Commenting is deactivated.

Please post all new topics and queries to the Discussion Forum

Comments for Follow Up to Mark & Era Help - Daming Chenghua NianZhi

Click here to add your own comments

Jun 28, 2010
 plate
by: peter

Maybe a picture of the bottom is more conclusive to its age, especially the foot rim but also the brightness of the glaze.

Somehow I have the feeling having seen such a dragon before, but only once and I can't remember it. But, not the pattern itself.
The reason that I find it hard to believe that it is Chinese is the geometrical pattern, and the colors which indeed would rather point to a Japanese design. I am quite sure I never have seen this type of pattern before in antique Chinese porcelain.
Please be aware that all this is my personal opinion. It is always better to get another opinion. I also have items that I am not sure about, hoping to get some information in future.
Just keep an eye on it. If you can find anything, I would appreciate if you could let me know. I am always willing to learn. :-)

BTW, if you are into collecting, I would recommend gotheborg com. It is well worth the small yearly membership fee for access to its excellent forums. Their forum has many people knowledgeable on both Chinese and Japanese ceramics. That might be the right place to get the information you want.
Jun 28, 2010
 Possible History??
by: Anonymous

Peter - Again, thank you.

I forgot to answer your question. No, I didn't post a picture of the wrong item. The first image is a photo of the reverse of the second image.

I've spent the morning pondering your comments and merging those with the bits & pieces of knowledge I've gained in attempting to research this piece. I think I have come to a logical (maybe?) conclusion, but hope to gain more experienced input from you (or others).

I have no doubt that this piece is an antique. I am concluding tentatively) that it is from the 18th century. Produced when the European market developed a craving for Japanese Imari wares and the Chinese kilns were competing to meet that demand by producing similarly styled porcelain.

As to the 'Ming' marks... in my own very limited experience, I have found (in dealing with Qing pieces) that falsely marked wares are, more often than not, intended to confuse the unknowing, but (very often) with no effort made to pass the item as authentic to the more knowing. I'm not as familiar with Ming designs, so I was really confused by this piece. But - could it be the same concept? Could this have been an 18th century piece; designed to appeal to the aesthetic taste of the European market in competition with Japanese exports. But randomly marked as 'Ming' to add to it's monetary appeal at the time? Which would also better explain the more Chinese style design in the center of the primarily designed Japanese style. (?).

The 'Ming' mark was obviously intended to confuse someone; and mismarking was usually done to increase value (as I understand it). I'm sure it wasn't intended for Japanese export. The Chinese kilns were too savvy for that; surely they knew that a Japanese-looking piece wouldn't be mistaken as a Chinese antique by the Japanese people. Creating such a piece for the Chinese market would have been equally silly for same reason. BUT... the European market!

Aesthetically, it is perfectly designed to appeal to the European market at the height of the 18th century. As I understand, the European market was already familiar with Chinese exports. Give it the same beautiful styling as the most popular wares of the day; give it an antique symbol that the Europeans just might recognize. And who would be better confused or taken in by the final product? ...

That's the only sense I can make of it. And - I still have a LOT to learn. Opinions? Please?

Jun 28, 2010
 Chinese Imari?
by: Anonymous

I'm still very new to this. But is it possible that this falls under that category of 'Chinese Imari'? (Chinese wares that were made for Japanese export and imitated the Japanese style?).

I really no nothing about the plate. And I actually own a pair of them. Years ago, I had run into an extremely similarly designed bowl in an online antique shop when I was researching something else. I didn't keep notes on it, but it was so pretty that I saved a picture of it. It was the same type of 'checked' pattern; blue under glaze, gold over-glaze design, etc. They had been categorized as 'Chinese Imari'.

Much later, when I found and had the chance to purchase these plates, I assumed they would be easy to research/verify since I had seen similar on the market before. I assumed they weren't as old as the markings claimed; but I purchased them as antiques and (grr), assumed at least that to be correct.

Should I continue researching the 'Chinese Imari' subject, do you think - or does this simply not pertain?

I thank you so much!
Jun 27, 2010
 plate
by: peter

Hello,

Are you sure you uploaded the right mark for the plate? If it is the right mark, then I would think this is either a modern plate, or part of the decoration was added later.

Actually, apart from the mark only the center circle and its content look right for an antique Chinese plate, the majority of the decoration looks rather Japanese and/or modern. The center decoration looks quite different from the rest. The question is why?

If the mark and plate are really old, then I would have to conclude that either the all or part of the decoration was added later, or the whole thing is modern.
I think this piece would need additional hands-on checking to make sure. Sorry for being unable to tell you something definite in this case. The plate looks very foreign to me.

Click here to add your own comments

Return to Follow Up to Mark & Era Help - Daming Chenghua NianZhi.

Return to Ask a question or contribute - archived 2011.