Ming export porcelain for Japan

Q&A

S. asked about an item with the mark 五良大甫吴祥瑞造.
Due to the nature of the item and the historical conditions, I have doubts that the said item is of Ming dynasty origin.

This concerns the following marks:

• "五良大甫吴祥瑞造"
• "吳須赤繪"

Both marks were originally used on made-to-order porcelain for export to Japan.

Read more

A:

"Gorodaiyu" is indeed a possible meaning of the Japanese name, the one in the right column. "Goshenzui" appears to be the Japanese "on" reading of the Chinese name. The name character for "Go" is non-existent in Japanese, thus this has always been a problem, should it be read in Japanese or Chinese?

My doubt that this item is authentic Ming porcelain is based on the following circumstantial reasons:

It is true that items with the above mark(s) were made-to-order for Japan in the Ming dynasty, but I have doubts about the shape. Would this have been made in the Ming dynasty?
During the Ming dynasty export porcelain to Japan consisted mainly of three types (not including monochromes like celadon, etc.):

• underglaze blue (Kraak wares, etc.) - includes items with the above marks
• red & green wares - unmarked
• wucai (resembling red & green wares very much) - unmarked

Shapes:

They almost exclusively consist of plates, bowls or cups. As already mentioned, decorative items are very rare, and if there were any, they would likely be of the same shape as Chinese ones.

We know of no items shaped typically for a specific region, except perhaps items like Kendi and Kundika, that were made for Islamic regions, during that period. 
Ewers, teapots, lidded bowl or jarlets, and some vases were exported to other areas. I believe that at the moment there is insufficient proof of such items going to Japan in numbers.

Chinese porcelain history shows that in the case of Europe the imports from China began to decrease as soon as Kaolin clay was discovered in Europe. Should Japan be an exception?

Further, I doubt that such a specific shape like this one was made to order in the Ming dynasty. Most export items of the period were more utilitarian. Up to now I have never seen this specific shape made in China, not even in the Qing dynasty or early republic. The reason probably is that during the corresponding Edo era Japanese potters were already capable to make quality items by themselves.
There would have been no need to import Japanese taste items made to order from China, if they could have them conveniently made in Japan. Normally, we would only expect them to import porcelain Japan was not producing itself.

Ming marks:

We know that a number of marks that originated in the Ming dynasty were used on Japanese porcelain throughout the Qing dynasty, some are still found on modern Japanese porcelain today. Marks are easily copied for whatever reason, but that does not make them authentic Chinese.
The fact that the marks were originally used on authentic Ming dynasty items does not make items Ming dynasty items automatically.

Chinese items were copied or faked throughout the Edo period, and Japanese items are copied nowadays in China too, but rarely in the past.

Too many doubts remain for me to accept such an item as authentic Chinese, but I would be interested to learn if there is any concrete proof that such export manufacturing really existed at that time.

.............................................

Comment added Dec. 2014:

Probably the most often used Ming marks found on Japanese porcelain are the auspicious 福 (Chinese: fu or Japanese: fuku), and 成化年製 (a Chenghua reign mark). The latter often is found on porcelain imitating Chinese decorations, while the former may appear on just about any porcelain, including new Japanese style porcelain.