Charles, thank you for sharing Peter's evaluation.

I had trouble seeing this as a very recent piece.  The back looked older to me, and the artwork was awfully nice.  So I asked Peter.  He says it is definitely not by Liu Xiren (no surprise there!), and agrees that the link above from Bonhams Australia is also probably misattributed to him. 

But it is a very nicely decorated piece, possibly late Republic, but more likely 1950's-1960's, or even early 1970's.  A nice PROC piece.  Definitely not modern.  

Here is a link.  These usually don't work when I put them in, but maybe this time it will...  

https://rumble.com/v74c17q-charles-bryan.html

Charles

Thanks for the input.

Here are some photos of the back of the plaque.  It is more interesting than I thought it would be, although I don't know what it tells us.  There are stripes of material that look like mortar across the back, and my first interpretation was that the plaque had been removed from something else, maybe a piece of furniture.  

But on closer examination, I don't think that is true.  The glaze along one side OVERLAPS the mortar, indicating the mortar was applied before firing.  Now, I suspect that the strips of "mortar" were applied simply as kiln furniture, to support the plaque and keep the plaque off the shelf, so the glaze did not run over and cause the plaque to stick to the shelf.  At least, that makes sense to me!

Not sure what this means about age...

Charles

You are absolutely right. Examining the reverse side of a porcelain plaque not only reveals whether it was fired in a wood-burning kiln or with other firing devices, but also provides insight into the clay body and the techniques used in shaping the plaque.

Oh that's interesting to read from Simon NG. 

All the important artist like Wang Dafan and members of the eight friends of zushan all did their own calligraphy with their particular seal or read mark.

It's plausible that some minor artists called in calligraphy experts to complete their works. 

If the seal mark differs from known examples and this in conjunction with different style of calligraphy would indicate to me that the work is either done by a student or is a much later version. 

Mark 

Here are a couple of quotes on the subject from Simon Ng on an old Gotheborg.com thread:

"...........an important point in Qianjiang Ware about 'Calligraphy'.

"It seems many Qianjiang Painters would invite a Calligrapher to write for them after painting. The clue comes from after comparing with many Qianjiang works by different Artists, many of these works although done by different Artists, carry the similar calligraphy out of one hand.

"This is not the same thing as fakes.

"It's true some Qianjiang Painters painted well but calligraphy not equally well, so they would invite good calligraphers to write for them. But it's also a tradition in the Chinese painting circle that many would invite their teachers, friends to write for them as a gesture of honor, respect to the calligrapher."

And..................

"Mike may agree or can confirm the above point, named as 代筆 (Daibi, to write for) or there is even a term, 代筆人 (Daibiren, a ghostwriter)."

Mike answered, ".............this same word was also used to describe an amanuensis - someone writing at the instruction of another - exactly the function Simon has described above."

So, many of the qianjiang artists did their own calligraphy as well as, at times, having someone else do it. It can be very confusing to us amateurs! Adds another layer to the identification conundrum.

Thank you again,

Carol

Yes some students of the masters often signed work of the artist as a tribute or attribute. 

As far as I am aware all the artists actually did their own calligraphy. 

@tonyshu2573,

Yes I agree that the back is important to establish whether or not it is Republican or later as the method of manufacture was obviously different from wood kiln to gas kiln. However more recently they have started reusing the old technique of wood kiln. 

Mark 

It seems that some did not. Whether by apprentice artists in their own studio, invited artists, or imitators, I have seen quite varied calligraphy in pieces attributed to the same person by reputable sources. Yes, there are copies, to be sure, which adds to the difficulty. (Note: I am not saying that Liu Xiren did not always do his own work -- I have not studied this artist and have no opinion.)

I would appreciate your comments on this, as I find it very confusing. 

Many thanks,

Carol