Safavid Silks, as the ones shown in this exhibit, are highly sophisticated production items. They required intensive skilled labor. These are not mass produced fabrics. The silks are meant to be worn to show of. They are a symbol of wealth and even power. In some cases the producers even include their name (signature) in the fabric.
There are, or at least one can argue, many visible and invisible consequences for the safavid silk trade. Given the difficulty of finding incontrovertible causal evidence for the later, we will focus on the first.
One of those is indirect and visual, thru art. An example is provided by Antony van Dyke's painting of Sir Robert Shirley. He is depicted wearing Safavid silks.
Mackey mentions that one of the cultural consequences of textile trade was the transmission of artistic styles (Mackey, 2015)
The continuous value and appreciation the Safavid silks had, even after the empires collapse, is attested by the fact that those textiles can be found even today in Museums (e.g. Penn), ecclesiastical treasuries and even the Wiener Schatzkammer (coronation robe)
Sir Robert Shirley, by Anthony Van Dyck. 1622 Rome
Source (via Wiki)
"Renaissance clothing and the materials of memory" by Ann Rosalind Jones