@julia  The only difference I am seeing is a result of the bad quality of my photography and horrible lighting I used, which I admit is quite a difference indeed. But otherwise they seem identical, so I'm curious what difference you are seeing? 

Dear John,

your pictures are practically not readable, they look as being taken through fog.

You must post more clear pictures in order to make a comparison.

Said that, I am very surprised in seeing the genuine examples, I never seen something similar. If not declared as being Chinese by Christies etc, I would have even thought that they were not Chinese. The figures are different from the usually seen ones, the same must be said for the butterflies and many of the flowers. The gold, as already said by others, is extremely shiny which too is unusual.

I do not know why that. Special kiln? Area of production? Don’t know, but no doubt they are unusual and different from what normally seen.

Giovanni

@julia

Interesting point, however there is a huge difference in quality of photos. Those 2 plates are done by professional and they were also edited, hence that crispiness in opposition to blurred, out of focus, low res and wrong white/colour balance of John's ones. I still do see a lot of differences and I am staying with my initial dating - I see late Republic Period there, can't help it, even if I'm wrong 🙂

Kind regards,
Adrian

@adrian  The thing that I have to challenge you with here is the practicality of the argument. First, the scenes on the different pieces are the same unique depictions, and according to Christies and reputable dealer Polly, they are from 1820 and the service is apparently referenced in that book on chinese armorial. So either all those other entities are totally wrong on their dating or the service is genuine from 1820. If the service is authentic from 1820, which of course it must be based on the evidence, then the only other argument against these is that they are somehow replicas of that actual service. If you simply accept that my photos were in bad light and the other photos were in good light you can do the math and see how this would account for the difference in color. If you then compare the side by side images you will see that the work is the same quality and must be from the same service or they are very impressive and top level fakes. Now, if they were fakes, why would someone go to such an extent to fake these particular pieces? They are some obscure armorial that even Giovanni didn't recognize. Plus they are the reticulated pieces which are probably a real ordeal to make. My point being that noone would pick this to bother faking because they aren't very known by most collectors and wouldn't attract attention to sell like a Qianlong teadust or some ming dragon pot. Another thing that i think makes the fake argument not hold much water is the the reticulated pieces I think might only have one example per dinner set, or maybe there are a couple at most? I'm not sure but there may only be one or two and so that is all there is in the world. So if All the sudden there are two when there is only supposed to be one then that means everyone will know one is fake because there is only one per set.  In other words, the fakers would probably not choose these reticulated armorial pieces if they were going to fake something, but instead would fake a  plate or cup or something there were more numbers of. Even then it would be risky because there could only be so many. Maybe others would know if armorial pieces are even being faked because I don't know about such things yet. I would somehow doubt it but perhaps they have started doing that as well. But perhaps the issue I have pointed out about the specific number in the service might make these armorial pieces grow more in value because they are a known number, so once they are accountedfor that is it and noone could fake them even if they wanted to. Something to consider.

@johnshoe

Good evening. It's quite late, therefore please forgive me as I won't be able to address all of it.

First of all please rest assure I am not claiming to me be 100% and always right. After all we're all learning, all the time and most often - by making mistakes.

Now in terms of your argumentation... My friend, you are speculating about some possibilities. Speculations are good, however I think empiric evidence provides us with different level of certainty than even the most convincing speculative theory.

Regarding your pictures, I am sorry but they are of very low quality and it is truly quite hard to see the quality. Yet, there are some differences standing out. Please display coat of arms from Christies listing and one on your items - if you can't see the difference, I have no further comments to make.

Kind regards,
Adrian

@adrian 

 I am not sure if these can be enlarged or not, but here they are side by side. The only difference i can see is again color due to photography and on mine there is some gilt and enamel loss in that area which is clear. They are different sizes as well so I suppose that could cause some subtle differences, but they seem very clearly the same design, style and quality. I'm baffled anyone could think otherwise because it seems so obvious. I have been corrected and educated many times already on this forum, so I welcome being incorrect as that is how I learn, and i am a new collector who knows virtually nothing. But I am not finding anyone's arguments convincing in the least that these are not authentic 1820 Chinese armorial pieces from the above stated service. Unfortunately I the pieces are not with me so I cannot retake photos right now, so we have to make due with what we have. But to me, it is more than enough to be confident in what they are unless someone can come up with some actual clear evidence to state otherwise. With that said, I'm enjoying the debate and I hope we are not keeping you up too late!  Cheers!

@johnshoe

I suggested comparing yours with one from Christies, not with that Polly's one. There was this discussion here some time ago with the guy claiming to have Qianlong dragon vase - the vase was obviously later copy, moreover he was listing his items on ebay with false dating, claiming everything was fine... 

We are all claiming this and that, but at the end being sceptical when lacking some knowledge pays off, that saves some money in the pocket at the end of the day.

One more time - I struggle to see anything earlier here then mid 20th C and I think my estimation is quite generous. Polly has only one photo of that item and I can't see that correctly either plus it also looks odd. What if it's French for example? And not 18th, not 19th but 20thC? There are different possibilities. It really doesn't have to be Chinese at all... Ask the owner to provide better quality photos. Is it for sale? Is it on ebay somewhere? Somebody is selling it on facebook?

Kind regards,
Adrian

@adrian  My friend, I believe I did post the Christies example, not Polly's. If the service is in the Howard book on Chinese armorial how could it be French and not Chinese? The service is historically referenced in the links I provided via Polly's research. I don't have those books but I am taking her word that she didn't make that up and post it for the world to see otherwise it would have wrecked her reputation which it obviously didn't so I am sure it is in there. Maybe someone like Peter who surely has the book can verify this fact. So again, these are either from that service from 1820 or they are very convincing replicas. Those are the only two options. So again, I point to my previous arguments about the unfeasibility of these being fakes. It simply doesn't make sense and anyway there's the undeniable similarity of the actual artwork design and quality which in my opinion trumps any argument otherwise. Again, what specific aspects do not look right to you? I am asking out of respect for these beautiful pieces of porcelain rather than my own ego, believe me. Again, I am a fool who knows next to nothing, and am wrong far more times than I am correct.  

Hi John, to me it doesn’t look like a modern fake, rather like a late 19th/early 20th century replacement, because a part of a service was damaged or lost. It wasn’t unusual to order such replacements in China, even many decades later. Usually they bear the signs of the time they were made in. That is why I would like a good crisp picture of the depicted persons. Someone already noticed that they are a bit dwarf like which was a typical feature for late 19th century. Although he tried to render the Jiaqing original as good as possible, the later painter still left traces of his own era on the item. The more expensive rest of the set might have been sold long ago with the replacement item being rejected by the auction house. But of course all this are only theories, as it’s impossible to see finer details on the pictures. 

Hello,

I did look at the pictures more carefully.

Again, the pictures are horrible in quality and hence they may be misleading, but my notes are not only for John’s items, but referred to all those seen here in general.

• The paste and shape of the foot that we see on the first item posted by John, are seen on well after Republic pieces.
• The figures are not looking at all with any of the Chinese figures of any period. They are strange.
• The same as previous point must be said for the painting style of the landscape and the rocks.
• The butterflies are very strange. Please find elsewhere a Chinese butterfly with that teal blue color body. I have never seen, and believe me I have seen many, because as a previous collector of butterflies, I pay attention to them.
• The few pink blossoms of roses that we see on both Christie’s and Polly examples are painted in European style. They are very small and difficult to judge, but they look so to me.
• Many flowers are strange, not seen before to me in that way.
• Please compare the whole appearance of the border (butterflies and flowers together) with any Canton style border that you can find on the net. The overall looking is completely different.
• The gilding of all these pieces seen here is extremely shining, which per se is not usual, and besides that there are loss of the gilding but almost no wear, as there should be.
• Never seen this shape, either by the dishes or the compote.
• All in all, the scenes are more looking Chinese style than real Chinese.
• Can Christie’s, Howard, Polly be wrong and these pieces are not Chinese but European instead? Yes, why not? It would surely not be the first time.

Now, saying all the above, I really do not know what these are. They are completely new to me. They can perfectly either be Chinese or European, but if Chinese, they are not belonging from the same sources of the items that we commonly see. I would not call them Canton, they are very different from that.

If European, I am ignorant on the matter.

A last note for John: your speculation about not being logical for a faker doing these is not right. EVERYTHING is faked today, either very common things to absolutely rare items, and at a cost that in theory, to our parameters, would even not pay the cost of researching them. It is absolutely incredible.

Do not rely on logic, when considering the possibility of being an item not genuine.

Regards,

Giovanni

Morning all.

First off I am not commenting on whether Polly Latham's items are 1820 or even Chinese - I don't know enough and I accept there are a few questions.  To be honest my first thought at looking at yours John, was that it was European in style.  Clearly there were services made for this family and all those you found might well be part of those services.  The fact that your later copies exist might be taken to confirm the existence of earlier examples.  

I believe yours are later copes for all the reasons I mentioned before: the relative perspective of the figures which I wasn't sure of, but Birgit has confirmed, the water colour style painting in parts, the canton style border.  Finding those other pieces hasn't changed my mind but has confirmed that yours are copies of established services, that I will accept are Chinese and yours probably are, too, but I am not 100% sure.  (I wonder what the flag says?)  

I like Birgit's suggestion as to why they were made.  My only issue is that yours are so worn but the older ones aren't - surely only someone who had the older version (or part thereof) would have wanted to replace missing items: did they only use the newer copies?

As to your question on the quality, I accept the photography could be the issue.  But take the pictures of the boats and compare the trees to the side.  I still see a difference in style and quality that doesn't seem explained by fuzzy photos.

It also interests me that the armorial on yours is far more worn that the other parts of the border.  I just find that interesting it may not be correct (I can't see the whole piece clearly) or relevant.

Julia

Sorry, Giovanni, I didn't see your post while I was writing (and re-writing!) mine.  It is good to hear your reasons for doubt and that you mention European.  I agree there is something European about them, could that be explained by the service having been requested by a European family?  

I appreciate all the replies and am learning a lot from this debate. I appreciate you all taking the time to so closely examine these pieces and this topic. But I don't find the arguments against the authenticity of these pieces to be compelling. I have closely compared the images available side by side and I do not see the differences that are being claimed. They look consistent. Furthermore, the claims of differences being made have been vague. When I compare them, flower for flower and butterfly for butterfly, and look at the overall pieces, they seem obviously made by the same artist(s). What are these differences you are seeing? Again, I think the only differences are from the color of the bad pictures and subtle differences that would naturally exist in hand painted sets. As to why is the enamel and gilt is worn, it is a fairly common thing to occur is it not? Why would that be considered an odd thing when it seems to happen all the time on older pieces? As to the idea that Christies, Polly Latham, and Howard's book are all wrong, that seems very far fetched and not at all believable. The only argument against these being authentic and from 1820 that sounds remotely possible is the idea that they are older replacement pieces. But I also think while that seems like a reasonable suggestion as a concept, to my eye there is a lack of visual evidence to support the theory in this case and seems speculative. Is it possible that the skepticism presented here is being weighted too much by the fact that this is a unique set you had not been familiar with? Regardless, this has been an interesting debate and very educational on many levels and I will continue researching. Perhaps there will be an update to post down the road when something is verified.

You could spend $12 and ask Peter Combs for his opinion. For me it always was money well spent. 

@shinigami  I definitely will do that but I will wait until I get pictures in better light then send those to him so as to avoid giving him the same frustration I have given all of you. After I do so I will let you all know what he has to say.