@greeno107 Very nice bowls I do see the comparison. The supports is only one issue for me. The dragon is my artistic issue. Yes is a good looking dragon if we are talking about animation or a tattoo. But it is a wrong dragon for a Qing period example. I  have not found one example of a dragon painted in this style. To clarify it’s on steroids. How can the scales be correct if the body is not. Is the head connected to the bicep or the neck. As all of the dragons I have shown on this thread none not one is painted in animation they are all proportional and stream lined. You never have to wonder where the neck starts and the tail ends. It’s a large plaque the dragon could have been positioned differently yes you can be a good artist but not an experienced artist cultural styles time and trends predict the stylization in terms of period.

It appears as thou the neck is behind the head like in this one:

https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2019/saturday-at-sothebys-n10115/lot.1537.html

but not visible as in the similar to this one:

http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2016/09/06/34290832.html

In other words the head is obscuring the neck.  So I don't see an issue with how the head is attached.

Posted by: @thomasumjohnson

Posted by: @imperialfinegems

The back also look good for this period. In line with wood fired kiln. 

Hi Mark,

Do you still stand by what you said above in relation to the back of the Plaque?  It is a large plaque at 44.5cm square..

Hi Thomas, 

This is a very interesting thread. 

I first thought it was highly probable that your dragon plaque was from the guangxu period. 

However of concern is the size and edges. I completely agree with @Greeno107 comments.

I do not share the same sentiment sadly with Giovanni post about the Wang Yeting plaque from Rob Michels auction. That one is definitely not by the master. It's a relatively new plaque.

Mark 

@imperialfinegems , @Greeno107 

Ok thanks guys..   I've taken some more photos of the edges and back.  The edges aren't straight, they are warped at the edges and in the middle sections in places, also the back has this residue..   The front of the plaque also has a lot of residue of something (I don't know what) mixed in with the paint.  I don't know if this helps, but here are the pics..

@thomasumjohnson The additional photos are still kind of dark... you should use very strong light, regardless of shadows and reflection, because the strong light allows your camera to use higher resolution which allows me (and others) to zoom in and see micro details, like bubbles, texture, etc...

That said, my mind is not changed.  The quality of the rendering is really good... it's a beautiful plaque, and I don't think you over paid.  But, the style (as Brian has pointed out) is not Guangxu, having a more cartoonish manner to its rendering.

This is a very important point to always keep in mind when buying.  You should be asking yourself, "self, does the motif reflect the style of the period made?'

Those that best represent the taste of the period made, presumably mark & period pieces, will always be more desirable among collectors, and consequently have more monetary value.

Conversely, if collectors feel the design does not capture the style of the period, then even with irrefutable evidence of the piece being of the period, you will have an uphill battle trying to convince collectors of its authenticity, never mind its monetary value.

In this case, the design and the construction of the plaque leads to only one conclusion... not Guangxu period.

One more thing.... Brian's description of the rendering as being somewhat cartoon like, reminded me that I have another pair of famille verte vases from the 1970's-80's of very good quality that exhibit this cartoonish late 19th c. style.  I'll post photos later, and I think you will see that the high quality of your plaque's rendering is not prohibitive of being from a later 20th c. date.

Dear Thomas thank you for the photos I am more confident that this piece is modern. I don’t like to use the word to deceive but can’t be ruled out now. Why have I come to this conclusion is the back. I couldn’t understand the finish edges or the kiln grit but your photos have given me the answer. It was done to cover the modern tooling marks if you get a magnifying glass you will clearly see what I’m  referring to. The wear on the front looks very intentional. I believe this plaque was made in Hong Kong due the the watery darkened yellow enamel. The pictures are not clear enough to be definitive but the tooling marks are present.

@lotusblack Hi Brian,

Here are some detailed photos of the texture of the enamel.  It has a texture of a sort of burnt sugar...  Is this genuine age or simulation.  And how do you know / how can you tell..  sorry lots of photos...

Hello, Thomas

If’s you want to know for sure let Peter check it out or do like I did and got with Victoria and Albert Museum and got there vu on a pare of picking jar I have they put them in the early 19th century. Best of luck to you John

@lotusblack Sorry Brian, I didn't mean to sound unappreciative of your knowledge / insights.  I hope the additional photos help.  The thing I don't understand thou, is that, if it was made to deceive then why paint it in a style that is out of touch with tradition, and go to a lot of trouble, since we all agree this took some time to render. To me it feel like an original piece in the way that the artist has created what we seem to all agree is an original work, which is why its hard to place it at a specific time.  All be it likely not that old, since the style somewhat "modern" how modern I don't know, but it would be easier to copy a traditional style, being that the artist is or was very talented and it would have been a lot easier to do that then come up with an original work...

@thomasumjohnson I own a yellow enamel bowl that was described as Guangxu and had Christie’s look at it for authentication. The gentleman told me it was a copy from Hong Kong. He said he could alway tell it was Hong Kong due to the browning in the yellow  enamel used and the sandy texture. It was my first expensive fake. I kept the bowl for study If I wasn’t at my other home I would send a photo. The covering of the tooling and artificial aging is done to make it look older than it really is. If they didn’t artificially age the plaque or intentionally cover up the tooling marks it would be ok. John is right I am no expert you should also get an expert opinion and than another tell they your concerns and what makes you feel good about it. Fakes are amazingly good sometimes not even experts can be conclusive without personal handling the item.

@lotusblack Ok Thanks Brian, for taking the time to share your knowledge..  You're more of an expert than I am..  

In terms of style, I think the animated dragon is closer to a Kangxi style than late c19 early 20th thou.  Like these ones that I mentioned in the beginning of the thread..  (I'm not saying my piece is Kangxi..!)

https://plcombs.blogspot.com/2014/11/kangxi-famille-verte-porcelain.html

But these manga style animated dragon that look modern did exist in the Kangxi period..

http://elogedelart.canalblog.com/archives/2011/04/23/20961315.html

and this one has the scales going in the opposite direction..

https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5942789

@thomasumjohnson 

You think your dragon resembles these amazing Kangxi examples?  Perhaps in the most non-specific way, but they look miles apart to me when put side by side.

We can not cherry pick only the aspects of the piece that are similar....authenticity requires 100% match of aspects.  A true marriage.

I think the facts have been laid out reasonably, so we are bordering on fantasy with these type of comparisons.

@thomasumjohnson I think you are actually answering your own questions I agree the animation of dragon was more pronounced in Ming early Qing. Start by eliminating the obvious did Kangxi dragons have green eyes are the clouds right. Is the enamel and glaze correct. We’re large plaques around. Is the structure correct. Not Quite. Than you have to move to revival. Ask the same thing. Not one thing makes it correct but the overall presentation. There are exceptions to every rule. That’s why some pieces just have to be handled we don’t see everything you do. The glaze and enamels could look different so we have to look at tells and rendering and take a guess. And still might not be correct. This forum is not to authenticate its to discuss the probability it is or isn’t. I look at this forum as a meter from 1 to 10 1 being no way to 10 yes its most likely correct. When I look at your plaque I see a lot of things from different periods not just one.

@lotusblack Yes I'm not saying it's kanxi, but Kangxi style.  I'm saying that the 3 dimensional quantities and cartoon manga style rendition of dragons is more Kangxi than 19c 20c..   There does seem to be a large variety of styles of dragons within the Kangxi period, and I'd love to think my piece is Kangxi, but it's really a huge long shot in the dark and I'm fully aware of the bias that my opinion holds over trying to objectively appraise my own pieces.  As pre-mentioned I am no expert and not qualified to make the call.  But I'm just questioning previous statements relating to the dragon being too 3 dimensional, too cartoonish by sharing some other examples that also share similar qualities.   Including the questions that people were asking about where the head was attached and scales moving in the opposite direction..  I need to have it looked at by an expert.  Nevertheless I love the piece and happy I bought it, for whatever it is.