Hi,

The censer is listed as 17th/18th C.

It doesn't look that old in my opinion but I can be wrong of course.

Looks like somebody gave it a proper polish as well.

I don't really like the shape. More experienced users here keep referring to general forms and shapes of genuine pieces so I started looking at Chinese antiques from this angle and here in this case I can't really find that 17th/18th century shape at all, like the proportions were wrong.

Again - these are just my impressions, that's not a professional opinion at all.

Regards,

Adrian

I have compared the listed censer with the one sold by Sotheby's:

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/chinese-art-hk0598/lot.463.html

The shape is quite correct, it's quite hard to find differences actually.

What's different is the engravings. Those decorations on the one offered on ebay are less subtle and sharper. It's very obvious compering both marks. On the genuine one the mark has nicely rounded lines on the corners and one could say a talented hand made that, while on the one from ebay the mark is scratched quite harshly without those curves and it looks like somebody has just applied that there...

I wonder what others could say here?

Best regards,

Adrian

It's old (18th C) and genuine. There are a lot of artists in the Qing dynasty who copied the work of Shisou. This could be one. The owner of this incence burner polished it. The nice patina is gone. Not a good idea.

Hi Xin,

Thanks for the comment. It's good to know it's a genuine copy - not bad at all, at least agewise.

Some time ago Peter had featured a polished censer in his newsletter and I think it did well despite all being bright and shiny.

Regards,

Adrian

Dear Adrian and Xin,

This one interests me.

You may both like to compare a very similar Shisou marked censer offered by Christies New York a couple of years ago. (I think it realised something in the region of USD 8,000, if I remember rightly.) Christies said theirs was 17th or 18th century.

However, Bonhams Edinburgh pretty recently had one which was very similar indeed to the eBay listing (although I made a close comparison, and don't think Bonhams Edinburgh's was exactly the same censer bought there and subsequently offered for sale here on eBay).

Bonhams were far more cautious. I happen to know that they were aware of the Christies censer, but declined to date theirs to 17th or 18th century. So perhaps, Adrian, you may be right, that this item is not quite as old after all. Or could it be a question of two different lots of experts not quite seeing eye to eye, one lot being gung-ho and saying, yes, it's old, and the other lot hedging their bets by refusing to commit to a date? Whichever way, the Bonhams Edinburgh censer made £500 under the hammer, so possibly that would provide a safer guide price than Christies for the censer currently on eBay.

Regards,

Alan

Hi Alan,

I also found an auction record from China in 2014. Similar one, dated as of only Qing dynasty and sold for about 6650 USD. Include this one on eBay I have seen 4 of this kind. During the Qing dynasty many of them are made/copied. 

Best regards,

Xin

Hi Alan,

It really is interesting subject for a discussion. Thank you very much for shearing with us yours very detailed observations. It really makes you wonder about the whole market in general...

Again, I want to make it clear - Chinese antiques are a new territory for me, I was into European art since I started around 18 years ago, therefore I can only share my impressions rather than knowledge in this field.  

There are two aspects of this censer that are raising a question regarding the age of course: first one is lack of patina - very convenient for the seller, if that's a fake of course; the second is: how much this object "pretends" to be authentic - somebody made a lot of effort to make it look properly, yet, failed with engravings totally in my opinion.

I spent a lot of time compering those two censers (one from ebay, and that one from Sothesby's) and I have found something else - the one from ebay has quite sharp edges, especially on the top rim, while the genuine piece has this natural wear and all the edges are softer, they appear to me a bit rounded, which is quite natural feature of something 250-300 years old.

A signature is a fake of course and quite failed as well in my opinion.

Few more questions:

- does the inside look old? 

- that photo of the handle - there can be seen edges of the handle with marks of a mechanical tools used on this parts

On the other hand I can't resist the impression it has some age, that it wasn't manufactured 'yesterday', but is is 18th century? Does it look like 250 years old? I have some small bronzes clearly form late 19th century that look older than this censer...

I think it's not a contemporary fake, it has some age. I think Xin is quite right here, that this is a copy of the master but I am finding it a bit hard to believe it's 18th century, more like circa 1900 I would say - again, that's my impressions only.

I am looking forward for more of your opinions gents as this is indeed a very intriguing and interesting matter to discuss.

Regards,

Adrian

Adrian, you are very thoughtful. Very professional thinking. ?  ?  ? 

18th oder 19th century, it's not important. Shisou's works are copied during the whole dynasty. Nobody knows ? who and when it is made. Definitly not from Shisou who lived in Ming dynasty and was a master of copper (not bronze) and inlaid art. I have heard that there are a few art works of him in British museum. Must be great.

Well, about the details. For me the inlaid work is very professional and really from Qing dynasty. Not so good and fine like from Shisou. But not bad. This inlaid technic is not easy, even for today's artist. The foot rim shows also trace of use, very typical.

Patina is very important and very helpful for identification. In this case it confuses you somehow. Well, that's no problem. Now you can easily recognize an old incense burner after polishing. This is a good example. ? 

Regards,

Xin

Dear Sanderse, Adrian, and Xin,

You may be interested in the eBay censer's result, just in case you missed it. It made a little over £500. The Bonhams one made £500 under the hammer, so about £600 with fees.

Alan

Posted by: Alan Fletcher

---

Dear Sanderse, Adrian, and Xin,

You may be interested in the eBay censer's result, just in case you missed it. It made a little over £500. The Bonhams one made £500 under the hammer, so about £600 with fees.

Alan

Thank you Alan. Well, not surprising result.

Dear Alan,

Thank you very much for letting us know. I am finding metals more challenging than other materials (e.g. that bronze Guanyin Peter posted a while ago) but very interesting indeed. 

Kind regards,

Adrian

I have the same censer. When I found it last year, I came across the above-mentioned Christie's auction, and was very excited that I must have found an $8000 item! Ha ha. I wrote to them, and they wanted nothing to do with mine. They eventually took the photos down, I suspect because they were flooded with people like me that had the same censer.

I suspect that they were made in the mid to late 19th c through early 20th, when there seems to have been a resurgence in silver-inlaid bronze. I see a lot of silver-inlaid bronze Guanyins from that era, with the hair and face style of late Qing / early Republic.

Dear mlvbs,

Thank you for your interesting addition to the discussion about these silver inlaid censers. I had indeed wondered what was going on with the Christies website, because when I checked their image of the censer that they sold, the image wasn't there, it seemed to have been removed.

But in fact, it was not completely removed! I found that if I clicked on the vacant image box, a picture of the censer still came up in full view. I suspect that if you do the same as I did, you will also see the censer that is not apparent when you first look at the web page. Perhaps you could try doing what I did, and see if the censer still comes into view. Click on the vacant space in which the image formerly appeared.

It is indeed conceivable that Christies made a mistake, and are now trying to cover their tracks out of embarrassment!

Best wishes,

Alan

Hello Alan - it's funny you mention that, because I had the same thing happen a few months ago. I actually saved the photos.

However, now, the "full view" never actually loads, so I still can't access the photos through the website. I am curious if I was only seeing the enlarged photo as a result of the "cookie" still being present on my computer. I realized that I stopped seeing the enlarged view about the time that I changed computers and thus was no longer accessing the cookies of my old computer.

I guess even the "big boy" auction houses occasionally make mistakes, and I must admit I find it humorous to observe how they deal with it!

-Bill