No one willing to share their opinion on this censer? What a shame. But there were to more Chinese items sold that also looked interesting. This tea dust glazed bowl for example. Based on the footring I'd guess Qing dynasty. https://www.ebay.com/itm/A469-Chinese-bowl-of-porcelain-of-popular-SOBA-glaze-with-appropriate-tone-/233305855116?hash=item36521cd48c%3Ag%3A6LoAAOSwWYxdR-yw&nma=true&si=9sikwm59JUEfB2ToBLBql3secBs%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 But also this nice longquan censer did really fine and would probably also date to the Yuan dynasty or slightly earlier if period. https://www.ebay.com/itm/H872-Chinese-incense-burner-of-blue-porcelain-with-appropriate-tone-and-form-/293153878223?hash=item44415530cf%3Ag%3AimAAAOSwXKNdLUMg&nma=true&si=9sikwm59JUEfB2ToBLBql3secBs%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

All three items are clear copies.

Regards

Giovanni

And how can you tell? Could you Please specify your conclusion?

Hi Avatar/Corey - 

Attached images of a censer with moulded peony decoration in applied relief, H. 16.9 cm, from the Bannaji temple, Ashikaga, Japan, and dated to Yuan dynasty 13-14th century. Although the shape is rather different, look at the way the relief design has been applied, the spacing between the flowers/leafs and the freedom/beauty to blossom/leaf details ...

Also two censers from the NPM, Taipei, slightly different shapes/sizes and both from the Qing Imperial Court collection. Again notice the difference in overall proportions, especially to the middle body and rim, and the finishing lines around the feet of  the glaze ...

Stuart 

There are a couple of similar censers sold by Christie's and Sotheby's that matches better with the proportions etc. like these two: https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/a-longquan-celadon-tripod-censer-southern-song-6129862-details.aspx https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2019/important-chinese-art-n10032/lot.615.html I've also seen many other close examples with the blue color from other auctions like one: https://ravenelart.com/resource/o/images/37f28486-e443-4635-bb38-18df66ebe125/L I'm not so much in mood of going into a debate on these. The seller sure has listed some interesting pieces in the past but usually the price goes pretty high whenever there is something promising looking. The footring of the tea dust bowl is very similar in shape and appearance to the footring of a very nice jun-type/flambe vase that was also purchased from a Japanese seller. I came across another flame vase with a nearly identical base and footring on a dealers site that was dated to the Daoguang period. I had bookmarked the link but can't seem to find it right now otherwise I would have posted it. I had hoped to snatch that bowl for a bargain but it seems other also thought it could be Qing dynasty. I by the way have a longquan censer bought from the same Japanese seller as the vase that is nearly identical to an example at the National Museum of Korea. https://www.museum.go.kr/site/eng/relic/search/view?relicId=1543&fbclid=IwAR1C4dydBLMlX8ge4xhLEl6rxOIZ12Hvp4dcB6ee4jxhg02vyozj9MrsZKE That one was rejected by Bruun Rasmussen who said they were certain it's a fake. The man there said that the flower decorations alomg the rims was wrong and that the evenly glazed base should be partly unglazed combined with the fact that it only has a few scratches and no discoloration. All this is nonsense. There's a zoom-in function at the museums site so I can see the texture of the glaze that appears slighly coarse/grainy just like on my censer and after I found that one I'm almost certain that mine is actually authentic. I purchased a handfull of longquan pieces from that seller that I had discarded as fakes but with this experience in mind I'm now taking the up to reconsideration. There is some very nice stuff in between like a pear shaped vase and a double-gourd vase with peony decoration just like on the censer you posted. Unfortunately I'm not so willing to post pictures of my own items anymore but the double-gourd vase is very similar to this one sold by Sotheby's in many aspects like the attractive sea-green tone of the glaze. https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/a-rare-moulded-longquan-celadon-peony-scroll-5805172-details.aspx

All the best

/Corey

Dear Avatar,

I will not tell why those three items are fake. For two reasons. First at all, as already explained to you elsewhere, it is not as you seems to think, something like “this is fake because it should be bent and not straight”, or “because it is red while it should be blue”. It is not that way.

The right way is that you must know; there is no other chances. In my opinion, speaking frankly, you will never know; you will never acquire adequate knowledge because you continue looking at fake items, not declared authentic even by the seller, thinking that they could be genuine. How will you learn the difference between good and wrong if you ONLY, ALWAYS, insist looking at the wrong? How many times it has been said this to you? Many times but it seems that the effect is equal to zero.

You seems specialized in finding sellers who does not sell genuine items, most of which are honestly saying that at least they do not know the age of the object, and specialized in finding obscure, totally unreliable Chinese sites, and take that as granted sources.

Do you think that, if you finally will bring to the expert of Sotheby’s or Christie’s the fake items that you have bought (you said that you will bring, but for what we know you never did) he will tell you that “this is no good because the crazing should be finer”, or something else like that? He will not. He will tell you that it is fake at first glance and that’s it.

The second reason for not telling that, in the few cases, and they are very few, believe me, that there is a key determining why an item is a fake, is the fact that we are in a public Forum and it is not correct to reveal to anyone, which includes the fake industry, certain things.

But once again, please, be sure that is not the path to follow. Once again, please acquire your own knowledge by looking ONLY at genuine things.

Regards

Giovanni

Dear Corey,

my post here above may appear an harsh one, but please believe me, it has been everything written in really good faith trying to convince you that you are following a wrong path.

It is not the first time that I am writing this, and frankly had decided to not post anymore in your thread, because all efforts seem useless. But decided to try again, be sure, for only your benefit, if you are disposed to accept suggestions. If not, it is up to you.

How much have you already spent in fake items? I can’t understand how one can buy something like the bowl that you have posted in another thread, which I am showing here for ease.

By reading the description alone, it is clear to everybody that the bowl is a modern one. The seller is actually not 100% honest in not saying clearly that it is a modern object, but also he says nowhere that the bowl could be old. Any body would let it pass just for this.

There is no way at all that it is a genuine example that escaped from the knowledge of the seller, because everything he sells is in this way.

How should not have been alerting you the fact that you were the only bidder?

Despite all this, you are convinced that you have bought a Chinese Ru bowl. Do you know how many genuine Ru items are known? There are more chances of winning the lotto every day along a week that finding a genuine Ru bowl, probably. Where on Earth is that bowl slightly comparable with a Ru bowl?

You are basing all your suppositions on totally irrelevant details, like “the color is exactly the same”. That has zero importance, really zero, even more comparing colors by pictures, and again even more on a screen.

And even comparing two pieces in real, it is not the color alone that will tell you if a piece, of whatever type, is genuine. Especially on celadon family ware, the color may be completely different from bowl to bowl that has been fired in the same batch.

If you accept to be oriented, you have to forgot all this and start to really acquire knowledge. Buy good books, by visiting good Museums, good Auction houses, handle more pieces as you can.

Regards,

Giovanni

It's amazing with that arrogance, Giovanni. And what gives you the right to copy that picture and post it here. I'm going to complain about that to Peter and kindly ask him to delete the picture or the whole thread. And the correct thing to do would be to comment in the actual thread regarding the bowl. I'm not going to waste any of my time by going into a discussion with you but my impression is that Xhanggongxiang ru is not considered ru ware by Sotheby's by Christie's since they don't use that term in their descriptions but refer to the pieces I linked to in two other posts as 'ruzhou celadon' and 'linru'. They probably reserve the term ru for Qingliangsi productions which was the one that was treasured by the emperors and commands huge prices. The use of the term ru for other kilns productions in the Ruzhou district is cited by other sources. You should know this, not least if you have read my posts. I know exactly how many qingliangsi pieces are known but perhaps you can tell me how many pieces of Xhanggongxiang celadon are known? I'm currently investigating this and have found an exhibition catalogue. Besides that I'll will kindly ask you not to continue any discussions since I'm not interested in a debat with you given the attitude you show. Thanks!

Corey, if not clear enough, I clearly said the reasons for all what I said to you. It is only, only, and only in good faith to try to help people who is, with all evidence to anyone, following the wrong path.

No problems, be sure that I will not post anymore in your threads, as I will not even read them furthermore because it is not useful to myself to look only at fake items, with annexed long fantastic theories trying to support the idea that you are the only one that is able to spot genuine items, sold as fake by the seller.

Just a last comment that, at this point, I can’t stop myself for saying. It is the second time that you publish something here in the Forum, and then you complain if it is quoted by someone else, asking with which right they do that.

You post the link or pictures as you did and then ask others “what gives you the right to copy that picture and post it here.” Do you understand what you are doing or are you not able to understand a bit of logic?

I am afraid you have some problems.

Good luck

Giovanni

As I said: I'm not going to continue any further discussions with you but let's at least try to keep a sober tone. And good luck to you too. 

/Corey

I have now send a notification to Peter and kindly asked him to delete this thread. 

/Corey

Dear Peter,

you are the Administrator of the Forum and what you will decide will in any case be fine, no problem, be sure I will not feel offended if you decide to delete the whole thread. Neither if you will just amend parts of it.

Nevertheless, if I can say my opinion, everything said here is of good help for the beginners; or better, for whom want to learn.

First at all, those three items are clearly fake, as you surely will agree, and then it is good that the readers are alerted about that. One start to ask himself why they are fake and that is a very good way to learn.  

Second, the suggested advices about which is the good path to be followed in order to learn in this field are IMHO precious for the beginners. Telling people that one supposed Song/Yuan censer (supposed by the poster, despite not being suggested by the dealer) has high chances of being right, only because the color is similar to genuine ones sold by the major auction houses, is totally misleading. One will never learn if he starts learning that way.

It is proven by the simple fact that, if one has seen at least pictures of genuine ones, by looking at this single picture of said censer it will be immediately clear to him that it is a fake.

Regards,

Giovanni

FYI Peter hasn't replied to my email. But I'm glad you won't feel offended if the thread is deleted which would be the best in my opinion. I'm not sure it's even possible for him to delete the picture only. 

But anyway, I just had a breakthrough in my research of that longquan double gourd vase I mentioned and it seems that it's likely an authentic example of the Yuan dynasty. I can't belive I nearly sold off those longquan pieces via Lauritz.com who were willing to list them 'as is' without a specific dating and with a very low estimate and of course that Bruun Ramussen declared the censer fake when it's in fact correct in all its various aspects. But since I'm not willing to show pictures of these pieces here there is no point of going into details with them.

The first longquan censer with the peony decoration has been relisted by the way. https://www.ebay.com/itm/A488-Chinese-incense-burner-of-blue-porcelain-of-flower-relief-w-good-taste/293210866463?hash=item4444bac31f:g:nb8AAOSwtAhdSOQC

I'm a little unsure why it should be clear by looking at the single picture of the last censer that it's fake. I also found the vent holes placed at the bottom of the inside since they are usually place outside on the side of the legs unususal but there is a similar censer at British Museum with the vent holes also placed on the inside. https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details/collection_image_gallery.aspx?partid=1&assetid=577475001&objectid=3180451

It is easier to buy a perfect fake than a genuine damaged Longquan piece because the buyers are so foolish.

Sorry but it is true.

Vic