Did you buy then as C19th plates , or earlier ? maybe you could post the link to the ebay auction .

It's a pretty unusual combination of celadon and white ground porcelain, with underglaze blue and underglaze red.

I think if they were genuine C18th items they would have sold for much more, but if they were late C19th or early C20th maybe the price is OK. 

To my eyes, they don't seem to have a lot of age to them - the dragon's head on both does not look very competently done.  But if they were on the bidamount newsletter , then that is some re-assurance.

Tam:

Thank you for your reply. The seller did not label the exact time of the plates, instead he said it was dated Qing Dynasty. I believe I saw it on Peter's newsletter but I am not 100% sure because I could not find it any more. I wish I had saved it and pictured it. ? Peter said in today's video that the seller: forever.legacy was selling a pair of fake vases and some of his listings were questionable. That's why I am concerned. I hope his questionable items did not include mine. ? 

To the best of my knowledge, if they were old, they might be Kangxi period, judging from the expression of the dragons and the color of the underglazed copper red. In rare cases underglazed copper red would look vivid and precise when underglazed blue was used at the same time in Kangxi period. So the heads of the dragons look Okay to me. Of course I might be wrong, so please excuse me if I am wrong.

Thank you.

I found the ebay listing . You could be right , copper red underglaze was hard to control I think , and some pieces look a little impressionistic. Also I find celadon items very hard to date. But the foot and base don't look right to me for C18th or earlier, and there is no age wear or damage. Good copper red decorated items from the kangxi period are rare and highly collectible so I would have expected the price to be much higher, if they were genuine. 

Also I looked at some of this seller's other sold items , which to me look highly dubious - the dayazhai square vases that sold for $5000 look like brand new fakes, as does the flambe vase that sold for $1200.

Tam:

I appreciate your insights very much. You are right, some of the listings are quite suspicious, especially the Dayazhai vases that were sold for $5000. They even provided an origial receipt when the vases were first acquired back in 1939 in Shanghai. However, according to the receipt, the vases are dated in Jiaqing Period which is early 19th century, but Dayazhai wares are supposed to be dated late 19th century. But I did find forever.legacy appeared a couple of times in Peter's newsletter. Maybe the seller was not selling fakes on purpose, maybe he misjudged some of the items he sold, maybe some of the items he sold are genuine (hopefully including mine. ? ).

I am not good at judging by looking at the foot. ? I always find it hard to tell from the foot whether genuine or fake. So you might be right, the foot does not look 300+ years old.

Thanks again for your inputs. I have learnt a lot.

Hello,

you first ask if these are genuine, without saying what has been declared by the seller. Then Thegoldentoad ask you about that, and you said that the seller declared them as Qing dynasty.

As you know Qing dynasty ended at the beginning of 20^th century, which make a huge difference. Always be careful about ware claimed generally as “Qing dynasty”. Even the major auction houses use that for avoiding to declare clearly that a piece is or could be a modern replica.

Now, without looking at what else this seller is selling, your plates are much far for being Kangxi. I have to repeat what I always say: do not judge a piece, as you did, by technical details only. Under glaze copper red can either be Kangxi or made yesterday.

Look first at the style. Kangxi dragons are easily spotted, their face is very typical and the face of the dragons on your plates are far from that as also pointed out by Thegoldentoad. That immediately spot these plates as not Kangxi.

One important technical detail that come after is just the foot. This is not a Kangxi foot, which has a much more compact paste. To recognize the foot it is necessary experience, by looking at foots of genuine ware you will recognize them.

There are other details saying that it is not Kangxi, like the thick potting for example.

Back to the dating of your plates, I think that they are modern but it will be difficult to argue with the seller; how can you show evidence that it is 1980 and not 1912?

Giovanni

Giovanni

Thank you for your inputs. I really appreciate it.

I was not asking the question in the right way in the first place. The seller said the plates were Qing dynasty, and I presumed they were dated Kangxi according to my limited knowledge. You implied that the foot should be more impact. So I went back and checked a great book about Kangxi ceramics and you are absolutely right. Regarding to the dragon faces, I think I need to do more researches on the internet and see how dragons look like on genuine Kangxi wares.

I am now convinced that the plates are not Kangxi. But could they be 19th centuray Tongzhi or Guangxu wares?

I can't say it for sure, but I tend to believe that they are modern.

The reason is that the best Kangxi revival of the late 19th century was respecting all Kangxi features, including the foot if not limited by the quality of the paste.

Your plates are not like that. I mentioned the thick potting but the celadon rim too is odd to me.

Giovanni

Dear weiandmengjie,

I incline to agree with Giovanni on this. Your pieces are surely not Kangxi, though reminiscent here and there of wares of that period. The question is, are they Qing period, as the seller advertised them to be?

Necessarily, for Qing period, they would need to date to some time up to 1911, and I am sorry to say that I am not convinced that they do. During the 'Kangxi revival', a memorable and useful coinage of Mike Vermeer's, many Kangxi-type wares were copied, and some of these were done quite well. From my point of view, though, the salient point here is that among all these Kangxi-type ware variations, I am not recollecting anything that approaches your items. Of course, I could have missed observing comparable items, because the field of such late Qing types is very wide, but all I can say is, I don't recollect having done so, and hence would be suspicious of any claim that your items were Qing.

Unfortunately, the seller has a doubtful record as a seller of authentic items, as others have pointed out. This also does not necessarily mean that he never sells authentic items - some sellers confusingly mix authentic and inauthentic in their listings - but it does not inspire confidence.

You might consider asking the seller to justify his claim for dating, and if he refuses or stonewalls you with no response, threaten negative publicity on Asian art Forums such as this. He already has some stacking up against him, and perhaps may not want to incur more of it.

Best wishes,

Alan

Dear Alan,

Thank you. You said everything that I was thinking to say, but didn’t because it is difficult to me to express in English such articulate arguments.

I am referring in particular to the fact that the overall style of the dish is not among known references, although nobody has seen all them.

And to the fact that we can’t judge these plates based on the other items on sale. These ones are not correct, that’s important here.

But I think that these unscrupulous sellers of fake items do not mind so much about negative publicity. In the total balance, they are gaining too much money to stop only because of some negative comment.

The mystery is how they can get a lot of money from selling fake items while honest sellers get much less for genuine items. No explication for that.

Giovanni

Giovanni,

Despite of the answer that makes me sad, I am still grateful to your insights. This is a good lesson for a new collector like me and I think I have learnt a lot from it.

Dear Alan:

I am grateful to your comments. As a new collector, I read a lot of great books about Chinese ceramics before I started to collect, and to be honest, this is the third purchase I made on Ebay for Chinese ceramics. Reading is totally different from buying, this is what I have learnt from this purchase. When I buy, I seem to forget what I have read in books, and relied too much on common senses instead of the informations I've learned in books. I need to keep in mind about this in my future purchases.

I will write to the seller and ask for information. I will let you guys know if he replies. I hope my post and experience will help new collectors in this forum like myself.

Dear Weiandmengjie,

since you said that you are starting to collect, I would le to give you a few simples rules, if I may.

Do not think that you can find on ebay the unseen treasure for low price. That has been possible in the past, I did excellent purchases years ago, but today it is almost impossible, too many people watching there.

Never buy based on “it could be”. Always buy if you are sure, even more if you are a beginner.

Double, or better triple check in case of pairs. Pairs are very rare, always be cautious in judging a pair of dishes, a pair of vases, etc. In general, in a pair one of the pieces has some damage.

If a single detail of the piece is not satisfactory, let it go, pass it.

Always check for very similar, reliable references. A unique piece is highly suspicious.

Do not even watch to imaginative, super elaborate shapes. Classical Chinese ware are simplest than many are expecting, and elegant.

Good luck!

Giovanni

Dear Giovanni,

Noted! Thank you for sharing your valuable experiences of buying antiques on Ebay. I think these standards should be listed at the top of the forum so every new comer can see.

Hello,

Giovanni and Allan, thank you for your very detailed opinions, I have learnt something new today 🙂

I am just wondering about the foot and the back of those plates. Photos are really good, they show a lot. Of course it would be very important to hold the plates in hands as just the feel of glaze could tell you more then your eyes but still I got a strong sensation I am looking at late 18th century foot, not Kangxi of course but late Qianlong. I might be fooled obviously if it is a copy but it looks genuine to me. As to the fronts and decoration all I can say, they look like a copy of Xuande dragons to me.
Would you agree there is a chance those plates are a 18th/19th century copy of Ming patterns? Just a thought of mine.

Kind regards,

Adrian