In my eyes there is a very good change the jar Ming dynasty. But if you wish to discuss the jar further and would like to explain what aspects of it is that makes you sure it can't be Ming plese do it in the thread where I first posted the jar or eventually in this thread which I have just updated with a couple of examples of possibly authentic Xuande period pieces sold as 19/20th century copies.

https://bidamount.com/the-bidamount-asian-art-forum/asian-art-currently-on-ebay/anyone-follow-this-auction-probably-qianlong-mp/paged/2#post-8690

I'll send pictures of the jar to Christie's and have it TL-tested by Oxford. I find it rather strange that a highly reputable auction house like Bonhams and a top dealer like Eskenazi have had Ming porcelain authenticated by Oxford as can be seen in their gallery section (the fish bowl and the meiping) if Ming porcelain can not be TL-tested at all.

https://www.oxfordauthentication.com/gallery/

Oxford is the only lab accepted by Sotheby's and Christie's for TL-testing. Look in their client list and you will find many of the famous museums and well-known dealers. Would they use Oxford if it was not a serious lab? 

The test report provided for Bonhams does not state that the vase is 100 years old but that the date of last firing was less than 100 years. But I'll probably write an email to Oxford about the jar and ask if there are any problematic aspects of TL-testing porcelain. If that's the case then I'll look into other ways of authentication. I belive it's high fired porcelain that can't be TL-tested.  But if  you wish to continue a discussion of TL-testing of porcelain, please start up a new topic.

All the best and sorry for the double post

/Corey

I already said that I do not want to fully disclose the reasons of my opinion about them in a public Forum.

I can only answer to each one of your points.

“I'll send pictures of the jar to Christie's and have it TL-tested by Oxford.”: my comment is that you are wasting time and money. I am asking you to please report here the outcome and we will see if I am wrong.

“Would they use Oxford if it was not a serious lab?” Yes, and I know why, but will not tell here. I can say that I had to write them six times until they had to admit that they were not clear (to understand, more or less like those that on ebay say that the vase is Kangxi mark instead of clearly saying that it has a Kangxi mark but it isn’t Kangxi). They are not playing clearly. They have a main page where everything looks so simple and clear. Ask them why it is only mentioned in the FAQ page, and not in the main page, the following:

“Why do you quote such a wide date range?

We quote an age range of ±20% for authenticity testing. Under most circumstances this is sufficient to distinguish an 18th century piece from a modern copy or a 17th century piece from a 19th century copy.”

Which exclude that they can test a 100 years old piece, right?

Or the following:

“What is the youngest piece we can submit for testing?

In authenticity testing, usually we want to distinguish between modern copies and original pieces. So one important question is when the modern copies might have been made. If there were no modern copies until the 20th century then, providing the sample is sensitive and we do not obtain a spurious signal, the practical limit for a trustworthy test is the 18th century. We regularly test Kangxi porcelain, and Staffordshire ware pottery. Italian Renaissance pieces are more difficult. Here the pieces were frequently copied in the 19th century and so that even these 19th century copies have a TL age. The latest pieces in this case would be the 17th century for reliable testing.”

As above. Was I wrong in stating that the certificate shown by Bonhams is ridiculous? Are to be believed as a serious lab with this behavior? And asking a lot of money to perform a test under your request and not provide you, who commissioned the test, the results of the test? I mean the graph of TL.

“Oxford is the only lab accepted by Sotheby's and Christie's for TL-testing.” That is not true. They use other laboratories too (more reliable in my opinion). That is the same story like telling you that your piece is not eligible to be auctioned because it doesn’t reach the lower estimate of 6,000 pounds and then you see at the auction items estimated 800 pounds.

There is no other ways of authentication for your jar except looking at it with experienced eye.

You are of course perfectly legitimate in not believing my eye, but please be so kind and correct to report here their answer.

And if may I give you a friendly suggestion, submit them the jar before to perform the useless ( and expensive, at Oxford) TL test.

Giovanni

So that's why they say porcelain can be TL-tested? Right

Should posts on testing go on the xuande dragon thread, more appropriate since that thread actually deals with a spotted fake online. Or a new thread. 

Dear Nixe,

I see that you are at the beginning in this fascinating field.

A book like that of Gerald Davidson is almost useless for you, because remember that marks are totally void of importance for you. Marks are interesting only on proved important pieces. It is not the mark that makes a piece genuine, it is the piece itself.

A good book that will give you an overall view is “Chinese ceramics: the new standard guide” by He Li.

About Corey’s supposed Xuande vase, if it is the one that is seen in the link (I do not know if it is that one, because ebay changes the links) forget it, being far from Xuande ware.

If it were Xuande, its value will be more than one million dollars, to give you an idea. I said forget it because there is nothing to learn by looking at fake items. If Corey will send the pictures to a reliable Auction house, they will confirm that it is not genuine.

About TL tests, as said I do not want to comment further being us on a Public Forum.

If I need a TL test, I rely on Arcadia in Milan. They are competent, managed by an authority in archaeometry, and they document the test with the graph, unlike the more famous British one.

Giovanni

I think you misunderstand the testing report from Oxford. It does not state that the flask is 100 years old, but that the last firing was done within the last 100 years, meaing it could be done 90 years ago or just 10 years ago. Bonhams or the consigner had it tested to see if it could be made in the Ming period with a negative result. The republic period dating is made by Bonhams based on their knowledge of when these copies were made. That's how I understand it at least.

I also disagree that the jar is far from being Xuande if you refer to style, technique etc. Note that I posted a link to a similar excavated jar at Henan Museum from the yongle period and that is similar in size, shape and decoration.  And as I said, the jar is almost certainly old, but look more like a Xuande period example than a 19th century copy to me. But please let's not start up a new discussion which I'm not in the mood for. I'll send pictures to Christie's or another auction but it's gonna take a while. I'll report the answer by then.

The million dollar value reflects the estimate by Christie's or Sotheby's the jar could carry in their imperial sales in Hong Kong or their sales in London and possibly also New York. Any other auction house would set the estimate much lower than that. I already specified that with the link to the Xuande jar at bainbridge that was estimated at £20,000 but sold for £1.6 million, and then later at Sotheby's, but here is the link again.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/interiors/antiques/9319423/Chipped-Chinese-bowl-bought-for-just-65-sells-for-1.6-million.html

And here in Denmark there was a sale last year of a very fine inherited/provenanced Yongle period blue and white meiping at Bruun Rasmussen that they had estimated at DKK 300,000 - 600,000 even though two similar meipings had sold at Sotheby's and Christie's for hk$40 million and hk$50 million. Here the consigner was lucky it made a new Danish record and sold for DKK15 million (=€2m) including buyers premium. They had actually first overlooked it when they were first called to the house inspection. There is an interesting article in the Danish newspaper Politiken about the sale  that can be translated with google.

https://politiken.dk/forbrugogliv/art5826421/Millionvasen-der-n%C3%A6r-gik-i-stykker

It was later sold at Sotheby's for hk$27 million.

http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2017/10/04/35737503.html

By the way I also bought a very nice and very promising Tang sancai jar from the same seller which he didn't belive was old. That one will almost certainly go to TL-testing and with a higher priority than the Xuande jar. But I have now started up a new thread on the topic of TL-testing porcelain, so if people wants to continue a discussion on TL-testing of porcelain they can go there. (I'm sort of trying to bring an end to this thread.)

https://bidamount.com/the-bidamount-asian-art-forum/main-forum/tl-testing-of-porcelain-tl-labs-other-ways-of-authentication#post-8860

Dear Nixe,

I have some problems with the English language, so often I am unsure if I understood correctly what is written by others. I have some difficulty in understanding everything you say.

But, if by saying that someone states sentences without properly backing them, are you referring to myself, I can say that it is true, and let me explain the reason.

All the discussion here started around a 20^th century vase posted by Corey, who is thinking that it is 18^th century. Not only myself, but others too told him that it can’t be 18^th century. And it has been suggested him to look for similar references of the 20^th century.

Instead, Corey did try to find similarities among high level and rare pieces of the 18^th century, which has nothing to do with his vase, which is later and of common type.

What I, and others too, said is clear to whom has an average knowledge about Chinese ceramics, nothing special.

Then, should I back up what I said? Why should I look for references and not him? Which is the purpose if he clearly looks only at what he wants to see instead of the obvious?

The same must be said for the supposed Xuande vase. It is obvious that Corey’s vase is in Xuande style, if who made him was trying to imitate Xuande ware. But between “looking” and “being” there are differences, which are identified by experience. It is not easy to explain that. It is useless to back up the opinion with real Xuande items, because to whom has not an adequate eye they both looks similar.

If an expert in a field on which I am not expert tells me that I am wrong, I will not ask him to prove his opinion, I would better try to understand why he told me that I am wrong.

Be sure that, if Corey will send the pictures of his supposed Qianlong vase and his supposed Xuande one to a major auction house (not a local auction house!!!!) and he will post their answer, you will see that I and the others were right. It doesn’t take so long to send pictures to Christie’s.  That will end this length discussion.

Giovanni

So more than four years have passed since this debate was going on and then today I finally found the comp of the vase in focus sold at Guardian in 2022. I was right from the very beginning. The vase I have is very likely an imperial Qianlong mark and period example. Sadly the pictures of my vase have meanwhile been deleted and I'm not sure if I really want to repost them ...

Link to vase at Guardian sold for HKD 3,060,O00:

https://www.cguardian.com.hk/en/auction/auction-details.php?id=325456

Oh go on, Corey! If you still have it, I am sure we would all like to see it again. I don't remember this thread at all, I'm afraid.  Is Corey even your real name?  Sorry if it isn't but I can't seem to stop calling you that. 😊 

Just reread the old thread and my head is spinning. I don’t remember how the initial item, Corey’s vase, looked like. But it was like meeting old friends: Tam, Giovanni, Alan, Adrian… Apart from that the thread doesn’t make much sense now that the pictures are gone. 

Yes, Corey is almost my real name. It is the English equivalent of the Norwegian name Kaare (the two a's next to each other are pronounced like an o). And yes, I still have the vase.

The thread might not make much sense without the pictures but it means a lot to me that I found the comp at Guardian so I was happy. That's why I posted it here.

But the vase I have is basically similar to the one at Guardian with the shape and decoration - Only a few differences. On my vase the front with the chrysanthemum and the magnolia etc. is repeated on the back and the sides aredecorated with the orange flower, probably a camelia etc. The enameling is also slightly different with brighter colours. And then my vase have a red seal mark on white ground while the vase at Guardian have a read mark on turquoise ground.

Thank you; in that case, I hope you won't mind if I keep calling you Corey. 😊 

@avatar @julia @shinigami 

Hi Cory - 

As all the original images from this thread are now deleted, perhaps you could post some new images of your vase ...

Did you ever, in the intervening four years, forward image's to Christies, Sothebys or Bonhams of this vase and/or discuss Xuande dragon guan and, if so, what was there response ... 

Stuart