| Text i dokument <itemDescription> |
-
066 b There is, however, the difficult point of the "loom". I made detailed notes on it, and I ögn easily prove that it is a combination of parts that properly do not belong together. In fact, from a scienti- fic point of view, I ought to publish this analysis, for it is too bad that this "loom" occurs in one archasological publication after the other under this erroneous heading, and in this made...
Visa hela
066 b There is, however, the difficult point of the "loom". I made detailed notes on it, and I ögn easily prove that it is a combination of parts that properly do not belong together. In fact, from a scienti- fic point of view, I ought to publish this analysis, for it is too bad that this "loom" occurs in one archasological publication after the other under this erroneous heading, and in this made up composition - its separate parts: the two kinds of handles, are extremely valuable in themselves, with their exquieite inlays, and would really gain by being restored and detached from the ugly troughs on which they are now fastened. But since we have alvays had auch agreable relations, you and I, and since I am anxious that we should remsin the best of friends, I will tell you that I snall desist from publisbing my notes and say nothing about the 1loom, if you wish me not to åo so. The only thing is that one day or other somebody who has bought the apecimen will make the same observationB as I have done, and then perhaps publish them in a lesa friendly spirit. Therefore, I would submit to you a possibility like this. I write: "yr. C.T. Loo has racently coma to suspact that this object is really a combination of separate parta- in themselves genuinely archaic, and he has submitted the speciman to me. My sxamination has confirmed his suspicions, and I have made the followinganalysis ....". If this would appeal to you, I should be glad to express it that way. But if you think it would be detrimental to your interests that anything at all is written, please tell me so, and I will not spoil our good friendship by writing about 1t. Hoping to hear from you soon, and wishing you heartily a good 1938, I remain yours sincersly
Stäng
|
| Text i dokument <itemDescription> |
-
blbba Stockholm the l!th of Jan. 38. Mr. O.T. Loo, 48, Rue Courcelles, Paris Dear Mr. Loo, I wish to ask you a few questions, on several points. First, I should like to hear your suggestions as to the...
Visa hela
blbba Stockholm the l!th of Jan. 38. Mr. O.T. Loo, 48, Rue Courcelles, Paris Dear Mr. Loo, I wish to ask you a few questions, on several points. First, I should like to hear your suggestions as to the gold-inlaid dragon we bought from you in London, and which turned out to be badly remade. Youwwtrotexme that we could either return it to you, or keep it and have 20 $ of the price paid in our favour. I have been pondering the matter, and before I take a decision, I should like to hear what object you would offer us to cover those 20 $. I would be glad if you could find your way to make us an offer of something really valuable and interesting, so that we could consider that incident closed. Secondly, I wish to revert to the t$hlaid objects from Kin tå”un, which you kindly lent us a couple of years ago. I have just read Umehara”s new publication of the Kin-ts'un finds, and find 1t very bad. 1 intend to write a short article in our Bulletin, giving a better description of several of the objects you lent ås and bringing out better their great interest, value and beauty
Stäng
|
ARTIKLAR I WIKIPEDIA
ARTIKLAR I WIKIDATA
BILDER I WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
