Do you have check the flask from inside ?

OK , you talking about your feelings !

Dear Giovani,

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.

That is not the part of TL but give me-us - facts how they make it !?

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.”

Same how they make it , the process please with facts ?  Very intersting to know it.

Best regard

Ralf Kotalla

Dear Alan ,

please ask me directly for any questions about gthe TL-test moon-flask or otherbtest. They same about the Raymond Bove tests

directly to him.

Best regards

ralf Kotalla

Bs: have look on my webside  www.kotalla and article /downloads like working condition +++

Dear Ralf,

I am not sure if I am understanding your question. You have mentioned what I said, and also what said by Ms. Stoneham, which is exactly the same: as one knows the recipe, he can replicate it.

Then it seems that you are asking me to describe the making process. From that it seems that you are meaning that knowing the recipe is not enough, perhaps?

If that is what you mean, all I have to say is that I am not a potter but I really think that there are no mysteries there. All the technologies involved are well known, a competent potter can reproduce exactly the same thing as they did during let say Ming dynasty like in this case.

In Jingdezheng they study how to perfectly reproduce ancient glazes. It is not the recipe that tells if a pot is ancient or later. The more reliable tools that we have at the present knowledge are familiarity with the working subtle or macroscopic differences and TL test but the latest, unfortunately, not yet in all cases.

Why the major Auction houses are everyday more requesting documentation of sure provenance, if not?

Best,

Giovanni

Which provenance Giovanni?

You say that the provenance of my moonflask is fake, so the documentation that gave me the seller is fake. But the scientific test, that i have done in two laboratories are not fake. So the piece is authentic, this is the important thing. 

You sell Ming pieces only for provenance, you say, without scietifict test.  I think os a big mistake. If the provenance are of fifties year the piece can be a revival of the republican period. If the provenance is for xix century the piece can be a revival of kangxi period. 

You could be selling fake pieces with good provenance or with fake provenance.

When you do scientific tests, in plural, you are selling authentic items with good provenance or not. 

In my case, after a TL test, and ICP ms of quemical compositión and edxrf of surface to analyze weathering i can be sure than my moonflask is authentic. There is no ther Ming piece with so Many scientific guarantees

You say you auction pieces without scientific test. So you dont like my piece because It has three test, all the possibles nowaday. The Big auction houses sells pieces fakes and small ones too

I have bought one very nice hongwu jar, with a Bill of 1953 of a well now usa commercial House. I have done TL test and results fake. ICPMS and results fake. But they keep is authentic and they dont return my money

I prefer my scientific test

Best

For me, nowadys provenance is important but scientific test are definitives.

My moonflask has all scientific test possibles.

I don't understand the purpose of this thread - you ask for opinions and advice here, and then say you only trust science, so anything we say here is redundant (in your eyes). 

Dear Tam,

I am learning Many things with the forum. I am reading all you write.

But after listening you i think the scientific test is the most important. Perhaps i am wrong. I am the owner of the piece. I know. But the other arguments It seems to me so interested.

You have all my respect and colaboration

Best

By other side my english is not so good. I Will try to improve my level

And, VERY IMPORTANT, you do not answer to the first question, about your vase on sale three months ago.

So in your opinion All the items that are on sale at the major auction houses has a scientific validation?

Be sure that only a few have, and only items from Yuan or Song dynasty or earlier, not from Ming era.

Giovanni

We can lose ourselves in technical questions, but the strongest argument has already been mentioned by Giovanni: Why would someone sell an item that’s worth about 1 million for mere $3500? If it was an auction, why have others refrained from bidding more?

Dear Alejanac,

I visited an important exhibition of a Chinese representative of Oxford Authentication in Beijing last year. The operator is a very big collector and works with Oxford. (Most of his exhibitions are showing Tang and Song ceramics.) On this exhibition all pieces shown are Ming and Qing porcelains. That means Oxford can do it. I would suggest you to go there and check your flask. And if you are in England, please contact Mr. Eskenazi (+44 (0) 20 7493 5464) and ask him for a meeting according your questions. He is a famous collector. And he is THE expert in Europa and one of the world's most respected dealers in Chinese art. You can learn a lot from him.

I'm an engineer and physicist. For me science is only theory, never the truth.

Xin

PS: Giovanni is a very experienced collector and the most patient member here. He helped us a lot.

Posted by: LabKotalla GbR

OK , you talking about your feelings !

May I just say that when one is making a purchase of this amount of money, gut feelings matter.  I believe in the expression "if in doubt, don't." Like Shinigami, I have my doubts about this vase based on the way those figures are so stiffly depicted, they look static.

I may be wrong, but my instinct would be to leave this one, regardless of anything else.  If many bidders felt the same, a good price would not be achieved.

Sometimes an image is worth more than thousand words.

Look at the richness of details, and, more important, the skilled way in drawing the folds of the rope.

It is not matter of being more or less skilled, it is matter of being a painter or a beginner.

One vase is painted, the other one is just drawn.

Giovanni

Thanks for taking the trouble and putting the pictures together, Giovanni. We can discuss about it for pages and pages, but these pictures make the difference clearly visible.

I Wouldn’t presume to contribute to the debate on whether this flask is genuine or not, I do not possess anywhere near enough expertise.

But there are facts which may or may not help if outlined again:

If this item came from a French estate, there should be documentation to support this. And not just one recently written letter, but ledgers outlining when the item was bought, by whom etc. That is what is considered good provenance? Testing is all well and good, but it’s clearly not enough for the market when so many doubts exist around this particular piece.

The item is clearly the exact same one that was listed on an auction site a few months ago. A site that has been universally accepted by everyone in this debate as prone to selling fakes. It is unclear as to whether it was listed there before or after Alejanac purchased it.

Whilst it is agreed that auction houses can sometimes have ulterior motives for refusing to consign an item, it is clear that in this instance their refusal to do so is not solely due to a suspicion of the accuracy of the tests.

Finally, even if the auction house relents and agrees to auction the item, without verifiable provenance doubts will persist. The people who will be bidding will, in all likelihood, see the same flaws that the experienced people here can see? They will have the same doubts, doubts stemming from their own observations. 

So, it doesn’t really matter what the tests say or whether one believes the results or not, if potential purchasers need more than test results that is what you have to try and obtain. 

I really do sympathise with Alejanac’s predicament, it sounds an absolute nightmare. But I think more could be achieved by accepting the situation as it is and, instead of returning constantly to test results, work more on building a portfolio of irrefutable provenance, if this is at all possible.

Nic