Yes, that last one is even more worthy! He is amazing and beautifully drawn.

Interesting thoughts on the dragon being incompletely transformed, it is not a consideration that I have come across before, although I have read the idea behind the depiction of the dragon and carp.  I did notice his fangs, I was thinking of his front teeth.

This has been a interesting discussion, I am hoping there will be a conclusion.

OK, SO I've taken some pictures of the wear to the enamels to see what you guys make of it.  Personally I don't think it's simulated, usually simulated wear (in my limited experience) is not as consistent with the wear on this plaque, which is sporadic and also all over the place, no concentrated in certain areas and looks like general wear and tear (knocks) from over the duration the piece has been around, there are some bubbles which are hard to see in the photos (sorry!) and some bubble pits and staining which to me looks authentic, but I am no expert... 

Hi all,

This is very interesting and much out of my area of (self-proclaimed) expertise. I won't add my thoughts on age because I won't feel it will further the discussion, but I do want to challenge the idea of bubbles as an indicator of age. I pulled two vases out of the electric kiln yesterday, one with larger bubbles than my Kangxi and 19th c. pieces, and the other with numerous bubble pits. Also, both with very uneven craquelure. I've also found that when it comes out of the kiln and cools quickly, it cracks in one way, and if I put it in the freezer and pour boiling water, they produce a different network of craquelure... 

I would shy away from using these features in isolation ... as has been mentioned before. There are techniques to replicate certain features, so for it to be genuine, it must have 100% of the characteristics of older pieces including its design and execution of such design. Every feature, including design and its execution, wear, glazing, supports, bubbles, and craquelure can be replicated in the old style/methods, so we must find these areas of human error to judge authenticity. At least in the pieces that were intentionally made to deceive. Just my two cents. 

That said, I like your plaque, Thomas. I find it very attractive. I had the same initial thoughts as Brian and Julia on the reversed direction of the scales but I can see it is plausibly in the correct direction. Whether it's old, I don't know and am very excited to see where this goes. 

Kind regards,

John

@bartholin Hi John Thanks for joining the discussion.  I'm aware of the genius of modern Chinese fakery..   I believe there's a good documentary about it, but I can't remember what it's called and I haven't seen it.  If anyone knows what I'm referring to please let me now so I can dig it out and watch it...  I think it's worth pointing out that the Plaque, as well as cracks also shows wear to the enamels, where (especially in the blacks) you can see the paint has worn away to reveal the layers below..   and the discolouration of all the colours.  I'm sure it can all be copied nowadays, but I'm no expert so just hoping the finer details will capture someone who knows eye..  In the meantime I'm going to look for a good reference to the way the dragon is painted, all be it I don't have a problem with the form (the scales in different direction, the head attached or the claw coming down towards the head of the dragon) It's more the way the scales are painted that I'm having trouble finding.  Also I will obviously send it to Peter at some point soon for his appraisal and may well take it to Bonhams or the V&A to see if they have any insights.   

@johnshoe I've obviously got under your skin.  Sorry, really.  

Your taking my 'facts' remark out of the context it was used, ommiting the more constructive remarks I've made before and after my 'facts' comment, and you're concluding that I think I'm the only one privy to the 'facts'.  Not at all.  I'm often wrong, and often I find that I'm wrong from the finding of a beginner (not that Thomas is a beginner).

However, if a discussion (and this thread has been a very good discussion) starts to drift into practices that actually can do more harm than good for those studying the trade, I think it is very important that someone pulls the emergency brake.  I've seen other people do it... this time it was me.

Now, that doesn't mean my assessment of authenticity is right, but it does mean my method of assessment is the right one to take....that is, one based upon factual records that support the hypothesis of authenticity, and not supposition based upon subjective interpretation of similarities in design.

What I saw happening was Thomas was looking at Kangxi period examples for similar qualities in design, then concluding that since it was not a perfect match, that it must be a later version from the 19th c.  That is a false conclusion based upon pure speculation and wishful thinking.

The only conclusion one can draw from comparing a subject piece to Kangxi period pieces, and then finding there are differences, is that the subject piece is not Kangxi.  There is no other conculsion to draw.

After my objection (and perhaps purely coincidental), Thomas cited a similar sized plaque from a reputable source described as 19th c., which proved that it was possible to have a 19th large plaque without the back ridges, disproving one of the major concerns I had.  I acknowledge and congradulated him for it.  

Back on track to a more constructive discussion, right?

You'd think so, but again I see Thomas is referencing Kangxi examples as some type of support for his hypothesis on his plaque.

John, you're right that my words could be taken as aggressive - I prefer passionate.

My voice is certainly not the only one that matters in this or any other case, so perhaps taking my hands off the steering wheel in this discussion, and seeing what happens, is best.

@greeno107 Hi Tim, I'm not ruling out anything, including that it's possible the piece could be 18th century...

You sighted the Plaque without supports and mentioned you thought it could be 18th century

Although, I do agree with your methods of research and I think everyone on this forum is lucky to have you as a member, to share you knowledge. 

It's not necesary for anyone to get emotional about these things, afterall we are learning from each other and a degree of objectivity in necesary.

We all need to just to listen to each other carefully, often written communication can easily be taken the wrong way and lead to un-necesary arguments.

@thomasumjohnson And there you have it!  If you give equal credit to facts and unfounded speculation, then you can achieve any conclusion you want.  Maybe it's ancient Egyptian!

Thomas, you have a beautiful plaque and you got it for a great price.  Best of luck with your research!

@greeno107 OK thanks Tim, I do appreciate your input..  Like I say we are all lucky to have you here.. 

So this dragon has scales painted in the same way, in two tone.  Most if not 90% don't.  Can't say if the sighted piece is authentic or not:

https://www.fontainesauction.com/auction-lot/chinese-porcelain-qianlong-bottle-vase-with-dragon_C6749E6B89

Also this one:

https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-5891198

Thanks for the closer pictures. I would like to ask members do these enamels look correct for 19th century? Since I own over 100 19th century pieces and some very high quality. The enamel are not bright thick and look watered down. I do own a vase from about 1950 and the enamel is identical. Can we focus on the enamels. As for the wear my 1950 vase has the same wear like the glaze is softer. But my question is why so much wear we are not talking about a bowl or plate it sits on a wall. 

@lotusblack 

Posted by: @lotusblack

But my question is why so much wear we are not talking about a bowl or plate it sits on a wall. 

Good question, my hopeful response would be that it's not framed or mounted, so is open to being knocked about, as it is I have no way of mounting it to a wall..

Brian brings up a great point that I think is really difficult to answer. I'm skeptical of the idea of a huge thin plaque being knocked about - it seems odd. It also would be difficult to imagine this would have accumulated this much wear over time being face down unmounted. An alternative is that it was face up and subject to objects placed on top of it and moved around over the years. Given its nice rendering, I don't think anyone would've disrespected it this way if it were genuine.

Subject to any other explanations, I think the other much more likely alternative is the wear being applied intentionally.

@bartholin At the moment its learning agains a wall in my room, becasue I want to see it..

I've mentioned this before, but If a talent artist wanted to make a fake, why not fake a known style / known period, rather than making an original work, one which people find hard to place.  It would be much easier to make money faking something that was easily categorised.  My feeling is that it wasn't made to deceive for this reason and the artist was making a work of originality for the sake of art not money.  If money was the motive then make something that's easy to place.  For this reason I don't think it's made to trick anyone but a genuine attempt at making an artwork.  How old it is, is another question

My apologies, Thomas - when I said "I don't think anyone would've disrespected it this way if it were genuine," I did not mean you were disrespecting it. I meant that, as Brian pointed out, a plaque is decorative and not useful, so it's difficult to imagine a decorative object for display would accumulate that much wear on the face of it. I was trying to find an explanation for how the plaque would've been subject to that kind of wear over the years if it was genuine. It was in no way a comment on how you are handling it, as we are simply studying it here.