Library is still closed. I have a similar vase. One at Sotheby's. Also some at museums I think...

@avatar 

Thanks 🙂 

Here are two mallet vases with lingzhi handles sold at Sotheby's. Longquan ware is genrally not suitatable for TL-testing as far as I know. 

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2016/chinese-art-hk0649/lot.672.html

https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2019/tianminlou-a-small-history-of-chinese-ceramics-hk0877/lot.8.html

@avatar  Those links are really helpful!  Thank you.

@superox  Al, I think based upon the links that Vic posted, your vase is looking less likely of being genuine, sorry to say.

Again, I'm not a collector of these early wares, so I'm not well versed on variations in the design, but in general, when a design element is missing or added, it usually means the piece is not of the period, or even a fake.

In the case of your mallet vase, your ruyi handles are shaped rather sloppy compared to those in the links.  Is this a variation in quality?  Maybe, but I've always believed that quality is often a good indication of collectability and age.

Additionally, do you see your vase is missing a ring around its neck that is in the vases that sold at auction?  That ring as meaning...I think it is derived from a design used in archaic vessels (arrow vases?).  The fact that there is no ring is a concern.

Finally, you mention some concerns regarding the roughness of the foot rim.  Things are adding up, don't you think?

Regarding my suggestion for a TL test... I would not do it.  If the vase looked more like the ones sold at Sotheby's for $20,000-40,000, then of course. 

However, given the quality and differences in design, either the vase is not of the period, or from a lesser kiln.  In either case, the value would likely not support paying for the TL test.

If you intend to sell, b not testing, you can still offer the piece as 'possibly' being of the period without lying... let the buyer decide for themself.

All the best,

Tim

The first one Cory posted from Sotheby's looks the same style handles, the open handle.

In my opinion the vase is likely authentic but that's just my opinion. 

@superpx 

Hi Al - 

Just for comparison of overall shape, glaze and, with the first four, footrim and bases, attached images/descriptions:-

1/2:- four similar, but not identical, examples attributed to Song to Yuan dynasties published in ‘Green - Longquan celadon of the Ming Dynasty’, National Palace Museum, Taipei. This exhibition included a number of Song, Yuan and Qing celadon examples, but this particular ‘mallet shaped’ vase is absent from the Ming entries …

3/4:- Another similar example recovered from the Sinan shipwreck, attributed 14th century, Yuan dynasty … 

The Gugong, Palace Museum Beijing recently held a major exhibition on celadon wares, ‘Longquan of the World - Longquan Celadon and Globalisation’ in 2019, published in four volumes which includes much of the latest research into these wares. I have checked through these and, as with the above NPM publication, this ‘mallet-shaped’ vase form is absent from the Ming entries …

Although some overlapping in dating must always be allowed,  the above would indicate your vase is either Song/late Yuan possibly, as @greeno107 implied, a lesser kiln example, or a much more recent copy of such, but certainly not Ming … 

Also concur with Greeno re TL costs … 

Stuart 

@superpox 

Hi Al - 

Different handle type so, again, just for comparison:- 

1:- Image/description Lot 509, Christies Hong Kong, 18 March 1991 …

2/3:- The Bishmon-do Temple vase, named ‘Bansei’, Japanese National Treasure, cited in above description, Lot 509 - apologies for image quality, old 1977 publication …

4/5:- Vase in NPM, Taipei, again cited in above description, Lot 509 …

Stuart 

@ming1449 

Hi Ming/Vic/Tim,

Thank you so much for this information.  in regards with the ring, I have seen a few mallet vase without that circular ring near the neck. so does it mean that if you see a ruyi, then we kinda need to expect to see the circular band ?

I do not intend to collect museum piece (it would kill me financially 🤣 before i get to appreciate it) so when we say a lesser piece, do we mean that it was done in a provincial kiln ? 

Here below is an auction from Bonhams here in Sydney.  It did not sell for a lot but would you say a lesser piece is still authentic (but inferior piece) ?

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/22263/lot/61/

Another thing that I would always want to understand is the weight of the piece.

I do have a few longguan ware and they do they to be quite "heavy" (if you know what I mean). If you drop one longguan bowl on your toes, most likely it will be your toe nails that will suffer! 🤣 ),  This piece has a characteristically lighter in weight which is no where close to the density of a typical longguan ware.  Longguan ware also tend to show that red burnish coloration.

The clay body of this piece has similar density to a yaozhou ware.  One would not see a chisseld mark on a hard dense body of a longguan ware.

so can i safely conclude it is not a Ming piece based on this  as by the time Ming pieces were developed, the body has significantly became more dense compare to the early ware of Song dynasty piece.

looking forward to your feedback.

Thanks!!

Al   

Hello Guys,

Though not exactly the same piece, this is close the the finishing on the footrim compare to my piece.

the body is brownish colour.

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/26127/lot/142/?category=list

Al 

@superox Good morning, Al.

You asked:

"in regards with the ring, I have seen a few mallet vase without that circular ring near the neck. so does it mean that if you see a ruyi, then we kinda need to expect to see the circular band ?"

Then, in your next post you said:

Though not exactly the same piece, this is close the the finishing on the footrim compare to my piece.

the body is brownish colour.

I wish to address both.

Regarding your question, I think Stuart is your best source for a specific answer to this question because of his extensive knowledge and library.  However, based upon my experience as a collector, if all known ruyi handled vases of a particular period (let's say Song) have rings around their neck, then the answer is, 99% yes.

Regarding using authentic vases that are 'not exactly the same piece' as a means to validate authenticity to a piece you are evaluating, this is the most dangerous of habits, it's a bad habit, and will most certainly lead you in the direction of buying fakes, and worse, put you in a position where  you are defending its authenticity without imperical evidence.

Even in small minyao kilns, Chinese trades people were life-long (generational, really) craftsmen who learned their trade from the time they could likely walk, and practiced it until the day they died.  Steaped in tradition, changes in style and originality were not rewarded as it is in modern times.  This is probably true throughout the history of China up until the end of the Qing dynasty.

If changes in taste and style occured, it generally occured from the top down, from the Emperor, and eventually these changes trickled down to the everyday person.

So, when a particular object varies from the known taste, color, style, design, and physical composition of known examples, you are faced with three possibilities:

1) the piece is from the period, but a one of a kind

2) the piece is a new discovery of an unknown form

3) the piece is not from the period you believe

For the first to be true, generally the quality of the piece should be of exceedingly high quality... good enough that the emperor or a rich patron had the financial means and status to request a custom piece (one of a kind).

For the second to be true, you would have to be evaluating an object where the study is incomplete, or a relatively new area of study, and with Chinese antiques, there are very few and far between objects that would qualify.

This leaves the third option, and sadly, this is all too often the most reasonable and common explination.

Here is the important thing I would like you to remember and to avoid.  Forgery predicates on the inclusion of a mix of physical features and artistic qualities to cause the everyday collector to like the overall artistic qualities of an object (beauty), and to provide enough physical evidence for them to link credible resources as possible evidence to justify variations in style.

You should avoid this trap.  Try this...

Instead of trying to prove a piece is genuine and looking for reasons to support your confidence it's authentic, try proving it it's a fake or a later reproduction.

I think if you (and others) take this approach, you'll not only begin to fully understand how scarce authentic pieces are, but when you encounter a piece that you can find no fault, you will have likely encountered a valuable treasure.

All the best,

Tim

@superox 

Hi Al - 

Firstly, apologies for the delay in responding …

I can add very little to Tim’s @green107, excellent reply … 

The major production centre for celadons was Longquan region, Zhejiang provenance. So far nearly 400 kiln sites have been excavated there, many of them ‘dragon kiln’ types, able to fire around 20,000 pieces at a time. 
This gives some indication of the vast numbers of pieces produced, and why celadons were the pre-eminent export wares from the 12th/mid 15th century … 

Due to there popularity and huge demand, many other kilns imitated/produced celadons, including numerous kilns Fujian provenance during the Song/Yuan dynasties, although these wares are generally inferior in terms of quality/workmanship, and also Guangdong provenance during the Ming dynasty … 

In regards to the ‘raised circular neck ring’, and its ‘association to ruyi type’ handles, on all of the Song/Yuan pieces I have seen/found they are absent … 

As mentioned, this ‘mallet-shaped’ vase does not seem to have continued in to the Ming period, and it seems absent/ unknown during the Qing …

However, excellent copies were produced in Japan by some of the leading artists/potters from the  late 19th century; images 7/8 …

As in all periods/dynasties, differentials in overall quality certainly occurred including proportions, glaze tones, handle type, trimming and  finishing. As Tim has mentioned, some of these differences were undoubtedly due to levels of patronage, individual potter/workshop skills, markets produced for and costs … 

Attached images will, hopefully, show some of these … 

1/2:- Vase, attributed to Southern Song, Qing Count Coll, Gugong, Palace Museum, Beijing 

3/4:- Vase, attributed to Southern Song, The Songyang County Museum … 

5:- Vase, attributed to Southern Song, Qing Court Coll, Gugong, Palace Museum, Beijing … 

6:- Vase, attributed to Yuan, Lot 506, sold Christies, Hong Kong, 20 March 1990 for HK$65,000 …

7/8:- Japanese vase, made by Suwa Sozan, Tokyo National Museum … 

Stuart

@greeno107 - 

Hi Tim - and with apologies;

I inadvertently miss the ‘O’ out of your hashtag on the above post!!🤨🙄 … 

Stuart 

@ming1449 No need to apologize.. and BTW you're way too modest.  You always put a fine edge of facts to the dullness of my generalities.

Not my vase but one available.