you do not need to contact the webpage. It is absolutely the same vase. Are the holes in the foot made by Kotalla ?

How long do you have this vase ?

Foot from report and foot from 51Bidlive. 

kind regards

staartmees

Dear staartmes,

The provenance ofothe moonflask is a very ancient french collection. The surname of the previoud owner is well known in France (Germany too). The holes are from scientific test. It has five holles.  Two on the neck made by Kotalla y three in the bottom. Two made by Kotalla too. The another holle in the bottom was made by Hebolabo from Belgium to do the quimical analysys.

Anyway, i am going to do another TL test in a different lab and another surface analysis. Its impossible to fake the bubbles, oxides and inclusions and its impossible to fake, with the protocol antiirradiation, the age by TL,   Will inform about the results.

As Giovanni says , the bubbles, pigments  and other surface effects can all be faked now , so I think another scientific analysis is not worth doing and will only damage the vase more, and of course cost you more money. 

Kotalla's analysis of the surface etc only produces a vague statement about 'compliance' or consistency with a Yongle date, but it's not a true scientific analysis. 

The published TL test from Kotalla may also not be reliable because they claim that their findings are 'opinion' and not be relied upon or create any liability. I can understand their caution, but scientific testing does not produce opinion but fact. TL testing produces a range of possible dates, with margin for error, but the lab backs backs away from claiming accuracy of any kind, so no wonder really that the auction house experts didn't like the report.

Dear tam18,

For the sake of his own peace of mind in not having left any stone unturned, and in view of the respect that Oxford Authentication commands (certainly at Sotheby's), alejanac might even so, in my view, consider sending his moon flask there if he has the means and inclination to do so.

You mentioned in an earlier post that TL is not efficient on later pieces, and that it would not work on anything from the Qing period. In fact, you will find that Oxford Authentication conducts tests on pieces from as late as Kangxi (and even a little later than that into the eighteenth century).

A number of Forum members have doubted the authenticity of the moon flask on the basis of connoisseurship. It is therefore curious, indeed concerning, that the scientific approach to it, such as it has been reported to us, appears to confirm an early fifteenth century date. I would like to know who is right and how this discrepancy may be resolved. 

Whichever way, and let's just suppose for the sake of argument that some incontrovertible science can indeed be found to support the early fifteenth century dating, I'm afraid that alejanac will now struggle to find his moon flask accepted for sale at any of the major auction houses. Wherever the truth lies, even were it to be of the period, it's become a hot potato, a subject for so much controversy.

Regards,

Alan 

Dear Alejandro and dear all,

there is not the slightest doubt that the vase sold by Chinese Imperial Porcelain Auction house, who clearly sells only fake items, is the same vase that is now in your hands. Compare the pictures, it is the same, you can’t deny this.

That one was listed on September 16, 2018.

Kotalla’s lab test has been performed on November 17, 2018, only two months later.

You said that you bought the vase from an ancient French collection. When have you bought it?

If you have bought it after September 2018, it is clear that the provenance is not reliable.

Dear Alejandro, I very well know, as a collector, that it is hard to accept evidence, but I strongly would recommend you to not under-estimate Xin’s opinion (that is mine too). His opinion is based on experience, as it must have been also the opinion of the expert that said that your vase is a fake. You can’t say that the opinion of the expert is wrong because it took only a few seconds while on the other hand there are extensive tests. An expert eye do not need time to form his opinion. If you know apples, you do not need time to spot an apple among a bunch of pears. It is hard to accept but it is true.

TL test is the more reliable test, at present knowledge, but it is not absolutely reliable and the major auction houses knows that.

It is true that there were many kilns, many hands at work etc, but a vase like this was not an utilitarian ware, it was an high grade vase and it is not admissible that the decoration were so naïve. The “hand” is not there and it is obvious to an educated eye.

And it is not true at all that bubbles and so on can’t be faked. To be precise, bubbles are meaning nothing when it comes to authentication.

You have suggested Xin to look at Oxford Authentication site to learn about what TL test is. Actually they are very vague about it and unclear. There are other more scientific pages on the net about TL test technology.

Giovanni

The other link didn't work for me, but found this instead (in case someone else had the same problem).

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/64830234_moon-flask-with-west-asian-entertainers-yongle-ming

There is no doubt that this is exactly the same vase.

You've been scammed, dude.

Dear Michael,

Thank you for that. Yes, I think that there can indeed be no question about it, it is the same moon flask.

What remains concerning is the fact that, according to alejanac's report of their findings, two laboratories appear to have suggested an early Ming date for its manufacture.

I'd still like to know what Oxford Authentication would think, though that is easy enough for me to say when I wouldn't be the one paying for their analysis. In the light of all this, it would doubtless be money thrown down the drain.

Alan

Dear Clayandbrush and all friends,

I have explained that the provenance of my piece is from an old french collection, of importants surnames an know in all the country, as documented. . BUT I DONT MIND. I can not demonstrate when the piece found and how can the gay gets the pictures of the piecce.  I can not demonstrate the previous owners. BUT I CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PIECE IS AN ORIGINAL AND EXCEPCIONALLY MOONFLASK MING DYNASTY, PROBABLY YONGLE OR PERHAPS BEGINING XUANDE PERIOD. WHO CAN MAKE MI SURE?. SCIENCE. SCIENCE AND SCIENCE.

FIRST TL TEST, in the oldest private laboratory of EUROPE: Samples in the neck (upon the piece) samples in the bottom. tThe samples are taken in the top and in the bottom beccause if its irradiated the irradiation is not homogeneus. The results are homogeneus, not irradiated. Result 1429 with a 13% error margen so 1370 to 1480 about in a absolute results. The test was made three times

Ralph Kotalla accept phone calls for resolve any doubt ( I have spoken with him) I have explained the problem with some people of this forum and he and his team are avalaible to resolve doubts (technical doubts no fillings)  in the following number 00491716228521. Men of goodwill of this forum (that they are not all) can freely phone. They are authenticc experts in thermoluminiscence

Please read this article of Doren Stoneham, is easy to read

https://www.decodedscience.org/thermoluminescence-authenticity-testing-porcelain-antiques/18566

About the ICP MS done, Look the results compared with the Pekin University. I am in contact with them.

I have spoken with Mr. Raymond, he can answer all you doubts about the icpms 003211649309. You have the ICP MS results in the first link. About icpms you can read. He is able to explain all the quimical results in the analysis of this piece His laboratory is called HEBOLABO, and they are working for many auction houses in continental europe. If you say you phone about the moonflask he or someone of his team will give all explanations. Dont doubt, phone

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17316230

Here is one problem with CLAYANDBRUSH. He says is not authentic. He doesnt support in science only he supports in wachingt some pictures (jajajajajaj). He speaks that is not the hand. The hand? Which hand? do you know the problems with red copper, so dissappear after xuande period?? whic hand? If your collection it was studied by a presumed way of painting of one hand is terrible, there were thousand of hands painting porcelain during yongle period (jajajaja). IF YOUR COLLECTION AND YOUR OPINION ARE NOT SUPPORTED IN SCIENTIFIC TEST IS A FRAUD. Excuse me, i dont want to bother but is obvious for someone who can think. Your eyes are not perfect, science yes. The most easiest to fake is what your eye can see. There are many experts in style.

One question, please be honest. Do you have any realtion with the big auction houses? do you buy or sell there? are you selling chinese porcelains?

I think is difficult but you should to recognize in public that your opinions depends of your eyes, impressions. Never in scientific test. So you can give many opinions bad. You can be injured justice interests of other people. Your way of speaking is as your were sure. Be caution Because the scientific community is more advance than your eye. I think

So you can say what you want about the provenance BUT YOU CAN NOT SAY THE PIECE IS AUTHENTIC. And an original yongle moonflask in red copper, unique in the world (one similar in Taipei) i think is something amazing. AND ALL SCIENTIFIC METHODS ARE WITH ME. Anyway i have to speak with Oxford or Artemis in USA.

Best

Dear Alejandro,

please let’s talk, calm, in constructive way.

First: why have you not answered to the BIG question related to your vase and the one sold by the Chinese totally not reliable Auction house, in other words the same vase?

All what you say is that you have bought from a n old collection. Substantially, that means nothing because you can’t prove that the seller is honest, you can’t prove that he has the vase in his collection since many years. You are just believing him. Or not? Please make it short and go straight the the fact, can you explain why your vase, belonging from an old collection etc etc was on sale in China three or four months ago?

Second: is not raising doubts to you the fact that the vase, which potential value if genuine should be about 1 million dollars has been sold for 3,500 dollars?

Third: that page about TL test say, at the beginning “ How does the purchaser confirm that the pieces are in fact genuine? First there is the expert’s opinion – However it is not unknown for two experts to disagree.”

From there you can see that the Author is not discounting expert’s opinion, on the contrary, it is in first place.

That article is not really clear, mixing here and there Authentication with Dating, which are not the same thing. That is BTW a common practice among Labs when talking about the method. For your knowledge all what they can do by means of the material taken through the two small holes is an Authentication, not a dating, based on their database derived by many previous results which says that, with those results, the piece should have been fired at about a certain period plus/minus 20%. Kotalla can say that their accuracy is plus minus 13% as you says, but generally the range provided by all Labs is +/- 20%, as also said by Ms. Stonehan in that article.

Anyway, I do not know how you made your calculation, because the date spanning that you have provided are +/- 4% and not 13%. But that is only a detail.

Porcelain is a dangerous field, consider that a serious lab here in Italy doesn’t perform TL test on porcelain because it is dangerous, not reliable.

Instead, Dating through TL test is another thing, which requires to calculate the paleodose irradiation, for which a much larger quantity of material is needed, besides material from the surroundings of the achievement.

At the end of that document, you can see that there is a certain percentage of error.

In conclusion, Science is important, and be sure that, as a technician, I believe in science. But when there are margins, they can’t be ignored.

Fourth: you continue mentioning that other document related to porcelain and glaze composition, bubbles, etc etc. I reiterate that its value, as for dating, is useless. All those data as available to anyone and so anyone can replicate an artifact with the same exact composition.

Ms. Stoneham too says that: “There is also a scientific route which relies on comparing a sample of glaze or body with a database of excavated material. Unfortunately, however sophisticated the analyses are, they rely on comparison, and there is the risk of a false positive result. In addition, these databases are published and the forger has access to them.”

Fifth: About some of your last sentences.

Yes I rely on the importance of the hand. How do you recognize a Renaissance painting, by the hand or by the scientific analysis of the pigments? The latest can easily be faked. You are not considering that a vase like your one, if genuine, would have been an important piece even at that time, thus not consigned to a not skilled decorator. If you do not see the difference between the two hands you need to forget about science and start to educate your eye, in my humble opinion.

“IF YOUR COLLECTION AND YOUR OPINION ARE NOT SUPPORTED IN SCIENTIFIC TEST IS A FRAUD.” Well, if this our opinion was true, all Museums should through away 90 percent of their collections.

Yes I have sold many pieces to the major Auction houses. It is not clear to me why are you asking that. If I give them a Ming vase it is because it is clearly Ming, no need of scientific proof.

What do you mean by “do you know the problems with red copper, so dissappear after xuande period??”, do you mean that there are no more red copper pieces after that? If yes, it is not true. It has been abandoned for a period, because of the notorious difficulties in correct firing.

BTW anyone is free to believe what he wants and to give priorities according to his preferences. I should have stopped at the question First above.

Regards,

Giovanni

There even have been cases where new vases have been built around old bases from shards.

Dear alejanac

By all means, for your own peace of mind, and since you have declared yourself willing and prepared to do so, contact Oxford Authentication about your moon flask. Some Forum members will say that you will be wasting your money; that may be their view, but your money is of course yours for you to spend entirely as you wish.

When you have received the result of Oxford's analysis, please report back to the Forum. I for one would certainly like to hear what the verdict is, although leaving aside any misgivings based solely on connoisseurship, I also fear that the discovery of the moon flask's having previously been offered for sale on live auctioneers, and by that particular auctioneer, does not inspire confidence.

Regards,

Alan

Dear Mr.Shinigami,

please tell me why you say you are not an expert,  a bit strange and and never seen before ?

Best regards

ralf Kotalla

www.kotalla.de

Hi, I might not be an expert, but I have seen a lot of painted figures. My gut feeling told me these looked somewhat contrived, not what I expected from real Ming. Rather soft skills than hard facts. That’s all I can say about it. 

Please read the report from Hebolab on my webside and check out what he have done .

We have both check the object in original and look inside to see the base and the workement ship!

Have a look to the attachment photo from inside.

Please read the report from Hebolab on my webside and check out what he have done .

We have both check the object in original and look inside to see the base and the workement ship!

Have a look to the attachment photo from inside.