The question of design and colour may be ignored for the moment; quality for quality, the domestic product cannot meet its Oriental competitor on equal terms in the market, despite the fact that it comes straight from the manufacturer, while the other has probably had to bear collectors’ and wholesale dealers’ profits.
The reason lies, of course, in the different standard of living. The cost of the raw materials is not substantially different in Great Britain and in Asia Minor. But the British carpet has got to pay for steam-heating, gas and water, and electric light, and a more liberal standard of diet, than suffices the frugal Armenian or Kurd. The women and girls who weave Eastern carpets are not protected by factory inspectors and welfare superintendents.
And the difference in cost of production due to these very different conditions is very considerable; while in view of the increase of wages during the war, and the steadily advancing standard of comfort among British artisans, it seems likely to be even more in the future.
Under these circumstances, it is justifiable to ask whether it is fair and wise to allow this competition to continue. During the war the import of Oriental carpets has been prohibited, and it cannot be claimed that the results have been disastrous. The stock of Oriental carpets existing in the country when the prohibition was initiated has changed hands at steadily increasing prices. In other words, the people who wanted the carpets keenly enough have got them, and have had to pay handsomely for them. Why should not this prohibition, or alternatively a high import duty, be maintained? No one would suffer except the Turk, about whose financial welfare we need not perturb ourselves, and possibly the semi-European middleman and agent. The bona fide dealer in Oriental carpets, located in Great Britain, would be able to convert his capital and his technical knowledge towards the building up of a big British hand-tufted industry; and in a few years we should see in private houses, hotels, and clubs, instead of the Asiatic product, for which our money has been sent out of the country, real British hand-made carpets, which would have been manufactured under ideal conditions, and for good wages. And there is no reason in the world why such carpets should not equal or surpass in quality and artistic merit the finest productions of the East.