It’s like posting a pair of shoes and asking how tall I am. Guesswork

I wouldn’t even send to Peter or send pics to Christies or Sotheby’s,I’d take it in as as it needs to be handled . 

Vic

I like the style of the ribs with along with the fine quality, also the pooling of the glaze in the high and low spots. 

@shine @lucky_sun123

It’s like posting a pair of shoes and asking how tall I am. Guesswork

It is guesswork, but the quiz is valid in it's premiss, because it points out the fallacy that there is anyone (anywhere) that could simply look at the celadon glaze and make claims to it be a good example of Ming (or any period for that matter) when other contributing factors say otherwise (or are completely absent).

I wouldn’t even send to Peter or send pics to Christies or Sotheby’s,I’d take it in as as it needs to be handled . 

I disagree. I couldn't disagree more.

Send pics of the entire piece to Christie's, Sotheby's, etc.  Their initial judgement will be on the overall composition of the vase, whcih does not require handling.  If the composition (design, quality of rendering, foot, glaze, defects) are within the normal parameters of a genuine piece, you'll get an estimate that is contingent on physical inspection.

Going in without an appointment is time consuming for the representatives... it's also a bit rude.

If you call and schedule an appointment, unless they really know you, they're going to ask you to send photos first anyhow.

Jessee, look.... I really hate being the contrarian, despite some strongly worded posts where I felt it was important.  Your post is one of them, unfortunately for you.

However, this kind of encouragement to send you to make an in-person visit to a major auction house seems like a prank to have you humiliated in a very public manner.

From your posts, I think you really want to learn the truth about what you have, or don't have.  So, please understand.... despite suggestions otherwise, collecting Chinese porcelains is not a sport like horseshoes.... getting close to looking like a genuine piece IS NOT the threshold for authentication.

Perhaps since there are several folks that support your vase as a Ming cong looking into the matter, they'll find a more convincing example of a known vase that exhibits the same design, color glaze, foot, rough rending, and who knows... maybe even a big tilt, too!

But so far, your advocates have only provided very circumstantial evidence that a tilted vase could exist from the Ming, and have yet to find a good match in design or quality of rendering.

Take your time on this one... get your facts together, first.  Then, call a major auction house with everything available to make a good assessment... otherwise, they won't take you seriously.

Here is a comparison of the mouth of your vase with the Ming example Brian found in the collection the British Museum.

You draw your own conclusions, the Museum did not include photos of the foot, but looking at them side by side... they look miles apart to me.

Anticipation is building, enjoying.

@greeno107 I used this to show that the rib boarder did exist at the time. You can’t compare one kiln example to the other there are thousands of Longquan examples and all have different variations environment and kiln temperatures can totally change the outcome. First I think the notion that a faker purposely knocked over a piece to trick us to believe it’s old is just impractical. Another fact that the faker coiled the pot during construction which is a long process just to tip it over for what you mentioned no serious collectors would be interested. I would be interested in seeing a modern Longquan glaze that has been mastered. The forger would have had to soaked the vase to make the dirty crackle appear that would have added another step in the process to stop it perfectly on the inside that’s one more process for a collector to not be interested just makes zero sense. And they added all the individual scratches I see on the closeups one more step to add add the burn foot and the oxidized sides two more steps. That’s a lot of extra steps to purposefully damage the piece to not be able to sell it for much. But what does make sense is it takes a lot of work to make a piece like this back during wood kiln times and I have read a lot that things were salvaged the Buddhist salvaged everything. I don’t think anyone can say without a doubt until it’s been handled by a expert.

It is the offset side bits that are unusual and this BM one, doesn't have that. 

@lotusblack Here are the two vases, subject vase and BM vase. I’m not at home, so no fancy photo shopping- sorry.

I used this to show that the rib boarder did exist at the time.

The ‘ribs’ not only look different, but as I recall, your entire argument up until now had rested on the glaze looking ‘good’ for Ming.

But, if you’ve changed your position, that’s fine.  However, despite both vases being of similar size, the ‘rib’ design is far from similar.

You can’t compare one kiln example to the other there are thousands of Longquan examples and all have different variations environment and kiln temperatures can totally change the outcome.

Well, a quick Wikipedia check, as well as Gotheborg.com, and some other articles…. There were not ‘thousands’ of Longquan kilns… 500 have so far been discovered. spanning a roughly 600 year period.  They were not all operating at one time, and towards the later years as blue and white became popular, it is reasonable to conclude that by the Ming, only a few dozen were operating.

Another fact that the faker coiled the pot during construction which is a long process just to tip it over for what you mentioned no serious collectors would be interested.

I have found no indication that ‘coiling’ was a method of constructing Ming longquan wares, and I think it’s unlikely a method used for a square cong form.  I’m not sure I see indications of ‘coiling’ or not in the subject vase…. What’s your source?

1. The forger would have had to soaked the vase to make the dirty crackle appear that would have added another step in the process to stop it perfectly on the inside that’s one more process for a collector to not be interested just makes zero sense. And they added all the individual scratches I see on the closeups one more step to add add the burn foot and the oxidized sides two more steps. That’s a lot of extra steps to purposefully damage the piece to not be able to sell it for much.

Forgers go to these steps and beyond all the time, including making fake labels, putting in ‘old’ Japanese boxes, and faking photographs… Have you looked on Ebay? Nothing about these activities are beyond normal activity of your every day forger.

Suggesting that it would be time wasted to fake these traits, especially the collapsed foot, when here you are defending the authenticity of this vase is proof in itself that such measures will convince some that an object could be authentic.

I don’t think anyone can say without a doubt until it’s been handled by a expert.

This seems to be complete reversal of your earlier statements about the glaze looking ‘good’, ‘ribs’ appearing in the Ming, and other things observations you've made based on photos.

In fact, if that were true, then why have this forum? All we have to offer is done visually through photos.

The mastery of celadon glaze is well documented… for this reason, I think photos alone are not enough to confirm authenticity of the glaze. However, most of the other physical factors used in assessing age/authenticity can be judged through photos, and this vase falls short.

The appearance of imperfect vases should have been just as prevalent in the early 20th c, as it is today, if this is just a matter of genuine pieces with defects coming into the market.  

But, defective pieces are not well documented in early research.  Why?

The explanation requires no serious study - these defects are modern creations made to lure the hopeful into believing they’ve discovered a genuine period piece that was overlooked by early collectors.

This deception plays strongly into the psychology of collectors - Freud and others wrote extensively on the behavior of ‘collecting’.  I’ve only recently read a few articles…. Fascinating stuff.

Greeno, I’ll stick to my opinion that a piece like this has potential to be Ming Longquan and should be handled by an expert for a definitive opinion.

Vic

A most interesting discussion on these pieces by all.

The most troubling thing to my mind is the interior. Its machine made and therefore not a old example.

The image posted by Brian is the correct one.

Yours,

Brian's one,

It should be ribbed indicating hand worked.

Mark 

Actually Mark a Cong is moulded rather than thrown and would be slab built and luted in the corners.There may be additional work to the interior prior to the circular base and top  being attached.

From the side on image of the foot it looks to have caved in as the side wall buckled outwards in the firing,leading to the exaggerated angle.  

Who knows I may be totally wrong but I can’t help liking the piece.

Vic

It looks like nobody wanted to take the ‘glaze’ challenge except for Jesse.

The top left image was a period example from the MET.  The remaining 3 images are all from Ebay.

For the record, most of the Ebay longquan examples were so poorly done that I didn’t think their glazes would be at all convincing.

But, the Ebay pieces I captured images of were being offered for under $300, and the pooling of the glaze on these examples are visually identical to photos of Museum examples.

The differences between the fakes and the period examples only become apparent when comparing the overall designs and quality of rendering.

BTW, I would have bought it for $45, too, but not with the belief that it was old - it is a great example of how recent tactics to sell forgeries are coming into the market.

In the later part of the 20th c, forgers worked hard to make as accurate a copy as possible, but they failed to disguise the ‘newness’ of their work.

Now, ‘imperfection’ has become a fantastic diversion to their failures to achieve the quality expected in period pieces.

It’s all very fascinating to me.

here is another picture of the inside! 

Can see coils coming up from the bottom to about 1/3 of the way up. From there almost appears to be a gap of no coils to about you reach 3/4 of the way up then you can see a couple of them again.