Commenting is deactivated.

Please post all new topics and queries to the
Discussion Forum

Several porcelain wares

by John
(Burma)

I am uploading the five porcelain wares (a jar, two bowls and two dishes) from our collection that my boss wants a second opinion from you. He demanded that they be cleaned with soap(since they were dirty) before taking the photos, so they might look quite shiny.

Just click next or gallery to view second/third pictures for the same item (posted in image venue).

Bowl (1st one)
img46.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=11162_IMG_2051_122_529lo.JPG

Bowl (2nd one)
img199.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=13393_IMG_2060_122_158lo.JPG


Though a bit shiny in photos, it seems to have some scratches. It was obviously broken in two pieces and repaired to join (before us). This might need a hands-on inspection. This Qing dynasty doesn't add much info, I believe.

Jar
img155.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=13760_IMG_2068_122_15lo.JPG


Cracks look suspicious (could be fake or reproduction) and the Ming dynasty (Xuande) mark might not be authentic?

Dish (1st one)
img17.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=13898_IMG_2080_122_475lo.JPG


New (not older than a century)?

Dish (2nd one)
img234.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=14566_IMG_2090_122_467lo.JPG


This one, although beautiful, has not many age signs. And discolorations might indicate that it is printed. Around the Qianlong reign mark, previous owner argue that there are what-he-called 'oxidation signs of some ions' or what-looks-like 'glaze contractions'.

I understand hands-on inspection, which we can't have, is the best, but something is better than nothing, so what do you honesty think of each of them? Please answer only if you have time, since I bothered you much with too many questions over the past 2-3 weeks. There will be more as my boss just collected some more items and he really likes your answers (compared with others'). Thanks and best regards

Comments for Several porcelain wares

Click here to add your own comments

Apr 28, 2010
 close up pictures
by: peter

John,

Sorry, the first picture gives the impression that it is new. The foot rim colour is not right, and the inner area of the foot looks just too new.
As always, ask for some second opinion.
Apr 28, 2010
 Some more pictures for Bowl 2
by: John

Here are more pictures (mostly close-up painting/print) and the bottom including the ring. Thanks...
image image image image image
Apr 26, 2010
 Crackles and glaze
by: peter

Due to input form limitations it was impossible to put it all in here. Please read the full comment here.
Apr 26, 2010
 regarding comments
by: John

I will upload a few pictures of close-up interiors and rims of the bottom (of the 2nd bowl) later. Your comments are very helpful to novices like us.
On a related note, I still haven't learned, even after reading some of this website, how to differentiate between fake and authentic crackles, so could you elaborate further on this (only by their color?)? Also I thought improper photo lighting contributed to 'glossiness' but does fakes(or vintages) really shine brighter than real ones under the same lighting and camera?
My boss is also studying this and he would like to know if you can provide (only if available and no trouble to you) some more pictures of age signs (not the ones you posted in this website)through email.
It is impossible to look several (except online) here. Anyway, we would like to thank you again for your time and patience. I am sure more will come since my boss purchased more than 40 porcelain wares in the past 30-40 days. I promise we will never forget your help.
Apr 26, 2010
 comments
by: peter

Bowl 1:
Although the bottom looks old, the decoration is clearly more recent, vintage at the most. And it is too glossy.
Basically, I would consider either that the bowl itself is old, but the decoration was added later. Or, the old look is the result of "improper" handling during production. See website for cause of glaze contractions.
Careless handling surely is involved either way. See the double ring near the foot, it was smudged before the glaze was fired in three places. The blue colour tone of the decoration, and type of decoration itself, as well as the shiny glaze seem to be pointing rather to a 20th century item. Apart from the bottom it has no signs pointing to an antique item.

Bowl 2:
This item could merit further investigation, but close-up pictures of the side and interior decoration would be necessary.
Please always include a picture of the foot rim. It is the most important piece of information when evaluating age.

Plate (charger) 2:
The overall appearance and rim shape have a "newness" only seen in the more recent 20th century. In addition the overall look of the intricate interior decoration give the feeling of being printed, a thing that would need to be verified close up.

Summarily said, in this batch Bowl 2 could be something, but although this is not my field, I think the Japanese plate is the best among these items.
This is my personal view. Please always ask for a second opinion.

(A tip: Chinese collectors always say: Duo Kan Shao Mai - this means "Look at many (items) but buy few".)
Apr 26, 2010
 regarding the vase
by: peter

John,
I will comment on the other items separately, above.
The vase is a brand new fake. It imitates a type of wares made end of Qing dynasty/early 20th century. The crackles are about the only thing that looks right. (Crackles can and have always been made artificially when firing and made visible by adding mineral substances to the glaze.)
Problems:
- The blue colour is printed
- The brown parts of base and neck are much too glossy. The real thing is never reflecting light.
- The "characters" alone do give away this item as a fake. The writing is completely utopical. I can't read a single character. My guess is that it was made in SE Asia, not in China. They obviously don't know Chinese.
In addition, I don't remember having seen any antique vase having such writing on the neck, as shown here. If it exists, it is rare.
Sorry, but in my view this is a very low quality fake.
Apr 26, 2010
 to peter
by: John

Dear Peter,
Here are some more pictures of that vase (what I called 'jar' earlier).
Images
Just click next to see the other photos from the gallery. The crackles look suspicious, do you believe they are authentic or not?
My boss just over the weekend purchased several porcelain (more than half of them blue and white) from 3-4 dealers solely by his personal appetite and artistic beauty, so we have the largest collection of such items in this country and please do not mind with our questions.
Apr 23, 2010
 Jar (Vase)
by: peter

John,
Can you upload an enlarged partial image of the Jar (it's a vase)? I would hope to see especially the figures face. And, the brown part is really too glossy.

The first dish is Japanese, I cannot help you with that.

As what concerns the second dish (plate or charger?), an enlarged part of the decoration would help to make sure if it is printed. Old or not, printed Chinese plates have little value, I'm afraid.
The glaze contractions visible at the bottom can be caused by improper handling or a dirty environment in more recent times. They are not really age signs, but are more frequent in older porcelain due to a lack of clean environment, probably. Qianlong mainstream kilns had less such glaze contractions, but due to deterioriation of the work environment, they were pretty bad in some kilns at the end of the Qing dynasty (19th/20th century).

Click here to add your own comments

Return to Ask a question or contribute - archived 2011.

search by keyword