From the very little that remains it is difficult to extrapolate the field design. The most probable design was one of overall medallions, but of a different arrangement and form to those of either the Sarajevo or the Buccleuch carpets (Murdoch, T. (ed.): Boughton House, the English Versailles, London, 1992, pl.63). The similarity of the Figdor kilim design to that of the Buccleuch 'Sanguszko' carpet was noted by Kurt Erdmann ('Ein persische Wirkteppich der Safawidenzeit' in Pantheon XXI, 1938, p.66); it is therefore interesting to note that the outlines of the medallions that start on this fragment are identical to those of the Figdor kilim. Could it be that the Figdor kilim and its companion pieces are the silk and metal thread products of Yezd that were so praised by Dutch Merchants in 1633 (Dunlop, H.: Bronnen tot de Geschiedenis der Oostindische Compagnie in Persië, I: 1611-1638, Rijksgeschiedkundige Publicatiën, The Hague,, 1930, p.452), and The Rev. J. Ovington sixty years later (Ovington, J.: A Voyage to Suratt in the Year 1689 by J. Ovington, M.A. Chaplain to His Majesty, London, 1696, p.375)? Yezd's proximity to Kirman would make an exchange of designs more probable. Or does this imply that this fragment, together possibly with the Sarajevo and Buccleuch carpets were made in central rather than south east Persia?