I agree with the others, the trimming and the shape of the vase overall looks late 19th-20th.  Even with such nice paste, which does occasionally pop up on these later examples, its just not a match for Kangxi.  Still a great color and overall very decorative.

Here are two lipped feet, unfortunately both were ground down to fit mounts, but pay attention to where the glaze ends on the inside the foot rim, and the overall proportions.  Later examples it is trimmed lower.  The shattered vase is Kangxi, the Famille verte one is late 19th.

Just a suggestion for photographing the shape of the vase better, step back liike three or five feet and take a picture, with the focus on the upper rim, most cameras will warp the shape other wise.

then compare it to the shapes here, not the best pictures but you can see the shapes.  Just note that you cannot compare the overall form of a 12cm vase to a 48cm vase and vise versa, they were differently proportioned. 

https://guimet-grandidier.fr/html/4/index/index.htm

Cheers,

Jeremy

@jbeer2121 Thank you so much for your response, Jeremy. I’m happy if it’s late 19th early 20th. You are right about the paste, nice and dense and fairly white. I’m a little confused about your comment on the inside glaze. I’m adding some pictures to show where the glaze stops, almost halfway up the inside foot. It seems your 19thC one doesn’t go up the side at all and the broken Kangxi one goes halfway up like mine. Am I seeing that wrong? Again, not saying mine is Kangxi.

@jbeer2121 continuing my response above, I was mostly curious for the next Kangxi vase I find, haha. Also, when I stick my fingers inside the mouth of the vase there's a very large ridge inside there, although you wouldn't know it by looking at the outside. Is that further indication it would be late 19th early 20th or is that both Kangxi and 100 years ago? I'm supposing both so that would be no indicator either way?

@lotusblack thank you so much. If not powder blue, what might it be called, just monochrome blue? Attached photo in more light. I do notice that almost all Kangxi baluster necks seemed longer and feet flatter. I feel a large ridge inside at the bottom of the neck, but can’t tell from looking at it that it’s there. Ribs are barely noticeable on my vase.

@centralpapottery these pictures make this look like powder blue the others made it look like blue glaze.

@centralpapottery 

These are better pictures of the foot and yes the glaze goes up higher than I had thought.  In similarly bright lighting can you photograph this vase from the side a few feet away so we can see the shape.

Still looks later, shape wise from what I can see so far, though that foot looks very very nice( I could definitely see it as 18th century assuming the texture fits the period too), I just don't see such weak shoulders on an early 18th century vase.  Again though this is hard to tell without properly lit and not warped pictures. 

as far as the ridge, It depends where you are talking about, the neck is usually luted on to the body, and occasionally there is a luting line at the belly.  There are various ringed necks and ridges on vases through out the periods, I don't know how that would date it. 

Jeremy

@jbeer2121 hopefully this picture is better. Let me know if I need to redo. It’s from about 3 feet away and camera at the rim. I believe with most everyone else that mine is 1880-1920 era. The foot is amazing, as you pointed out. And the paste is dense and white as can be seen on a closeup of the chipping around the hole I’ll attach. Very white. 

I found other Kangxi “weak” shoulders, but I don’t believe any had a flared rim like mine. I’ll try to attach some links later. 

And here’s the hole. Wanted to attach separately so I could keep the pictures larger.

These are screen shots of “weaker” shoulders on Kangxi pieces sold by Christie’s, Sotheby’s and Bonhams. No flares rims, as mentioned. Very few weaker shoulders found. Many in Yongzheng period, but those necks are usually longer.

And two more. Of course, one with a very long neck.

@centralpapottery 

Do the proportions look the same as yours?

I recently posted two late Qing Famille Jaune vases, and in my search to try and explain why the decoration is so abstract on one and standard on the other, I found three Kangxi mark and period examples, same form and damn near identical proportions.  That is three out of over a hundred total.  I can tell you that in no way do I think that mine are Kangxi.

The ones you show just now are undoubtedly taller than yours, at least 40cm, one or two that I did find is 45cm plus.

These are different proportions, they are different sizes, they are certainly more balanced looking to my eyes, except the form of the tall slender one at the end, I've seen one of those in person, its like comparing an emu to a chicken shape wise. 

If I walked by yours at an estate sale, a thrift sore, or hell even a gallery, my first thought would be "wow! what a great late Qing powder Blue", and I'd buy it if it were less than a couple hundred bucks, since I know that I could sell it.

I will follow this up with two revival vases, one belongs to John Guerrero from the forum, it was posted here a while ago, it is powder blue and late 19th early 20th. And the second is mine, and is the bottom half of a yen yen most likely, and despite their faithful attempts to copy a kangxi vase( they did a hell of a job I'd say), its off, the paste, the shape isn't balanced enough, the enamels, its not right.

You have a good quality revival vase, I'd mount it back up and use it or sell it.

Cheers,

Jeremy

@jbeer2121 nice. I'd say the blue shape is pretty much exact. But mine seems larger at 30 cm. And his outer foot is larger than mine it seems... a bigger hump or whatever you would call it outside the inner foot. Your vase has that flat foot, which probably makes it even harder to tell. Thanks so much for your time and expertise. And as I mentioned, I couldn't find one Kangxi, this shaped, baluster vase that had a flared rim.

@centralpapottery 

For sure, I think its hard when you look for why it might be said period rather than why its not.  There are a select few pieces where I am utterly convinced, because the main things are right, like 95% right, and then you might have an outlier.  But the chances are slim still, and you might not get anyone to accept it.

Jeremy

@jbeer2121 no doubt.

That’s why I keep these photos close. Everything felt right accept many said it couldn’t be because of the mark. I almost gave up on it being authentic because of that major issue until Brian C. showed one with the same thick mark that was authenticated by a former Christie’s (I believe) expert. Thanks again.

For what it is worth, here are two I purchased last summer.  Same blown-on blue glaze, same circles on the bottom, similar foot rim, with glaze riding up on the inside (but mine have iron staining along the edge of the glaze).  Marked "CHINA".  Based on the "Ovington's" label, probably Republic, or possibly later, for these two.  You can look up Ovington's yourself.