@sharonp I'm pretty capable of leaving it when I want to. In this case addressing it seemed warranted. Obviously you disagree. To each their own.

@johnshoe My comment was not specifically addressed to you, but while we are here, for the life of me I could not find "ham fisted," in this present thread.  If I had found it, being a veteran of a St. Louis grammar school, I would have counted myself lucky. 🤣

Looking at the vase and reading through this thread I'm fairly happy that it's a 19th century vase for the Vietnamese market, made.in China.  I might be wrong but I'll send it to auction houses and if they disagree I'll eat humble pie.

Thanks everyone for the input.  We're all learning something.

@thomasumjohnson I hope it turns out to be 19th c. Either way please keep us posted on what you find out.

Posted by: @johnshoe

↑

@tonyatl to me, it sounds like you are trying to invalidate the opinions of those who disagree with you by name calling when they don't offer enough proof to satisfy you. Hopefully that's not the case, but that is certainly how it sounds.

This is my last comment on the topic. When I took college freshman rhetoric (decades ago), the only way I could pass an essay was by providing a thesis, argument, and conclusion. my point above was that a lot of people (and i have no particular person(s) in mind) provide opinions about authenticity of chinese wares by jumping to the conclusion, leaving the argument scanty or non-existent. my teaching assistant invalidated my opinions more than once with a C or D for failing to develop one of those 3 areas. I may have been right or wrong - no one cared about that - but she did care about the rhetorical development.

That is level of discourse for which i look because that provides the best way for me to learn and to test the conclusion against other theses.

i will say no more.

@tonyatl Details are great when you can get them, but sometimes our assessments fall into grey areas that come down to a gut feeling. Some of the most knowledgeable and experienced members here (I'm certainly not one of them) sometimes will make very general statements about a piece of the nature you described disliking - such as the color, shape, decoration is "off" for the period, etc. Even though these statements are sometimes vague, they can be quite accurate and provide valuable insights and clues with which to further our research. Personally I'm grateful for all the contributions here regardless of how experienced or articulate people are. This should be a place where people can contribute on whatever level they are at without others invalidating them with insults. And now I will join you in saying no more. Onward and upward.

Agree with John. If you want only founded experts opinions a forum might be the wrong place. Here everyone gives his or her opinion and it might or might not help you. 
My immediate thought was: what’s that inner ring on the bottom, a glaze fault I never saw before or artificial dirt made to look as from a stand? But that’s just gut feeling not facts so I stayed out of the discussion. 

This discussion, for lack of a better word, points out the fundamental reasons why people submit requests for identification to this forum.  I propose there are really only two fundamental reasons - evaluation or affirmation.

The spirit if this forum should be one of evaluation, where everyone should post their opinions based on experience and evidence, and by the preponderance of such evidence, a conclusion can be drawn.

By no means does this guarantee that the conclusion will be correct, but statistically speaking, it should be the most accurate if everyone’s opinions are given fair consideration.

However, there are times where a request for identification is made where the only consideration given is to the evidence that supports a pre-determined opinion.  All counter evidence is ignored, or classified as excessive nit picking.

This kind of post only seeks for affirmation, and it serves no benefit to the process of learning - only to ones ego.

The field of Asian art has become a mine field, literally filled with fakes that share 99% of their characteristics with their genuine counterparts.

If you’re not willing to consider the possibility that your piece could be fake because it does not exactly conform to known period examples, you will undoubtedly fall victim.

Ultimately, the market will offer a final decision on authenticity, if and when a piece is sold - and even then it is not a guarantee of authenticity.

However, if you are willing to placate yourself on the basis of the opinions of a few people who agree with you, then disregard the advice of those who don’t, and finally, ignore the rejection of the marketplace that is made up of tens of thousands that disagree with you, then there is little hope that you’ll learn anything from the advice given in this forum.

I can only say that I have been very successful buying and selling Chinese antiques, but not perfect. And, for those who have given fair consideration to my opinions, some of which that have been harsh, have benefited from this advice.

And, conversely, I have benefited from their advice and opinions.

So, if you don’t like what I or others have to say, perhaps the problem is you simply want affirmation that your opinion is correct, rather than a open evaluation of your piece.

@tonyatl  Thesis, argument, conclusion - I was a published essay writer in my college years, but one does not need to be a literary scholar to express their opinions here, nor for their opinions to carry weight.

@shinigami I think it's a line from where the vase lays on its side and rolls around...  I'll double check

@greeno107 I can only assume you are referring to me regarding the vase in question and the dragon plaque.  

I didn't ignore what you said which is pasted below:

However, the manner of the clouds and flames seem out of proportion and placed in rather unusual areas of the vase.  Additionally, with only the one dragon chasing the pearl (usually there are two, or perhaps a phoenix and dragon combo), the scene appears a bit odd, especially since the dragon is coming from above and reaching down to grab the pearl.... that's not how I understand the depiction is suppose to be rendered.

I discounted what you said because I have seen other authenticated vases with the dragon coming from above (only one dragon, with no phoenix etc).  The placing of the clouds and overall composition don't seem odd to me. 

Brian pointed out that he has had these in the past and are likely for the Vietnamese market.  I had already posted a link to a Sotheby's vase if similar composition, c19 made for the Vietnamese market, which rules out all the critical features you pointed out.  So my decision was based on the progression of the forum posts which you seem to have ignored.

As for the dragon plaque, from what I gather, you believe that your opinion is correct and believe I have to agree with you.  But I choose to believe people who are much more qualified than you are.  John from Wolley and Wallis, the head of Asian art bonhams at the Knightsbridge branch, and Sotheby's also agreed it is c19 when I showed them the plaque, but said the value was below their 3000 threshold.  Since the reserve was 2000, it didn't sell.   I don't have to agree with your opinion, when a multitude of Asian arts specialists with decades of experience don't.  

The only point you seem to be making is that you are right about everything, and are nearly perfect at selling Asian art .

I agree that conclusory statements are not always helpful, but I am grateful to those who give their opinions and if it is just a general impression, then so be it. I did find "ham fisted," but I accept that it was not directed at any one individual. However, it does not take an exceptionally close reading to know that there was more than opinions going on in this thread, there was personal history. I do not think there were any dreadful insults, no one's parentage was questioned. Not everyone has the time or inclination to read essays on a forum and certainly not bolstering, needless, head butting, gas lighting argument for argument's sake. Final statements were given and an Impasse is declared. Thomas, good luck with your vase.

@sharonp Yeah, just imagine how I'd react if someone talked negatively about my mother! (Cue scene with incredible hulk ripping his shirt off)

The Sotheby's vase is 7 1/2" tall, so fairly small - you didn't post the size of your vase.

But, yeah, I'm completely wrong about what I said about "the manner of the clouds and flames seem out of proportion and placed in rather unusual areas of the vase."

Look at them side by side...they're virtual twins!  Call Sotheby's ...Quick!

I use to believe in the whole everything need to be rendered like the good Sotheby’s items to be authentic but that is just not the case. I did some reading on the Elinor Gordon collection on export wares and my entire perspective was changed. Items were produced by 1000 of shops and 1000 of artist for 100 of different markets. I still think the vase is ok for 19th century the only thing that looks out of place was Birgits comment about the brown ring on the foot. I have seen brown varnish placed on foots of fakes only so better closeup of the brown stain will be needed. The loot joint is very common in 19th export to Vietnam and also other south eastern regions they like the rustic look modern copies don’t deal with these extra steps most times because the reality is this and I hate to say it but this vase as an antique or a decor piece in an retail store cost about the same. And the funny thing is I can put this for sale in my antique store maybe get $400 maybe $500 in a retail decor shop in Scottsdale $750 that’s the reality. 

@lotusblack That's one good thing about Sotheby's buy-it-now page.  They are able to endorse authenticity on items that aren't a good fit for the auction platform due to market conditions.  I know they're very well respected.