I have looked through a couple of books and the little round things are referred to as " bosses" and He Li in Chinese Ceramics also called them "appliqué roundels." 

I don't know when they first started appearing but in the Percival Collection there is a drum-shaped bowl from the Tang dynasty and it has a row of these around the top rim. Th e authors of the "Highlights of the Sir Percival David Collection" (Regina Krahl & Jessica Harrison-Hall) say the bosses on this piece suggest studs used to fasten an animal skin over an actual drum.

I imagine that they became a design element and served no actual purpose. Sometimes they are carved.

I can't really say anything about your vase or jar. I feel the lion (?) masks are a bit out of proportion and usually they give an object quite a simple elegant look which doesn't come across here.  The lower part where you say it looks stained is not something I have seen before. It seems like there is a cross-over of styles and that always makes me a bit suspicious. I may be wrong, I am sure someone will say if that is the case. 

Thanks for that, Julia!

Is this the drum shaped bowl you are referring to: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_PDF-182 ?

Vases were originally used to store things (I believe?), so the bosses right near the opening make sense.

The one thing that seems consistent with the bosses, design elements or not, is that they appear to only exist on ancient pieces. In other words, an outdated design element today.

I agree that the masks are comically large for the size of the vase.

In the vases defense, however, I am the world's worst photographer. It really is a beauty imho.

I remember when I saw it in the store and went home that night I could not stop thinking about it, so I raced back and grabbed it first thing the next morning. I will try to take and post some better pictures this evening.

If anyone has any resources on chinese stoneware footrims, I would love to see them.

Peter has a lot of great video content on footrims, but they all seem to be porcelain exclusive.

Lastly, the ink/stain/darker glaze appears to be an actual glaze... as it's crackled as well. Originally I wondered if it were some sort of primer glaze applied to the piece before coating it with a beige glaze? But then I learned how intentional crackling was created and wonder now if it were dipped after firing (which I would assume would risk cracking the vase completely in half?!)

That's the one; I find it an absolutely beautiful item!

I know that feeling of seeing something, not buying it but getting home and wishing I had! The horrible feeling of going back, wondering if someone else has grabbed it.

Maybe it isn't Chinese at all, but from elsewhere in Asia. Maybe someone else can help you identify it.  If not, tomorrow I will get my He Li book out again and see if I can find a similar foot. 

Hi Johnny,

I like this a lot, but can't really tell its age. I agree with Julia that the animal masque applique looks too big for its britches. You're correct that these masks were more popular in earlier times. The Western Jin, as an early example, were fans and had some large (though better proportioned and often carved) examples. 

The incised line below the rim was originally used to control glaze, to keep from flowing and sticking at bottom. They remained as a decorative element long after better glaze/kiln control made them unnecessary. 

If not modern, I'd guess your vase is at least in the style of a northern whiteware from the Six Dynasties, Sui or Tang periods. I wouldn't expect white-ware much earlier than that, and I wouldn't expect the masks or that vase's shape much later than that. That bi-shaped foot ring was common in the Tang, but I'm not sure how early it started.

The base clay looks orange and rough, almost like terra cotta. Is that right or maybe just the photo? Are those clumps of dirt stuck to the foot? Are they baked on or loose?

Some of the staining and wear on yours looks convincing, but that too can be faked. Hoping someone can shed more light,

Craig

I was just catching up on this thread and looking at the pictures again and I noticed that on the side there is a darker area where it looks like a crackle can be seen below where the glaze ends. I had always thought of crackle being a glaze aspect, not something in the paste itself. Can you guys educate me about this, because I'd like to have a better understanding of the construction. If you haven't already, I think you should send an inquiry Peter for his thoughts. If you do, let us know what he says. 

I couldn't find anything helpful. Not all the bases are shown, but I looked as far as Ming and couldn't see anything with the technique Craig described or lion masks.

Maybe try some museums or as John suggests, ask Peter.

Posted by: @craig

Hi Johnny,

I like this a lot, but can't really tell its age. I agree with Julia that the animal masque applique looks too big for its britches. You're correct that these masks were more popular in earlier times. The Western Jin, as an early example, were fans and had some large (though better proportioned and often carved) examples. 

 

The incised line below the rim was originally used to control glaze, to keep from flowing and sticking at bottom. They remained as a decorative element long after better glaze/kiln control made them unnecessary. 

If not modern, I'd guess your vase is at least in the style of a northern whiteware from the Six Dynasties, Sui or Tang periods. I wouldn't expect white-ware much earlier than that, and I wouldn't expect the masks or that vase's shape much later than that. That bi-shaped foot ring was common in the Tang, but I'm not sure how early it started.

The base clay looks orange and rough, almost like terra cotta. Is that right or maybe just the photo? Are those clumps of dirt stuck to the foot? Are they baked on or loose?

Some of the staining and wear on yours looks convincing, but that too can be faked. Hoping someone can shed more light,

 

Craig

So make that 2 votes for the oversized masks issue!

I was trying to figure out how one could determine if the masks were carved or not?

I would assume that both the ring around the top and the bosses/bumps were carved, or at least helped along with some sort of carving tool. There are striations around the outside of the piece as well, below the ring around the top, which seem to sit perfectly horizontally when the piece is standing upright. I'll try to post a decent picture of what I am talking about in a later post.

(My only reason for mentioning that is because I thought that perhaps the piece was made larger than you see, and portions of it were carved away to reveal the masks, ring, and bosses? Or is that a pointless amount of work? I don't know anything about potting, but I plan on taking a few classes with an experience potter rather soon!)

Those striations could easily be made by the potters fingers as well however, as you can see similarly sized rings around the inside where it was shaped.

I have a feeling that the masks were made separately from the piece however and applied to the vase while it was still wet, as you can see the bottom lip of one of the lions is a bit "smushed in" ... as if the mask was pressed into the vase by hand a bit too hard ... kind of looks like he is smoking a cigarette or has his tongue out of something 😛

However, if you look closely at the ring edges where the touch the mask, the depth of the rings disappears completely, so... perhaps the masks were carved?

Speaking of masks, I LOVE the detail on the ones you posted by the way! Scary stuff! What would that pot have been used for do you figure?

As for the base of my vase, it's more orange in the center which has been scooped out a bit yes. Whatever is stuck to the foot, I assume you mean the blackened pieces, they're just as much a part of the vase as anything else. They're definitely baked on.

The base is rough to the touch, entirely unglazed, but also fairly smooth at the same time, almost like it has been handled/moved around for a very long time.

I agree that the wear does look convincing. Just from my own experience with picking up random pieces of antique pottery over the years, it looks and feels like it has at least 100 years of age to it.

I started collecting english staffordshire pottery, as that is what you most often find here in Hamilton, so I know a wee bit about how old pottery should feel. However, nobody is faking staffordshire plates and tureens afaik, so I do not have much of any experience with faked age techniques.

Thank you kindly for your input Craig! I'll do some more research on Whiteware and Tang/Sui pieces before I bother Peter about this.

@johnshoe, I am curious about the same thing! The staining seems to be a glaze itself as it is indeed crackled.

@julia (again!) Thank you so much for taking the time to look through your book! I really do appreciate it! I'll keep looking as well, and once I feel as though my abilities have been exhausted I will definitely be asking Peter for his expert advice.

Here are some better quality pictures I promised the other day: https://imgur.com/a/mm77Wph

It does look old and I would have bought it, too. Let us know if you find out anything.

You're quite welcome, sir! My wild speculation is always free of charge, and certainly worth every penny. 😉 

Thanks for the new pictures. It does look old. And that's good that the dirt on the bottom is baked on as opposed to loose; another sign of real age. Modern fakers often glue fake dirt/sand/gunk to pieces to make them seem older.

The large jar I'd posted was a very common form from the Warring States period. I've heard them called "storage jars" and, as opposed to any burial, ceremonial or decorative role, I think they were simply utilitarian. 

For the applied face masks, determining if carved or molded comes down to how sharp the curves and lines are. In both cases, the masks are finished and then stuck (with wet clay) to the pot, then glaze is applied, then it's fired. The glaze can cover over the seam where the mask and pot meet, making it look as if they were made in one piece. Looking at yours, my hunch is that it was molded. 

Now, at risk of sending you on an increasingly wild goose chase, may I make another suggestion? The new pictures have me thinking it could actually be Japanese! It's the shape more than anything, or rather the proportions. This could also (possibly) explain the size of the mask. 

Hopefully someone with more knowledge will be able to help. I'd love to hear back if you find out anything!

Craig

The shape, the glaze and the biscuit fits with Qingbai ware but those oversized lion heads are highly unusual. It's nice piece but not of high value. Just my two cents.

https://www.bukowskis.com/en/auctions/580/245-a-white-glazed-meiping-vase-song-dynasty-960-1279

I just came across this Korean Joseon jar in on of one of my nightly searches. Possibly wrongful described. Might come from an other part of asia?

@avatar Did they show a picture of the base of that one you found?

There was a picture of the base but I didn't bookmark the listing since I'm not interested in it myself. Unfortunately.