That looks a total fake to me.

My Uncle Jim said that you could steal more with a briefcase than you could with a gun, and fraud is rampant among,well, you know what I mean.

Vic  

Hi Janneke, 

I along with Vic also think there is something very wrong with this. 

Although I am not an expert, nor is this type of ware within my realm of interest atm (my interest is with republican period masters) I have issues with the following. 

1.  The central figure that is pointing with his left arm stretched out is all wrong! It looks like his right arm. Just look at his thumb along with the way the arm is painted. It looks very odd! 

2.  The depiction of the rockery is imo not right for the period. 

3.  The glaze looks very new to my eye. One would expect to see some form of weathering etc. 

Transitional simply means the end of one era or period that has fused with the start of the next within a few years. For instance the end of the Ming reign is 1644 and the start of the Qing period. So a item made say in about 1650 could be referred to as a transitional piece. As with the start of a new era so to does the subtle changes in style and design of porcelain, jades and other. 

Mark 

Hi guys,

the foot looks very convincing 17thc late ming to me. Maybe it's from that period but I'm not totally sure about the painting style, maybe Vic is right! the cobalt looks very washed out and painting is looks overly naive. Also, the shape reminds me of 19th c pieces. A mixture of styles, confusing. 

This looks fine to me for late Ming or transitional , although I agree the painting style of the figures is quite unusual . The white footrim looks absolutely right, as does the base with radiating chatter marks, and the cobalt blue looks to be a good strong colour (on my monitor). The bowl shape is very good and there is a certain amount of rim-fritting consistent with age. 

In the transitional period between Ming and Qing when the Han chinese elite was forced out by the Manchu conquerors  it seems that Jingdezhen for many years lost its imperial control and orders. Things didn't settle down until the Kangxi reign - so transitional mid 17th century porcelain is marked by increases in production for export , esp to Japan, and porcelain porduced in the Japanese taste and style, and potters and decorators were much freer and more experimental in their styles - so transitional blue and white, for example, is more painterly with open landscapes, sometimes borderless, and the characteristic swirly clouds and waves seen on this bowl

It's indeed a late Ming/transitional period piece. 

At the end of Ming dynasty the production of official kiln is completely shut down. A lot of very skilled craftsmen and also scholars went to the civil and export porcelain business. There are a lot of beautiful pieces at the period. The need of Chinese porcelain was very high at that time. So the quality will suffer from mass production. Also trainees are also a factor. And there are a lot of kilns in Jingdezhen who copied each other very often. There are copies and also bad copies. 

We must agree to disagree.

Faces,glaze,painting style,nothing to do with Wanli,more to do with 21st century fakery.

Pity the poor buyer.

Vic

It's not Wanli. It's from the period between Tianqi and early Qing.

You and I are older than this piece,which incidentally is also on 1st Dibs and also listed for auction 6th June this year.

Find something to compare it with,look at it properly.

I rarely buy now,what is the point when fakes (latest thing is with fake minor damage to lower the buyers guard) are easier to sell than damaged genuine pieces.

Now look at genuine pieces at New York Metropolitan Museum,zoomable images to really get into the pieces.

As I say,people will disagree but I stick to my opinion.

Vic

I am in agreement with Vic, to me it is a clear fake.

The main point is the decoration itself, too many different things together! Never seen something with so many things, it is a clear sign of faker trying to attract buyers.

In my opinion the style too is off.

Regards,

Giovanni

What an interesting thread.  I simply don't have the expertise to make a judgment on this, but I am enjoying the points everyone is making. 

My concern was the differentiation between the light blue and dark blue is too extreme and too abrupt.  I try to recognise transitional by the shading transitioning well (I know that sounds silly but it helps me) and that for me was the stand out thing about this bowl; it doesn't seem to. However, if that is acceptable, then I have to learn from that.

I also thought the foot was ok for early Qing, but maybe the glaze is too shiny.  Whether it is correct or not, I don't really like it -  too much decoration - but it has provoked an interesting discussion.

Hi,

Thank you all, I have learned some new things about this era. Also nice to read this discussion and your arguments. I'm glad to see I was not the only one that has some doubts when looking at such a piece. What Mark states is what I was wondering about too, the arm is so strange! But do you argue that this means that it can't be Ming because they had so much better painters back then?

And I see that even a honest seller can make mistakes because of lack of knowledge and offer pieces that are (not make a judgement yet) let's say... debatable. I should not look at the seller alone but at every piece for itself.

Thank you

I would keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

That said, this is one piece that I think one would have to handle IRL to make a fair judgement (I also miss that @Ming1449 has not chimed in on this piece, but given world events, he might be otherwise engaged). Photos can be very deceptive, objects can appear more reflective than they really are, depending on light sources and conditions, and camera position when taking a photo, and so on.

What would be more interesting, IMO, would be to identify which chinese story the decoration is depicting, and once that is cleared up, see if there are other examples out there of that story, and see how those were painted. Maybe it is a story about a peasant with a broken arm! (I do agree that that arm looks a bit odd). 🙂

Anyway, that is my 5 cents.

Hi Janneke and all - 

Attached images for comparison:- 

The theme of a Emperor/scholar or gentleman with attendant/s holding a canopy within a landscape was extremely popular in the early/mid 17th periods - attached images for comparison - the brush pot, kang and vase are Tianqi/Chongzhen periods, the large dish is Shunzhi .. 

This scene can include differing elements within the composition, and various explanations have been put forward regarding what historical/drama or stories these possibly may represent - attached catalogue entry for vase gives two theories ...

The dish posted is not 16th century. Tam/Xin are correct such pieces with such scenes do not appear until the Tianqi period. The above examples are all very high quality and undoubtedly order for the domestic market.
However, Tam and Xin are right in that examples of such wares were also produced during this time, predominantly for the Japanese market, in large numbers of varied quality ... 

A large dish, D. 49 cm and dated to 1620-1650, decorated with lion/cub amongst landscape, exterior with two bare branches each with a bird in the Princessehof Museum, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands, displays the variations in drawing, painting style and blue sometimes found on one piece - last two images. 

Pieces from this period are a specialist subject within themselves, and are not really my area. The bowl posted/discussed has several issues, not least in the overall composition which, as with Vic and Giovanni, I have never seen before and also aspects of the drawing, the kneeling figures arm and right leg/foot are very poor,  as are some parts of the exterior decoration ... 

I don’t like it and would not buy it but - as with Michael - images are at best  subjective and I also think this piece would need to be viewed/handled very carefully before any conclusion reach ...  

Stuart

Dear all,

Since it is my plate let me comment on some of the above. It is indeed not a 16th c Wanli dish/basin, that is clearly a listing mistake. It is a 17th century piece and most likely Tianqi or Chongzhen period although there might be some debate possible about the question if it is not late Wanli and if we are in the position to make such hard claims about dating something to a very narrow period or a specific emperor.

Also some debate might be possible about the "quality" is it high is i tlow, is it bad is it good. All subjective.

The points made by Giovanni and Vic for me are clear cut nonsense. A decoration that is too full is a clear sign of forgery? That is a very bold statement. These middle 17th century pieces are known for their sometimes franctic full decoration. That does not make soemthing a fake. Neither the argument of "I have never seen something like this before" is a very strong argument.

If you look at the different elements of painting, porcelain, foot, cobalt etc. There really is nothing wrong with this piece. We know what we are doing here and we have handled the piece in person as did Rob Michiels of whom we bought it.

Most problematic i find statements like that made by Mark Adams:

"1. The central figure that is pointing with his left arm stretched out is all wrong! It looks like his right arm. Just look at his thumb along with the way the arm is painted. It looks very odd!

2. The depiction of the rockery is imo not right for the period.

3. The glaze looks very new to my eye. One would expect to see some form of weathering etc."

These are not things that make any sense and portray some kind of deeper knowledge of a subject matter that can impress people while it does not actually say anything.

You can debate about anything that has to do with the quality of the piece and if you would buy it yourself. As Stuart said "I would not buy it" he does not like it. Personally i think it is a very interesting piece because of the decoration, the painted scene and the shape. Very uncommon. But that does not mean it is a 21st century fake...

Best wishes from Amsterdam

Freek