One of the reasons you believed it was modern was because of the strange blue color, right? Well at least I have adressed that topic and showed Qianlong examples with similar blue color. Also, your observations regarding the "modern looking footring" and the smooth and shiny glaze are wrong. I can almost guarantee you that the vase is not modern, But then again most likely a 19/20th century copy of a Qianlong period example.

I would like to apologize to Shinigami if my latest comment was a little arrogant.  but it's just when people make conclusions based on observations that are obiously incorrect. For example the comment that the rounded footring looked modern. I recently came across this interview with Giuseppe Eskenazi where he talks about H. M. Knight falangcai bowl, that it was considered a modern fake when he started, and that they didn't belive the seal is a Kangxi red seal.

Then take a look at the base of that bowl and you'll see a perfectly rounded footring and overall a base that looks very similar to the base of my vase (pictures of my vase attached below for a side-by-side comparison). The base of my vase seems to have almost the same width (app. 6 cm.) and the same proportions between the footring and the base as the Kangxi bowl,  judging from the pictures provided, so the footring is not to thick either as another poster commented.

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/2018/imperial-alchemy-hm-knight-falangcai-bowl-hk0797.html

The footring on this Kangxi bowl is perfectly smooth and glossy, whereas on my vase the footring is matt, but there are plenty of Qianlong period examples of perfectly rounded footrings with a matt finish, for example this one (an image of the base also attached below).

http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2014/06/07/30029021.html

Then there is the issue with the smooth and shiny glaze. Sotheby's and Christie's use very professional photographers, and have chosen to depict the ceramics they offer with a matt apperance of the glaze in their catalogues. If you compare the images that are available from them online with images from the videos they make you'll see that the glaze of the same object appear very different. Take for example the golden pheasant vase of the Meiyintang collection(another gallbladder vase in very fine quality porcelain), and compare the images from the listing online with the images from the video.

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2011/the-meiyintang-collection-an-important-selection-of-imperial-chinese-porcelains-hk0371/lot.15.html

The glaze of the vase I hold does indeed have a smooth and glossy glaze, but it reflects the light in the same way as old porcelain and also have the smooth silky feel to it that fine old porcelain have.

Actually I would go as far as saying that the white base with the red mark combined with the somewhat unusual porcelain and perhaps a few other things like the fine smooth porcelain could be exactly the reason why the probably otherwise experienced dealer had overlooked it as a Qianlong period piece.

But yes, this thread has probably been outbranched a bit too much, and my postings were confusing to begin with. The reason I posted it rigth now was because of the new system introduced by eBay, so I couldn't recover the original listing, otherwise I would have provided a link to it, and I chose to post the pictures of the listings while I sill had them.

I also posted it to get opinions wheater my vase can actually be called a gallbladder vase, which I actually still have some doubts about myself, and if enamels of my vase could be considered 'yangcai' enamel, but after reading upon the texts in the links I posted and wathing the video with William Chak I feel confident to say it's almost certainly yangcai enamels. Both Sotheby's and Christie's have recently had some very impressive results for Qianlong yangcai enamelled vases, and previously two world records for Chinese ceramics has been set by Qianlong yangcai enamelled vases, incuding the infamous 'Bainbridge Vase' that was hammered down at £43 million. Very exciting that Sotheby's is now  about to offer a nearly identical vase that is possibly the counterpart of the pair. (The blue enamel of the vase comming up at Sotheby's is also similar to the blue enamel of my vase by the way.)

Finally I would like to show an example of 20th century copy of another golden pheasant vase that was also sold at Sotheby's. A picture of it is found in the listing of the Meiyintang golden pheasant vase in the link I provided. (It's wrongfully described as Qianlong period at the artvalue.com-site, I checked with the listing of the auction house.)

https://mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch#4966279708

Again, it's most likely my vase is also such a thing, but hopefully I'll find the original sooner or later, and if not then there is always the possiblity of sending pictures to an auction house, like you say. I'm by the way currently back in the research process of a Qianlong marked yangcai enamelled reticulated revolving vase because of the prevously mentioned counterpart of the Bainbridge vase comming up at Sotheby's, and with the new detailed photographic material available online, it seems clear that the enamels are identical. Every color that is found on Sotheby's vase is found on my vase, and apart from that my vase appear to be correct in all its various aspects. I'll almost certainly send photos of that one to Sotheby's, but that's both another story and a future project...

Thanks for all the patience and my apologie for my confusing postings!

/Corey

Need to make a small correction to my last post. I wrote: "Actually I would go as far as saying that the white base with the red mark combined with the somewhat unusual porcelain and perhaps a few other things like the fine smooth porcelain could be exactly the reason why the probably otherwise experienced dealer had overlooked it as a Qianlong period piece."

It should have been: "Actually I would go as far as saying that the white base with the red mark combined with the somewhat unusual blue colored eanmel and perhaps a few other things like the fine smooth porcelain could be exactly the reason why the probably otherwise experienced dealer had overlooked it as a Qianlong period piece."

And it also seems like i've messed up the links again. This is the artvalue.com-link to the 20th century copy of the Qianlong period golden pheasant vase sold at Sotheby's.

http://www.artvalue.com/auctionresult--qianlong-period-1736-1796-chin-vase-qianlong-over-glazed-blue-1443031.htm

Picture attached below together with a picture of the original copied from another site.

Hello, Corey

You have not shown your vase picture of the in side of your vase is there signs of wheels turns or 

molding . To me it look like a lot like some of the eggshells porcelains they put out in early to mid,

20thc. With Chinese porcelain it hard to put a date to it like the lamp I posted here that tam said 

was modern it was made in 1950 hand painted if she would have look at the cord she could have 

date it. Good luck on your vase John

Hi John 

Your comment about it being like mid-C20th egg porcelain makes perfect sense - that would explain the extremely white porcelain ground. Although I think egg shell porcelain was also produced in the C18th. 

There is something about the vase's red base mark that bothers me - you can't easily (at all?) see the brush strokes, and the shade of red is different from qianlong red reign marks. 

also, not to re-ignite the 'flying flowers' debate , but if you look at the large pink flower , it overlays a branch or twig of the magnolia , which in turn is not attached to anything , so you have flying branches as well, and I don't think C18th decorators in the imperial kilns would do such a thing.

PS when you get to my age , 1950s is still relatively modern (PRC , as opposed to Republic of China), but I accept that terminology can cause misunderstanding 

PPS. I don't mind being gender-ambiguous , but actually I'm a man; Tam is a good scottish (and swedish ) name.

Hello, Tam

Sorry about that when I was younger I date a girl named tam,  I mean no disrespect I’m trying 

to figure out what Cory looking for. yes the Chinese from 1950 to 1990 use the red qinglong mark 

a lot. I have seen were they painted or stamped the mark on pieces to get a better price for it. And your

writh they made eggshell porcelain lot earlier then 18thc. Sorry about the mix up John

I also refer to mid 20th c onwards as modern.  I hope that hasn't caused too much confusion?

Corey, you have done an amazing amount of research but anyone faking or just reverently copying the Qianlong style would have done the same. 

I can see what period this is meant to imitate because they have done a good job, but despite all your findings, this vase still says modern to me. 

Of course, I could be wrong, that is why I am here, to learn.  As I see it, there are two things you could still investigate - the first is try to prove the opposite of what you are saying ie check your vase against similar modern 20th c examples as Giovanni suggested and finally, if you still feel it is genuine, that mark needs to be authentic.  I read on Gotheborg that the site owner is very confident on Qianlong marks - you would have to pay a small fee, but it might be worth seeking his opinion?

Julia

Thanks for all the feedback in this thread. Nice with some positive vibrations after all. I would like to write some replies, but I simply lack the internet time for it at the library. But I can say that the vase is not eggshell porcelain. The wall of the vase is far to thick for that. I'm also quite certain that it's earlier than 1950. Republic period is 1912-1949. But I must write a more in-depth post when I find the time.

@John steward. The vase have no signs of  wheel turns or molding. I actually picked up a small white baluster vase that is also decorated with flowering branches scattered across the body together with insects in a red cross charity shop for 30 danish kroner ($5), which i was able to date to the Peoples Republic Period 1950s-1960s by comparing the red seal mark on the base with marks shown on the Gotheborg-site. That one have signs of wheel turns on both the inside and the outside. But the vase I have has a very smooth surface. It's not eggshell porcelain since the wall bisquit is far to thick.

Dear Corey,

your vase is obviously not eggshell, the thickness at the mouth is too thick. Do you mean that it has no signs of modelling outside or also inside?

If you can lightning the inside of the vase, do you see a joining line at about the half of the main body?

Giovanni

@tam18. I think the mark is well drawn in a clear and bright red color and I belive I found examples matching in both tone caligraphic style from the Qianlong period when I researched it. But to me the base had the overall appeal of a possible earlier period dating when I bought the vase. I have all ready made a comparison with Qianlong  gourd vases sold at Christie's that also have flower branches not attached to anyting. I have seen other examples like this Yongzheng mark and period plate. The picture is copied from a french site. Many examples from that site hase found their way in to Sotheby's.

http://www.portier-asianart.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=91:past-auctions&catid=11&lang=en&Itemid=224&showall=&limitstart=1

@Julia. It's more than a year ago since I purchased the vase but when I bought it I researched republic period pieces and concluded that the vase would date to the republic period if it was not earlier than that, and since fine porcelains is doing quite well at the various auctions I thought it would be a good buy even though it was a bit pricey. I would like to look more at republic period porcelains but it's time consuming. I would especially like to read some more books on the subject. But thanks for the tip about the Gotheborg site. Maybe I should try that option with the Reticulated yangcai double gourd vase I have. The sealmark of that one shares at least four aspects with sealmarks on Qianlong period yancai vases sold at Sotheby's and Christie's. Besides that the vase seems to me as being correct in all its aspects and the enamels seems to be identical to the reticulated yangcai vase now coming up at Sotheby's, with the only few exeptions being where the different enamels has been mixed together to create new color tones. I'm very exited about that sale.

Hi Corey

This site has quite a collection of Republic Backmarks. I am hoping you eventually get the Vase appraised. 

https://watersilkdragon.wordpress.com/2013/05/05/chinese-republic-1912-1949-and-other-marks-overview/

Dear Corey, can you please check the inside of the vase as I requested?

Thank you.

Giovanni

Yeah, sure. But what exactly is it it would allow you to conclude? The vase is quite small, only about 20 cm high and the neck is thus quite narrow, so it's a little difficult to see. Tam18 and I wrote molding, not modeling. But yes, the vase probably show signs of modeling as it is made by the potters hand. It does have a slightly uneven surface which can be felt when handling it. Is that what you mean? It's defintely not cast porcelain.