Collapsed Longquan were sometimes preserved even untill this day for our appreciation like this bamboo vase sold at Christie's.

http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2017/08/07/35558517.html

The typical Longquan Cong vase looks somewhat different than the one posted by the OP'er. More like this one also from Christie's. 

http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2019/12/25/37891199.html

But otherwise an interesting vase. I've never seen one like that before.

@lotusblack see lot 195 in the Augutte's catalogue, 19th century brown cong with similar pattern. I saw a completely collapsed celadon vase somewhere in a sale but can't remember which sale.

@greeno107 thank you for your opinion and your response really appreciate it. Think there is a argument for either side. Prob could sway more on the side of fake/reproduction just based on your points. Makes logical sense to me and agree with you. That being said think there is always exceptions to the rules. Thanks again!!!

The David Percival vases, made during the Yuan dynasty (likely a good 200 years prior to the proposed dating of your piece) stand at just over 2 feet tall, and only one of the two vases has a slight tilt.

The comparison between your 9 1/2” tall vase that leans at a degree that prevents it from standing requires one to close both eyes… it is wishful thinking at best.

The example of the Song vase, which only flaw is the fusion of the broken mouth piece to its neck, is otherwise masterful in every regard.  And, as the vase was intended for export to Japan, who culturally do not find such imperfections entirely disqualify, the piece was not destroyed- just read the history given in the link.

So, are we to conclude your vase is of such extraordinary quality, exported to Japan, and ever since was treasured by Japanese collectors? 

Do you have any evidence to support such an unlikely scenario?

Situations like this are by and far, remote exceptions. Exceedingly rare circumstances that they should not be used as a measurement of authenticity.

Yet here we are, using these most improbable examples as if they should be the common mark to which all porcelains should be measured. It is folly, and this continuous lowering of the bar on standards is disheartening.  

It is not simply about differences in opinion, but speaks of a growing desire to expand the scope of collecting to include objects that display a remote similarity to the genuine article, and disguise the faults by adding man made flaws to implant the notion ‘why would someone make a fake with such a flaw?’, which is followed quickly with the false conclusion - ‘it must be genuine.’

My experience is that the motives behind such acts are driven mostly by monetary gain by collectors whom have filled their houses with fakes, and hope one day to sell them as genuine.

If you wish to build your knowledge and collection around such nonsense, that’s your choice, but I do not think it will best fruit regardless of how much time passes.

@lucky_sun123 lot 195 in Augutte's catalogue is listed as sang de boeuf, seems brown in the photo, what makes your vase look somewhat different is perhaps more space between the transepts on the sides?

P.S. I think David's idea of using a stand to straighten is a good one, maybe just use the time honored tradition of carpenters, shem it up on one side. I like the cong with trigrams all across the front, amazing that such old designs look so modern.

@greeno107 the collection this came out of was previously owned by a very, very wealthy family, who lives on a very small island with a population of about 3500 year around residence. The antique store I frequent and got this from did a estate sale for the family and items they wished to sell. The owner of the antique store only sells local island items and has been in biz for 35 years.

@lucky_sun123 There is hardly a collector that hasn’t been told a tall tale by a friendly antique shop owner.

And by rare chance the story told is entirely true, why did they sell the case for only $45?

Wouldn’t such a rare treasure be with a few hundred or thousand dollars?

Look - I’ve put my thoughts out there for you to consider, or not.

If you think your piece is genuine, a slanted cong vase of such high quality that despite the tilt, it was collected and cared for over the past 400 years so that you could buy it from an antique shop for only $45, who also provided you with verbal provenance that it came from a very very wealthy island dwelling family…. well, congratulations!  

Pardon my skepticism.

@greeno107 I appreciate the consideration and your time and opinion. Your points are fair and just I value them and consider them to prob be true. Yes you are correct many antique shops have similar fables of distorted truth etc. More likely after a quick internet search and unfamiliar with the style she listed it as such old vase? Anyways thank you again!!

@greeno107 some of these Ming repros are sort of funky.  I don't know about this.

https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6221031

@lotusblack is correct.

@rahawkins I followed the link you posted... Did I miss something?  I did not see a vessel that had completely collapse on itself, cong vase or otherwise.

So, what is Brian 'correct' about?  That imperfect pieces were produced in the Ming?  Or, that this cong vase is Ming?

Read my 3rd post to this thread - 

A firing crack, or faulty glaze, or a minor collapse resulting in a slight tilt on export wares and minyao (common domestic wares) might be explainable because the standard of quality would be fairly low.

However, objects made for upper society were done by commission, they were expensive, the standard were extremely strict, and a kiln’s reputation would be put into question for failing to deliver an exemplary piece. 

I am not saying that Ming pieces never sagged, cracked, or otherwise came out from the kiln imperfect.  I'm saying THIS VASE, due to primarily its massive imperfection, is a fake, because a cong vase would never left a Ming kiln with such significant deformity.

It is very important to take into context the type of vessel when considering authenticity, and as such, during the Ming (and even later), the cong vase would have been considered of high cultural importance, a bond of heaven and earth ( https://gotheborg.com/glossary/cong.shtml).

Since we've come this far, let's look at the overall quality of the glaze and construction:

Here is an example from Christie's dated to Song/Yuan (as there were no examples on Christie's or Sotheby's of a Ming cong vase - which may not be coincidence) next to the subject vase (both are about the same size):

The neck is too long, the design lacks any sophistication, the body seems to bloat, the color is diluted and has crackle (as if guan ware), and (regardelss of the difference in design which is problematic) the carving overall lacks the crispness that is associated with jade congs of which this vase is modelled.

So, I ask you... Is this a Ming/Yuan/Song vase that just collapsed, but otherwise of the high quality and standards of form expected of longquan wares of that period?

Please, say no. Please, say no. Please, say no.

Anyway....

When Christie's puts on their catalog cover a porcelain of similar deformity, I guess I'll eat my words.  A thousand pardons for my stubbornness.

@lotusblack So, Brian.... turnabout is fair play, right?

I've stated my positon. What are the criterias that you used to base your statement?

It looks like a good Longquan piece from the Ming period but collapsed during the firing. What is unusual is I read they would have destroyed such a piece but it looks ok and I see no issue with it.

What makes this a 'good longquan piece from the Ming'?

What aspects of the vase 'look ok', and why do you really have 'no issue with it'?

Foot rims are close. 1 on the left is a longquan vase footrim from Christies ming/song. Think you are 95 percent right and the facts you present and your argument is very good!!!