Recognising fake Qom (Ghom) silk: copies, art silk, silk imitations

Art silk, mercerised cotton, copies sold as “Qom”: which tests conservators describe and why no single test is enough.

The "Doria" Carpet

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 50.190.5 · CC0

By Last reviewed:

Updated November 2026 · sources linked

At a glance

  • Four kinds of deception should be distinguished: the wrong material (art silk instead of silk), the wrong place (a copy sold as “Qom”), false statements (density, age, signature) and a false workshop name.
  • According to Wikipedia, mercerised cotton has been used as a silk substitute in carpets since the late 19th century; the first cellulose-based art silks (“artificial silk”, mostly viscose) appeared in the 1890s.
  • The Canadian Conservation Institute describes the burn test and microscopy, but stresses that no test is conclusive on its own.
  • When burnt, silk smells of hair and leaves a small dark bead. Cotton and viscose smell of paper and leave a light ash.
  • Indian silk carpets from Kashmir are sometimes called “Goum” in the trade. The Qom (Ghom) firm of Erami publicly warns against carpets bearing a misused brand name.

In the trade, Qom (Ghom, Qum, Kum; Persian قم) stands for silk and fineness. This is precisely what makes the name attractive to imitators. This article describes the kinds of forgery that exist and the tests that specialists name for them. It draws on publications from textile conservation and on auction catalogues. Dealers’ warnings are marked as such. This text cannot replace an authoritative examination.

Four kinds of deception

False material. A carpet shines like silk but consists of a different fibre. The main candidates are viscose and mercerised cotton.

False place. A carpet is of genuine silk, but was not knotted in Qom. Rugman warns against Chinese goods sold as Persian Qom silk carpets (rugman.com, trade claim). No independent source quantifying the extent and origin of such copies was found.

An example from the online platform Catawiki shows how the name travels. A lot entitled “Cashmere Silk”, approx. 123 × 79 cm, is described in the text as “Kashmir Goum” (Catawiki, seller’s listing text). The seller openly gives the origin as India, Kashmir province, and the material as silk on cotton. The description is therefore honest. Here “Goum” denotes a style, not a place. If the carpet is later resold simply as “Goum” or “Ghom”, this information is lost. A cotton foundation, moreover, rules out a pure silk Qom.

False information. A genuine Qom is described with an inflated density, too great an age or an attributed workshop. This form is the hardest to detect, because the object itself is genuine.

False workshop name. A carpet bears the name of a well-known workshop but does not come from it. In July 2024 the Qom firm of Hossein Erami warned that some sellers mark other goods with the names and brands of well-known producers (carpetour.net, company notice). It advises asking for a certificate of origin (shenasnameh) and having it checked by the firm. More on the names in the register of Qom workshops.

Examples in the trade: Qom silk rugs at BazarPort (our own shop)

Video from Hassan Farahani’s YouTube channel (Teppichbazar) Playing loads the video from YouTube (Google), which transfers data to Google.

Art silk: what lies behind the term

The term art silk denotes any fibre that looks like silk but is cheaper to produce (Wikipedia: Art silk). Usually viscose is meant, a fibre regenerated from cellulose. The source also names mercerised cotton, polyester and blends. The first successful art silks made from cellulose appeared in the 1890s. In 1924 the fibre was officially renamed “rayon” in the USA. The same source notes that art silk is sometimes sold to inexperienced buyers as genuine silk.

In carpets, silk substitutes are older than viscose. According to Wikipedia, chemically treated, mercerised cotton has been used in carpets as a silk substitute since the late 19th century (Wikipedia: Persian carpet). Wikipedia relies here on the handbook by Eiland and Eiland of 1998.

FibreOriginTypical reason for use
Mulberry silkprotein (fibroin), silkwormoriginal
Viscose / rayonregenerated cellulosesheen at a lower price
Mercerised cottonchemically treated cellulosesheen at a lower price
Polyestersyntheticsheen at a lower price

Sources: Wikipedia: Silk; Wikipedia: Art silk.

Tests described by conservators

The burn test

The burn test chiefly distinguishes protein fibres from cellulose. The Canadian Conservation Institute describes it in its series “CCI Notes” (CCI Notes 13/18):

FeatureSilkCotton (cellulose)Viscose / rayon
Behaviour in the flameshrinks away, burns slowly, self-extinguishesignites immediately, continues to glowburns very quickly, brightly
Smelllike burnt hairlike burnt paperlike burnt paper
Residuesmall, dark, easily crushed beadfluffy, white to grey ashlight, white ash

The information on viscose comes from the fibre database CAMEO (CAMEO: Fiber burn test). For rayon it describes a paper-like smell and a light white ash.

According to the CCI, a piece of thread of no more than 0.4 cm is sufficient for the test. It should come from an exposed thread end in an inconspicuous place. Wikipedia names the fringes as the usual place (Wikipedia: Art silk). The fringes, however, are the warp. They say nothing about the pile. A carpet can have a silk warp and a viscose pile, or the reverse. The CCI therefore recommends testing warp and weft separately. The same applies to the pile.

The limits of the burn test

The CCI names clear limitations. Blended fabrics, including those with man-made fibres, distort the result. Degraded fibres may no longer show their characteristics. Neither test is conclusive on its own; specialised methods may be needed for a secure identification. For historical objects the CCI also requires the consent of those responsible. For you as an owner this means: a burn test is a first indication, not an expert opinion.

The microscope

A look through the microscope is more reliable. According to the CCI, cultivated silk appears as a smooth, cylindrical rod with occasional thickenings. Wool shows a rough surface of scales. In cross-section the silk fibre has a triangular shape with rounded corners (Wikipedia: Silk). For a microscopic identification you need a specialist or a laboratory.

Indications on the carpet itself

Foundation and fringes

A pure silk Qom has a silk warp and a silk weft. Dealers therefore regard silk fringes as a strong indication (rugs.net, trade claim). Conversely, a cotton foundation rules out a pure silk Qom, but not a carpet with a silk pile. Even genuine silk fringes prove nothing about the pile.

Sheen

Silk has a changing sheen that depends on the angle of view. One dealer calls this glow a mark of authenticity (rugs.net, trade claim). Viscose and mercerised cotton, however, are used precisely because of their sheen (Wikipedia: Art silk). Sheen alone is therefore no proof.

The back

Hand-knotted carpets show the knot pattern on the back. The German Wikipedia recommends counting the knots on the back (Wikipedia: Perserteppich). The English Wikipedia names machine-woven and tufted carpets in “oriental” designs as a separate group (Wikipedia: Persian carpet). According to the same source, Iran itself has a large centre for machine-made carpets in Aran va Bidgol. “Iranian” therefore does not automatically mean “hand-knotted”. More on this in the article Hand-knotted or machine-made?.

Signature

A signature is not a certificate of authenticity. Rugman points out that signatures also occur in fine carpets from other cities (rugman.com, trade claim). How a Qom signature is composed and what it tells you is explained in the article Signed Qom carpets.

Figures that do not add up

Inflated figures are a quiet form of deception. Two checks are helpful.

Knot density. In the catalogues of the Dorotheum, Chiswick and Nagel examined, no Qom lies above about 1.2 million knots per m², roughly 775 KPSI (Dorotheum; Nagel via veryimportantlot). Some dealers advertise 1,000 KPSI and more. One listing gives both 1,000 KPSI and about twelve knots per centimetre (rugs.net, trade claim). Twelve by twelve knots per cm², however, gives roughly 930 KPSI. You should therefore recalculate figures yourself. Raj figures also deserve scrutiny: in an oral-history session one workshop gives 100 to 110 raj, which by the usual conversion would lie far above all catalogue values (Hawzah News). The formulas are given in the article knot density in Qom carpets.

Age. There is no evidence of significant silk weaving in Qom before the 20th century. Even dealers mostly give the 1920s or 1930s as the beginning (persianrugs.com.au, trade claim). The same dealer, however, offers an “antique Qum circa 1900”, without any justification for the date. An “antique Qom” therefore deserves particular scepticism. Background in the article Qom carpets: history and origins.

The sources disagree

Opinions differ on the value of simple tests. Dealers present silk fringes and sheen as strong marks of authenticity (rugs.net). Wikipedia names burning a fringe and dissolving pile fibres as common tests (Art silk). The Canadian Conservation Institute, by contrast, warns that neither the burn test nor microscopy is conclusive on its own and that blends distort the result (CCI Notes 13/18). The more cautious position of conservation is the more reliable one here.

What auction houses disclose

Reputable auction catalogues state material, foundation and condition. Chiswick, for instance, describes a silk foundation, original selvedges and secured original fringes (Chiswick, Lot 84). Christie’s names chemical washing, heavy fading, stains and reduced dimensions as defects that often cannot be reversed (Christie’s Collecting Guide).

For carpets of Iranian origin, auction houses also point to import restrictions. For a silk Qum, Bonhams notes the US embargo on carpets of Iranian origin since 6 August 2018 (Bonhams). The Dorotheum mentions an import ban for the USA and Canada (Dorotheum). The statement of origin thus also has legal consequences.

Short checklist

  • Examine warp, weft and pile separately; the fringes tell you only about the warp.
  • Sheen is no proof, for substitute fibres are meant to supply exactly that.
  • A burn test only on a tiny, inconspicuous thread end, and only as a first indication.
  • Where value or doubt warrants it, a microscopic fibre identification by a specialist.
  • Recalculate density and age and compare them with catalogue values.
  • Ask for a written description of material, foundation and condition.

Related topics

Sources

All articles →