Can't help it, but I fell like it's necessary to add another post to this thread. The presence of a rounded footring is notable beacuse of its relevance to  the proper identification of the shape as a gallbladder vase, which was also why the the link to the blue and white gallbladder vase at sotheby's was relevant, because it's noted in the lot essay that it should be: "Of oviform body that extends into a cylindrical neck with an emphasized rim flange, and rests on a ROUNDED FOOTRING with a recessed base that bears a six-character Qianlong reign mark, this vase is known as danping in Chinese which translates as ‘gall-bladder vase." How hard can it be to understand?

It was one of the things I wanted to as for assitance with, and I actually still have some doubts if my vase really can be called a gallbladder vase. It doesn't necessarily make my vase a qianlong period vase, OF CAUSE NOT.

I came across a vase at worcester museum of art, that also has a band of ruyis in the same blue color that is actually a better comparison than the vase at Gianguan auctions. I would never have guessed these  were qianlong period if I had seen them elsewhere. I hope Giovanni doesn't mind that I'm posting the link.

http://vps343.pairvps.com:8080/emuseum/view/objects/asitem/search@/6/title-desc?t:state:flow=7fd5f563-8481-4813-be07-6ddbed5d0e74

And I came across a video posted on this site, where leading Hong Kong dealer William Chak discusses an extremely rare Yangcai Qianlong vase. He explains how the influence of western art in the otherwise traditional chinese flower decoration defines the enameling as Yangcai enamels. He comments that a red mark most often appear on white glazed famille rose, and that that you need to understand the system and guidelines from the imperial court. These are the same thougts and observations I have made with my vase. That it follow certain guidelines set by the imperial court or kiln. (That dosen't mean the vase is not a 19/20th century copy rather than of the Qianlong period, of cause.)

Only little time left, so I have to finnish my post, but I think that one of the reasons I'm a little ignorant or defensive towards the other posters, is because of my experience at the asianart.com-forum. For example this thread where I posted a very nice Han dynasty jade pei, and the other posters commented that the weathering was artificial and made with chemicals. Then when I showed them examples from Sotheby's, Wisbrod, and Bonhams I got no more replies. Thread went dead. The style of the pei is correct and the jade is pebble material, mutton fat qualitty. It's a shame, but some of those people seems to me as the are incompetent and sometimes even dishonest.

http://asianart.com/phpforum/index.php?method=detailAll&Id=76247

And speaking of jade just yesterday I paid visit to Joanies House Of Treasure's website and learned that she had sold a nice jade for $3800 that is similar to one of my own jades. I had seen a similar one before and started a thread on the asianart forum to get assistance with the dating.  So it has been a good day. Nice to get an idea the potential value of one of my pieces, even though I sometimes find Joanies dating of her jade "doubtfull"

http://www.joaniestreasures.com/product.php?id=222

http://asianart.com/phpforum/index.php?method=detailAll&Id=78054

All the best!

/Corey

Dear Corey,

I promise that it is my last tentative to try to show you that you are not searching in logical way.

You have not moved even one millimeter from your position.

You look only for high grade or imperial ware and if you spot a single feature that is also on your avse, that means to you that you do not have simply one of the myriads of standard pieces, but something exceptional instead.

Sotheby’s, in describing one high grade vase, says among other things that it has a round foot. That is a great news to you, it is confirming that your vase could be in the same league. But you avoid to consider that there are million of vases around with rounded foot, including fakes, low level things etc etc.

William Chak discusses an extremely rare yangcai Qianlong vase, explaining about the influence of Westerns about how to depict flowers etc etc. That is great to you, the same as said before. And then? Yangcai is the name that the Chinese gives to what we in the West call famille rose. Probably 70 – 80 per cent of the whole production of Chinese vases from Yongzheng until today is famille rose. Why your one should be related to that extremely rare one? Is that one rare because it is famille rose or because of something else?

I really can’t follow you.

You provided the link to a discussion on that jade piece, and you said that, when you did show comparable items sold by Sotheby’s etc etc everybody stops to comment, as if they have been caught in fail.

 Dear Corey, believe me, I know near to nothing about jade. But from the near to nothing that I know, I can say that your one is not mutton fat jade, which is very different.

The incised lines on your jade are whitish, which means that they are not well polished as you instead see on old jades.

And the jades that you have shown from Sotheby’s etc etc has nothing to do with your one. Different type of jade, and much better carving/polishing.

I understand why they stop to comment, they did what I should have done since a while, but will do now because it is not productive to try to cooperate with whom are not listening.

Giovanni

Is this the vase you found Corey at the Worcester Art

I had to edit it as it is copyright.

Coreys Vase 

Yes, these wre the vases I found. I hadn't noticed they were described as underglaze blue. Then it's not a good comparison, since the blue color on my vase is overglaze enamel. But it's actully a little funny that tam18 commented the blue color looks like modern cantonese blue, because I've seen many Qianlong period canton enamel with very similar blue color like this one from Gibson Antiques (at the base):

http://www.gibsonantiques.com/items/d/a-chinese-canton-enamel-yellow-ground-bowl-qing-dynasty-qianlong-period/164566

My God,

comparing the enamel on metal with the enamel on porcelain. I really do not know what else to say dear Corey.

Giovanni

Dear giovanni, with all respect. If you had read the thread at the asianart forum you would see that I have all ready specified that the whitish apperance of the incised lines is because of the leftover of surface calcification that has later been polishied away. Leftover of surface calcifications is also seen in the inner edges of the openwork parts. The only other leftover of calcification is where it has gone deep inside tthe jade; the areas with the brown borders, which two of the commenters said as artificial made with chemicals. The examples I posted was two show archaic jades with similar in-depth calcification with brown borders, which is most often seen on Shang dynasty jades. They never explained how they could tell the difference. Its also specified in the thread that the photos does not show true colors of the jade. It looks different when seen in person; has a warm yellowish tone to it, not bluish like the photos suggests. Khotan pebble material is not easily recognized by the colors or the look of it. It's mainly in the feel. I wasn't certain if it was muton fat jade when I first inspected, but after closer examining  I can say that it's good quality mutton fat jade. I would have to make new photos to give you a better impression of the quality of both the jade material and the carving, but I'm telling you it's a nice piece! 

Link to the Shang dynasty jade cong with the typical in-depth calcification with brow borders at Bonhams.

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23423/lot/2/?category=grid&length=36&page=1

And while we're at it I thought I would show you a post where one of the same commenters declares a pair of high quality possibly imperial spinach green jade bowl fake, because he think neprhite jade can not have golden inclusions and therefore they must be made of plastic. I was by the way very exited that the owner of the bowls posted these, because it's the first time I've seen some carvings in this material which I have read about.

http://asianart.com/phpforum/index.php?method=detailAll&Id=90722

And also speaking of jade, it happen sometimes that an item is misrepresented as a later copy by the dealer or the auctioneer. At auction they are usually bid up to the a price near what on would pay for a period piece as there a most often more than one knowing collector in the room, but not always. This spinach jade seal dated to the 20th century by the auctioneer sold only slightly above the $20,000 - $40,000 estimate:

http://bid.igavelauctions.com/bidding.taf?_function=detail&auction_uid1=2944466

But the same seal later appeared in an imperial sale at Sotheby's with a HKD 6,000,000 - 8,000,000. The same provenance is also noted in the sale. (strangely I can only acess the Chinese version of the listing at Sotheby's site, but it's the sale entitled 'Dragon Emperor')

http://www.sothebys.com/zh/auctions/ecatalogue/2016/dragon-emperor-hk0678/lot.3301.html

It can be done to acquire a treasure for a fraction of its potential value, but it's difficult of cause.

Dear Corey,

it is better to me to not discuss jade, I know almost nothing about that. I know that it is by far the more dangerous field in Chinese art. Porcelain is a joke in respect to jade.

But I know that while even the major auction houses do call “mutton fat jade” when indeed the piece is not, the real mutton fat jade is extremely rare. I have seen one piece of such jade, and the difference is impressive. It is really looking like fat, quite opaque nevertheless with an impressive soft light. It looks as being soft to the touch.

I said that the whitish line on your jade are due to the not polishing of the carving. How do you know that your jade has been polished except there? Anyway, again, it is not my field, sorry for the intrusion there.

Dear Corey, please let me just tell again that you are not searching as you should regarding your vase. You can’t search for the type of blue, that means absolutely nothing even if you are speaking about Qianlong.

I can show you a piece which, when I saw it, at first glance I thought “Kangxi”! just because of the blue. One of the best Kangxi blue. But then under the bowl there was the mark of the Jiangxi Porcelain Company, the first private Company in China, settled in 1912 if I recall right. Even more by judging the blue among pictures on the net.

You see the result of your way of searching, you ended up comparing an enamel on metal with that of your one. Why don’t you search among Republic ware? You will find much more references in my opinion.

Anyway, good luck.

Giovanni

I had writen a longer post yesterday that unfortunately got deleated by a mistake when I was just about to post it, because someone disturbed me. It was mostly on the subject of jade, but because discussion of jade was not the original intention of this thread, I guess I'll just let that subject rest for a while.

But you are right Giaovanni, that canton enamel is metalware and therefore it is not a good comparison, and I should perhaps not have posted the link. But the chemical composition of the blue enamel is probably similar, even though it possibly stands out differently on a metal ground compared to a porcelain ground? But it was actually tam18 that brought up modern canton enamel as example, and therefore I thought I would show a Qianlong period example with an even better comparison of the blue color. That's not an blasphemous act, isn't it?

Dear Corey,

I have no idea about the composition of the enamels meant for metal ware.

Giovanni

After thinking it over I wonder if Worcester Museum have actually wrongfully described their vases as "underglaze blue", because usually four-character marks in kaishu-script are applied with enamels and not glaze. And on the pictures provided by the museum it looks more like enamel than glaze. And if the mark is applied with enamel, then the blue rim decoration is most likely also applied with blue enamel. But it's just a thought... 

Looks like underglaze.

Dear Corey,

the description of the Worcester Museum is wrong. I think that you are referring to the blue decoration on the neck of their vase, right?

That type of decoration is always made with over glaze blue enamel, like that on your vase.

BTW the under glaze blue is just as said by the name, under the glaze and not part of the glaze as it seems that you understand it.

Giovanni

Wow! I finally received some credits from Giovanni. That made my day! But yes, I was referring to the decoration on the necks of their vases. 

I was just about to post a link to a christie's article on reign marks where you can see how the texture and tone of an enameled  Qianlong mark in zhuanshu script compares with the marks of the Worcester vases (picture attached below).

https://www.christies.com/features/Reign-marks-on-Chinese-ceramics-An-expert-guide-8248-1.aspx

I'm pretty sure a thorough online search would also reveal some examples of marks with bubbles in the blue enamel similar to the second mark of the Worcester vases posted. I'm pretty sure I've seen such examples before at least...

(And my apologies to Christie's and Worcester Museum for violating their copyright!)

Dear Corey,

I confess, I have long since lost track what this thread is about. If I understood it right in the beginning, the core of it is that you have a vase that you think might possibly be valuable, although others, myself included, think it's modern. You could show it to an auction house to get an appraisal, since comparing details doesn't lead anywhere, as has been mentioned before.