Dear all, to be precise: the wax seal means that the item is not older then a certain date, hence it can be exported. In other words, it is not considered antique.

Antiquities are not allowed to be exported from China.

Hence, the seal has nothing to do with the quality of the item, and for any reason is adding value to it.

On the contrary, it would be better to not have it. I myself invariably remove it if it is on an item that I find.

Regards,

Giovanni

@clayandbrush. I leave mine on for sentimentality, a souvenir, but as you say, it adds nothing to intrinsic value, except perhaps provenance in another century or two. 😀   You have just received my very first emoji.  Best, Sharon

@clayandbrush

Hi Giovanni,

I have a plate that Peter identified as 18th c. and has an export seal. I read somewhere that the seal means that the item is not of cultural significance and therefore doesn't necessarily relate to age. Of course, the seal on my plate could have been faked. 

Respectfully,

Steve

Dear Steve,

There is no reason for faking the seal.

As said before, that seal means that the item can be exported. Meaning: not important for our cultural heritage.

Now, the reason for finding it on a 18^th century dish simply means that that dish has not been judged to be an important one.

But it must also be considered that the seals were released by Custom offices, hence not necessarily experts. Besides that, I heard (can’t guarantee that it is true but possible) that also some important item has been found with the seal, probably because of bribes paid by some antiquarian.

Regards,

Giovanni

@clayandbrush
Hey Giovanni and others; 

Forgive the length of this - but I think there may be some misunderstanding in the context of the phrasing and words used here; and it may help to clear it up should new members or internet lurkers stumble across this later:

Respectfully, of course - (as Chinese antiques are not my strong-suit especially when compared to the experienced members here), I think there is a misunderstanding regarding the word "antique" - as I and the people I talk to often go by the broadly applied western legal definition of antique: meaning 100 years or more, whereas you are probably thinking in terms of real "antique" antiques; aka the originals and not Late 19th or late Guangxu-Xuantong "revivals" or, as people who can afford original versions call them; fakes.

So perhaps it is a misunderstanding - but there are several cases of pieces up to the early 1800s (mass produced export-wares like @steve shared, or my functional usage domestically abundant lidded pot likely fired by a civil kiln), being brought back with no trouble.
And yes; as you said - there are one or two rumoured cases that involved earlier original period examples; but understandably the details are hush. 

There have been several amendments over the years to address the underlying litigative clauses for exceptions ever since the construction and utilization for the law requiring of the export seal in the post-revolution days of the PROC by the PRC. 
Namely right in the early 1990s, throughout the first decade of the 2000s, and even as recent as 2019 - which has now designated it to less than 50 years in many wider standings now. 

Back a few years ago, the saying was "if you must, pre-1990s imported is fine, better than 1995" for whatever that is worth.
This shows the consistently changing and fluctuating nature these amendments to the enforcements of items deemed "cultural significance/relic" status.

There are even additional rules put into place referring to pieces produced during times/or/in areas/or/attributed to non-Han peoples - and visa versa. 

[From my friends in the mainland directly, they tell me that (pre-clamp down 2019) there is much confusion even amongst the divisions of their government on the degree of which to enforce said policies; and under what causes/specifics.
You have to keep in mind that the People's Ministry of Culture, amongst its many things it is pseudo-"constitutionally" appointed to figurehead or manage, also delegates broad authority in many areas to what could best be described as a subcommittee; themselves designated as their name implies - to be the state sanctioned administration of Cultural Heritage.

Then after "agreeing" (often sometimes vaguely, as this works) it is passed on from those two groups to the National Congress].

This is no surprise; as between the two decade span, (and further) from the early 1990s when the seals were modified along with other amendments added; China went from the 8th or 7th strongest economy per GDP, to the 2nd largest (we will ignore the artificial inflation of their reporting as the control of the communist party, as well) - as it still does apply the age old adage of: "the art market follows the world market"

Nobody was buying Chinese modernist works for 7 to 8-figures two decades ago; and similarly for antiques which is actually dwarfed largely by the priorly mentioned marketshare.

Remember when Korean Celadons were selling for $300,000 instead of now retailing for $300-$3,000 - and Arita-wares were worth more than Kangxi exports at the time by multiples?
There was also once a time where a certain "revolution" took place and anything resembling authority or the ruling elite were smashed in the streets by thugs wearing government uniforms, and children were encouraged to inform on their own parents via propaganda.

The point of this all being: 

Regulations will change, misinformation will be supplied, and misconceptions/old-wive's tales will be taken as fact.
If we are not careful to be mindful of this; then we are not doing our jobs as conservators and scholars of history - nor as patrons and collectors of the arts. 

The cliché of "the victors write history" is true - and currently the "victor" in controlling the value of market assets be it commodities and fiscal investments; or physical ones such as the art market that follows: is money. 
Plain and simple.

It is funny, as you will of course notice the amendment restricting current "50" year limit on many things, coincides with the rise in PROC-wares (especially propaganda-wares) and artists selling sometimes beyond dynasty pieces - and especially in a private sale setting. 

These are my thoughts on the matter, but as always; I could be incorrect and encourage all to do their own independent research from multiple vetted sources.

Best regards,
-JRN

@clayandbrush

Dear Giovanni,

Yes, that's how I understand it as well.

I must have misunderstood you when you wrote: "...the wax seal means that the item is not older then a certain date,"

You are right that there would be no reason to fake a seal on that plate. 

Respectfully,

-Steve

@jrn

Dear JRN,

Thank you for the information.

If I understand this correctly, the export customs policies are periodically updated and one needs to be careful about generalizing the meaning behind the seals. I appreciate your insight.

Regards,

S

thank you very much, this is an unexpected lot of information

Dear JRN,

Thank you very much for your interesting post.

I fully agree with your considerations, especially those related to the real value that we should give to objects.

What happened to the Korean and Japanese ware is a clear example, and those are not the only examples in History.

I am confident that soon or later it will happen with Chinese ware too.

Except for the high-end items, the current prices will drop because absolutely crazy, I would say ridiculous.

I do not buy a super common laughing Buddha, at today’s prices (I have seen one sold at auction for 11,000 euro!!!) considering that until a few years ago they were found for 15-20 euro. That is really ridiculous.

BTW, regarding the wax seal, regardless the age limit (50 or 90 years doesn’t matter) the meaning is not that of “we guarantee that its quality is ok” of the oval stickers that were found on Japanese cameras, but that of “you can take it, we do not need it” instead.

Regards,

Giovanni

@jrn  I do believe there will be a market adjustment in the near future and it is a strange brand of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs," that Marxists apparently need to spend exorbidant amounts of money to impress one another.  It is like tulips in the Netherlands of the seventeenth century, the bubble eventually has to burst.

P.S.  If the communists wish to redistribute their new found wealth to the west, I am all for westerners getting exorbitant amounts of money for old pots.  Ride the wave as long as possible, stay ahead of the curl and don't wipe out.

@clayandbrush
Thank you for taking the time to read my friend, Giovanni. 

You are wise to the nature of these collection worthy wares that are true in value and quality regardless of market trends, and I do not think anybody would doubt that for a second on this great forum; so again I wish only to reaffirm that my post was not to disagree with the underlying meaning of your message (as you are 100% correct) - nor to give any disrespect (as I hope it did not, but will be the first to apologize if it did), but rather to allow for an explanation to those of us who have not been collecting Chinese pieces for nearly as long as some of the others here - (as you'll notice we thankfully have many new members joining every day:) - and may still be struggling to fine-tune the gauge of quality; of which we have both have talked in detail the nature of this is distorted & muddled by dishonest secondhand resellers on platform pages that are popular and of the easiest access to the (largely uninformed or just plainly naive) general public. 

Additionally - I should have clarified my own designation to the seal's context, itself lacking adequate explanation in my message before the prior one; seeing now it too could have caused a misunderstanding, which I do apologize for.  

To elaborate: the seal style (to my eyes) seemed resemblant of one of the older issued ones - which when first being issued, we must remember the majority of Guangxu pieces would not have been definable as legally antique either (meaning the 100 years), the art market had not inflated as much to include this time period as a rocket of investment that it is now, and many (then "vintage" exports) of the ones allowed out only 2 or so decades ago include pieces now sold as Wang Bu, He Xuren, and several early-mid 1900s Jiangxi pieces that are now collected (or inflated) by several niches who pay handsomely for such.
Of course, anybody who can distinguish quality/is a collector or even infrequent scholar - will (as you properly stated) largely see this as a deterrent.
The niche who would focus on the priorly mentioned area, would likely choose to only buy these pieces from the best houses possible anyways: as ironically, while once these pieces were allowed out (Classic Republic Period ones) - they now find themselves amongst the group of highest quality modern fakes too; commanding high prices - and a very keen eye that many trend collectors lack. 

Absolutely though, without a doubt: if it had been let out - they generally weren't hurting to let it leave. 

The question is, would they be slightly frustrated enough to buy it back after a few years 😆 
And with an army of misinformed mainland bidders (or western resellers) largely buying through publicly mass-used platforms and using number of bids seen as an indicator of desirability - or large auto-bids/snipes, would it make a difference..

Again; my apologies for any confusion/misconceptions caused on my end - as I wanted to add a viewpoint, but see now I likely muddled it.
Thank you as always for being willing to engage in a discussion with respect, and education for the benefit of us all being the end-goal.
Something I very much enjoy about this forum, and it's less common to come across each day. 
Thanks again, sincerely

Best,
-JRN 

@sharonP
A welcome inclusion of the tulip market example 😎 
My friend who escaped (his insistence of using the word "escaped" not mine) China, coins it as "communism for you, not for my friends and me" - and of course, much like this not being the first of many examples where a market on the middle levels being inflated: this is not the first time we've seen a governing body claim a political ideology as its banner yet seem to disregard the core principles of such when inconvenient to themselves (ironically them and their cabinet often resembling the very thing the claimed to have "done away" with). 

The market will readjust; and already has began to on several levels - I and a few others I talk to theorize the middle market will be hurt the worst over time; and itself consisting of possibly the most diverse demographic: ranging from the middle/upper-middle class of collectors or dealers/re-sellers who depend on such as their main income. 
High quality, the best of the best (as Giovanni said) will always obtain its value to a degree; be this due to the prestige of such - or the expendable income of those able to buy; this is true of other markets that have "tanked" over time (from what I've noticed, even resurged).

I will be interested to see how things fare for Bonhams tomorrow with their Korean and Japanese sale - it comes from a regarded collection, and may set the tone for the middle market to consider other forms of Asian Art as still profitable/sustainable longterm with investment based on the following results. 
Some splendid Kakiemon examples (European, and Japanese-type) offered, best in a while - and exceedingly fine Yabu Meizan satsumas.
Definitely worth the watch.

En-parting for now; I leave you with one of my most treasured collectables - itself worth very little monetary value, but the message affixed to it and the symbolism (and now current irony) worth value beyond such:

"Shard boxes" are largely common - and quite decorative; and I am fortunate enough to acquire one from a lovely woman who was selling her mum's pieces off after she passed. 
She had bought it in the early 90s from Hu family's original Beijing location a few years after it opened shoppe; from the wonderful Zonglu and Songlin - a father and son from a family of jewelers and collectors who had to watch in horror during the "cultural revolution" as people destroyed their Ming and Qing antique porcelains out of fear, and collected the shards to preserve a culture they did not know would be remembered or forced out of the minds of the populace forever. 

I found an article interview on google with the grandson, born in the 1980s who it seems still runs the shoppe and keeping alive a legacy born from keeping alive another legacy - how amazing:
http://www.bjreview.com/Lifestyle/201802/t20180211_800117686.html

It is made extra special to me, as I love the flower balls and precious objects/100 antiques style on Qing Famille Rose polychrome porcelains - they along with Straits exports being my favourite due to the vibrancy and beautiful enameling.

How funny is it that 50 years ago; these objects were the ultimate evil to those ruling - and now they are a symbol of status and prosperity, revered as great art and cultural heritage that can't leave the country of their origin; and worth huge sums of money to bring back?
(Unless they have a hairline crack 😉)

I hope everybody as always is doing well; but also staying safe. 
Regards,
-JRN 

@jrn  As always, a pleasure to read and to see the shard box with the beautiful flower ball and precious objects design.  Imagine how lovely it must have been before it was destroyed.

Dear JRN,

there are absolutely no reason for apologize, I fully agree with you and thank you for the many interesting considerations.

Regards

Giovanni