@shangrilaantique Can you post a link to an example in collection?

The fret marks on the bottom contradict Chinese methods. I get the vibe of Nippon circa 1900 when they were producing plates with Chinese designs in pseudo-famille colors.  I've seen some convincing pieces, but there is always something about the design that just falls short.

Sorry, i do not have the time right now to go search trough collections, but there is nothing Japanese about these plates. You are probably referring to pieces like Yamatoku ware that also have a reference to SE Asia, but they are not at all like this. It is a total different type of decoration, colour and paste.

Besides that it is not uncommon for large Chinese pieces of a certain type to have stilt marks, the wisdoms about stilt marks being chinese however in general true is also deceptive.

These plates are really 18th century Chinese.

Buy the books on SE asian wares by Barbara Harrison of the Princessenhof.

best wishes

Freek

Hi Freek,

Thanks for that.  Really good to hear your opinion, your thoughts are very interesting to hear. As you can see I did initially use your site to research them. I will certainly check out the museum now, too and see if they are online.

As I said, the plates did feel 18th c but there were elements that bothered me about the dating especially after considering everyone's opinions. Coincidentally, on Sunday I was convinced I had lost them during my recent move. Thankfully, I eventually found them under the bed.

Maybe I will re-post the photos, then newer members can see more clearly what we were referring to.

Thanks again for your help. 😊 

Julia

@greeno107 I see where your thoughts are at with a non-Chinese production mimicking/copying the original Chinese style (Nippon along with others as you said did this for a period along with English ironstone types & others, ect - many forget this, so great mention by you because I would have overlooked such).

However as to these pieces and their origin (in my subjective opinion) I’d agree with Freek in saying these are definitively not Japanese; and 100% made for the Southeast Asian market in China.

These were large dishes; and as mentioned - possibly not produced in standard kilns which made mass-export pieces for the west, so it’s very plausible there were less-uniform production methods (comparatively). 

Something I’ve noticed when items like these get such mixed attributions:
It isn’t due to an inability/shortcoming on anybody’s behalf - actually the opposite of such: most here are experienced/used to looking at & studying/handling items regularly, and often have them memorized near photographically.

Our minds can sort of work against us when we see something “out of the norm” and we often go through process of elimination/deductive reasoning which can over-complicate things (at least, for myself often). 

Those logical processes we often adhere to can occasionally trick us when something of a non-prevalent/less commonly circulated ware comes up.

Additionally we have to work against the old “rule of thumb” guidelines for many things ended up circulating & ending up as near law-binding precedent somewhere along the way, to add further complication.
(I’ve dubbed them the “old wives tales of ceramics” recently).

This is especially true with the ever tricky spur mark adage: I’ve seen lots of Edo period Hizen pieces without spur marks at all, and Qing Chinese pieces with many.. 

There’s always going to be exceptions..
For me it’s admittedly rather hard to remember just how many there are out there; especially if our thoughts may subconsciously gravitate towards a process of elimination via memory/using comps of higher frequency & of less esoteric pieces. 

Beautiful pieces in general though; love that vibrant and bright enameling!

-JRN

Well said JRN.

I was just in the office and managed to snap some pictures from one of the books mentioned earlier by Birgit. It is a good book.

best wishes,

Freek

@jrn I agree with your statement, that we all have our processes of deciphering age and authenticity, and that we can be fooled by our own habits. That really is the benefit of participation in a forum. So, good on you to point that out. I think our real objective sometimes gets lost in the process.  I hold no grudge towards anyone who points me out for being wrong.

That said, I personally have not seen Qing plates with spur marks. Ever.

ShangrilaAntique - Those book photos posted are interesting. The first two photis are nothing like the plates being discussed.  The artistry and enamels of photos 1 & 2 are bright and beautiful, and clearly Chinese 18th c. in quality. 

The 2nd photo shows the bottom of the plate - I don't see fret marks. Are there any photos from your book of bottoms showing fret marks?

The third photo (39) looks very similar, but I see some differences in the refinement of the rendering. Perhaps this is mearly a difference in quality, not age, or perhaps it's because of difference in the size of the plates. The caption for the plate says its 22cm, and these plates in this discussion are larger.

This is not an apples with apples comparison, and so far we only have a photo of the front of the plates, so any claim of being 100% certain that the plates are 18th c. is premature.

Since the photos are seperated on this thread, here they are side by side. 37cm vs. 22cm

I'm not handling the porcelain, so maybe the feel of the porcelain is convincngly 18th c, but I see some differences. Don't you?

I do. But you must see that there is a total difference in ligthing of these pictures and besides i am not claiming they are identical.

The thing is that i have handled at least 500+ of these type of plates over the years and i do know very well how to reference what i see on pictures to what i have had here.

On a side note 37cm is a very common size for these plates. As is 22cm. As is 28cm. As is 32cm.

All the plates in the pictures i posted do indeed belong to the same group and the same period in time. If you think that the ones in picture 1 and 2 are 18th, than so is the rest of them.

Best wishes

Freek

And some bigger ones, one with and one without spur marks.

@shangrilaantique Yes, the lighting and overall manner of the photo certainly is different.

What the photo does not change is the red ring around the central roundel that does not exist on the pair of larger dishes, or the simplification in the rendering of the two large peony flowers on the two larger plates (or for that matter the smaller flowers, too), the differences in the rendering of the leaves, and the simplified boarder.

Oh, and what about the fret marks? Did they sometimes make them with fret marks, and sometimes without? Such a peculiar practice on such relatively small and uniform export plates.

I do not pressume that you have not handled many of these plates. However, 500+?

This type of exportware is not found in the US, so perhaps my experience is unlike those of my European friends. However, in my roughly ten years of buying, collecting, studying, I can not claim to have handled 100+ of the same object of even the most common blue & white Cantonware plate.

So, it seems your experience dwarfs mine, but I kindly ask that a clear photo of the back of these plates be posted, and perhas a photo of the rim showing the thickness of the porcelain, before I accept my ignorance as fact.

@shangrilaantique This photos is telling and provides all the answers to the questions I had regarding the bottom. Thank you. Very educational. As I said, we dont get this type of exportware here in the USA, so this was a great lesson for me.

 Some more big ones. I will respond more elaboratly later this evening

Posted by: @greeno107

@shangrilaantique Yes, the lighting and overall manner of the photo certainly is different.

What the photo does not change is the red ring around the central roundel that does not exist on the pair of larger dishes, or the simplification in the rendering of the two large peony flowers on the two larger plates (or for that matter the smaller flowers, too), the differences in the rendering of the leaves, and the simplified boarder.

Oh, and what about the fret marks? Did they sometimes make them with fret marks, and sometimes without? Such a peculiar practice on such relatively small and uniform export plates.

I do not pressume that you have not handled many of these plates. However, 500+?

This type of exportware is not found in the US, so perhaps my experience is unlike those of my European friends. However, in my roughly ten years of buying, collecting, studying, I can not claim to have handled 100+ of the same object of even the most common blue & white Cantonware plate.

So, it seems your experience dwarfs mine, but I kindly ask that a clear photo of the back of these plates be posted, and perhas a photo of the rim showing the thickness of the porcelain, before I accept my ignorance as fact.

 

Hi Greeno107, 

I would not be at all surprised that Freek has handled well in excess of 500+ over the years.

I have seen photos of their massive inventory. Astonishing and breathing taking! And I suspect that  was only a portion of it. 

The European market and in particular the Netherlands is totally different from the US. As is the US to us down under. 

You would be able to handle I surmise 10x the amount I personally handle. Our market here is very small. We only have a handful of reliable auctions a month. If that! 

Luckily I have excellent reference material and a world renowned museum to compensate. Not forgetting this magnificent site and its members along with  Peter's intuitive blog every week. 😊

Both the USA and Australian markets combined dwarf those from our friends in Europe. In particular the Netherlands.

I was surprised myself to learn this when it was pointed out to me a few years back. 

Regards, 

Mark