@sadoq95  Looks genuine to me, but I would need to handle it to be 100% sure.  I'm not familiar with this specific design, but I would describe it as wucai, not doucai.

I think it would be classed as Doucai. However there does not appear to be an under glaze blue beneath the enamels. This might be a something the more experts could look at. As would it no then be an imitation of a Doucai. If it is a real Doucai it would be worth 40,000 

To be Doucai or To be Wucai that is the question. 

Wucai

Wucai (五彩, "Five colours", "Wuts'ai" in Wade-Giles) is a style of decorating white Chinese porcelain in a limited range of colours. It normally uses underglaze cobalt blue for the design outline and some parts of the images, and overglaze enamels in red, green, and yellow for the rest of the designs. Parts of the design, and some outlines of the rest, are painted in underglaze blue, and the piece is then glazed and fired. The rest of the design is then added in the overglaze enamels of different colours and the piece fired again at a lower temperature of about 850°C to 900°C.

It has its origins in the doucai technique. The usual distinction made with doucai, which also combines underglaze blue with overglaze enamels in other colours, is that in wucai only parts of the design include blue, and these cover wider areas, and are often rather freely painted.

In doucai the whole design is outlined in the blue, even if parts are overlaid by the enamels and invisible in the finished product. Some parts may also be painted in the blue.

However, this is not true of all pieces classified as doucai, especially from the 18th century onwards. Fragments of incomplete examples, only done in blue, have been excavated from waste tips at the kiln.

The next development, Famille verte (康熙五彩, Kangxi wucai, also 素三彩, Susancai), adopted in the Kangxi period (1662–1722), uses green and iron red with other overglaze colours developed from wucai, normally without any use of underglaze blue.

Wucai images 

https://www.sothebys.com/en/search?query=wucai&tab=objects

Doucai

Doucai (Chinese: 斗彩; Wade–Giles: tou-ts'ai) is a technique in painted Chinese porcelain, where parts of the design, and some outlines of the rest, are painted in underglaze blue, and the piece is then glazed and fired. The rest of the design is then added in overglaze enamels of different colours and the piece fired again at a lower temperature of about 850°C to 900°C.

The style began in the 15th century under the Ming dynasty in the imperial factories at Jingdezhen, and its finest products come from a few years in the reign of the Chenghua Emperor, mostly small pieces like the famous Chicken cups.The style was discontinued after a few decades, as a suitable overglaze blue was developed, but later revived under the Qing dynasty.

It is not to be confused with the wucai style, which was a related early technique for polychrome painting.Doucai can be translated as "contrasted colours", "fitted colours", "colours which fit together" or "dove-tailed colours".

Doucai images

https://www.sothebys.com/en/search?query=doucai&tab=objects

https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/hundred-antiques-fine-and-decorative-asian-art/a-doucai-lotus-bowl-20th-century-er-shi-shi-ji-dou

@short-dong The bowl from Sotheby’s is doucai, as you can see all line work is done in underglaze blue.

That is not the case with the bowl Ibraham posted. You can see a few elements done in underglaze blue, but the remaining elements in famille verte enamels with either black line or iron red.

Posted by: @greeno107

@short-dong The bowl from Sotheby’s is doucai, as you can see all line work is done in underglaze blue.

That is not the case with the bowl Ibraham posted. You can see a few elements done in underglaze blue, but the remaining elements in famille verte enamels with either black line or iron red.

 

Yes, that is something i raised. It appears to be trying to be in the style of Doucai but has no underglaze blue under the enamel unlike the Sotheby's one. I am not very proficient in this area

Ibrahim, it is a very pretty bowl.

How big is it? It is very pretty an nicely done, but to me, the shape seems wrong for a Qianlong bowl. 

it's very small about 10cm(4inch) in diameter and 5.5cm(2.16inch) in height, @julia I think that's why it's different in shape.

thank you  @sharonp @short-dong, I think it would be classified as Wucai as @greeno107 pointed out, but I'm not sure.

have you guys seen anything close to it?

I wondered if yours might be later, the shape seems more like earlier pieces or later ones, like the Sotheby's bowl above. Also, most wucai qianlong bowls I have found don't have this style of decoration. 

So I did a bit of searching and found this, which could be a copy, but it makes me feel you should be careful, especially if there is a qianlong price involved.:

https://www.rm-auctions.com/en/asian-arts-april/10068-a-chinese-doucai-bowl-republic-20th-c?

@sadoq95 How is the seller describing it and how much are they asking for it?  

Posted by: @julia

I wondered if yours might be later, the shape seems more like earlier pieces or later ones, like the Sotheby's bowl above. Also, most wucai qianlong bowls I have found don't have this style of decoration. 

So I did a bit of searching and found this, which could be a copy, but it makes me feel you should be careful, especially if there is a qianlong price involved.:

https://www.rm-auctions.com/en/asian-arts-april/10068-a-chinese-doucai-bowl-republic-20th-c?

Thanks Julia.

Ibrahim should be careful with these. 

I found 2 more Doucai in your link, and these sold for $300 for the pair which might say alot, making Ibrahims only worth $150 and that is if it sold on RM auctions. I am not seeing a profit in this and as there is no blue underglaze on Ibrahims, it should be passed unless anyone still feels it is wucai.  

https://www.rm-auctions.com/en/asian-arts-april/10081-a-pair-of-chinese-doucai-bowls-daoguang-mark-20th-c?

I think we have not found sufficient close enough matches to Ibrahim's bowl to raise concerns quite yet, except Julia's example that copies the style of rendering.

However, Julia's example is quite an obvious fake, poorly rendered, wrong enamel colors, and a bad mark.

The Daoguang example is an apples with oranges comparison, different style of enamel, different presumed period, different design.

The Sotheby's example, which bears a Yongzheng mark but was sold as 20th c., sold for $69,300 USD, shares the same quality of rendering, but different design, enamels, and period mark.  However, we know that designs were shared between the Yongzheng and Qianlong, but with modifications of course.

Let's give the bowl a chance to prove itself, one way or another, and find some more closely related matches.

On that note, I do think if we are looking at doucai examples instead of wucai, we are barking up the wrong tree.

Posted by: @greeno107

I think we have not found sufficient close enough matches to Ibrahim's bowl to raise concerns quite yet, except Julia's example that copies the style of rendering.

However, Julia's example is quite an obvious fake, poorly rendered, wrong enamel colors, and a bad mark.

The Daoguang example is an apples with oranges comparison, different style of enamel, different presumed period, different design.

The Sotheby's example, which bears a Yongzheng mark but was sold as 20th c., sold for $69,300 USD, shares the same quality of rendering, but different design, enamels, and period mark.  However, we know that designs were shared between the Yongzheng and Qianlong, but with modifications of course.

Let's give the bowl a chance to prove itself, one way or another, and find some more closely related matches.

On that note, I do think if we are looking at doucai examples instead of wucai, we are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Thank you to Julia for finding that copy of the Bowl. That is quite amazing how you do that. 

I agree with Greeno the Bowl is a copy and it has no underglaze blue under the enamel which you can see is present in the Sothebys. Nonetheless similar copies as Julia has discovered have little value.

It does not help that sothebys has started to call everything 20th century, but taken with RM auctions and Julias appraisal that the shape is not good for the Qianlong period and does not feel it has the common style of decoration found on Wucai. Then unless shown otherwise the bowl is 20th century and possibly neither Doucai or Wucai.

However considering the Ming era 'Meiyintang Chicken Cup' sold for 281 million Hong Kong dollars. ($36 million US Dollars)  and The sotheby's 20th Century example with Yonghzeng mark sold for $70,000 dollars then i understand why Greeno does not want to give up on this one but considering the RM Auction 20th Century examples are a almost mirror image of Ibrahims bowl and only sold for about $150 dollars then i am not sure this that hidden treasure, and while it might be something, it does not have the underglaze blue and while not all Doucai have underglaze blue under the enamel after the 18th century, Julia does not feel this fits that time period. 

So not likley to be a treasure......

I am no expert, I just talk about what I see and refer it to what I have learnt on here and elsewhere. I probably know less than most people and I agree the bowl could be a copy, as I said at the time, but it serves a purpose as Ibrahim asked if anyone had found anything similar. His could be a very nice Republic bowl, it may be earlier, I just have some doubts about the shape and style of decoration if this is qianlong wucai.

Hi Julia

You are quite a bit better than you give yourself credit, but I completely empathise with not feeling right in principle to give an opinion based only on our own self learned knowledge, but at the end of the day it is the responsibility of the poster asking to properly research their potential purchase, or item. Failing that they can always ask Peter for a professional appraisal for a $12. I am going to maybe do a course on Aisian Art just to put things in perspective, but no matter the expert, everyone has reservations giving advice and we all make mistakes no matter our expertise. I would prefer people are in the process of learning about asian art and asking questions than simply seeking appraisals which are hard for even the best experts.

This is the Ming era 'Meiyintang Chicken Cup' that sold for 281 million Hong Kong dollars. ($36 million US Dollars)