Why is this bowl included in the Bidamount weekly newsletter but only sold for $640? - Help Identify This

RE: Why is this bowl included in the Bidamount weekly newsletter but only sold for $640?

Julia — Sat, 29 Aug 2020 16:32:34 +0000

Thanks for the clarification! 😊

RE: Why is this bowl included in the Bidamount weekly newsletter but only sold for $640?

Ubecha — Sat, 29 Aug 2020 11:59:41 +0000

@julia Hi Julia, In my opinion, the bowl in last week’s newsletter is a modern copy. Judging from the quality of the painting, how the foot rim was trimmed into loach-back shape and how the mark was made, I would say that it was a low-end copy. In another word, it tried, but failed. Now, back to the Christie’s example that you posted, in my opinion, it is also a modern copy, although it might be a better copy. The pair of dishes that I mentioned were sold at Sotheby’s in 2006. In my opinion, those are authentic (of Guangxu Period). For more clear pictures, you may search at Sotheby’s website by typing “Guangxu Doucai”. It should be pretty easy to find them. I have described the difference between the Christie’s dish and the Sotheby’s dishes in my last post. I am sorry that, I couldn’t attach a picture of those dishes with a higher clarity, because this forum has a limit of 2MB for the size of file. Thanks for the discussions. Best, Jacob

RE: Why is this bowl included in the Bidamount weekly newsletter but only sold for $640?

Julia — Sat, 29 Aug 2020 05:46:43 +0000

Hi Jacob,

Sorry, I should have said the bowl was from Christie's, it was the first one I came across.

I am sorry but your pictures aren't sharp enough for me to appreciate the points you are making but I can clearly see that the peaches are also an odd shape; maybe you missed that.

However, I am still none the wiser as to what point you are trying to make here. I don't think the bowl from the newsletter is Imperial quality; the decoration is not harmonious or refined enough, but I don't think anyone claimed it was.

Are you saying the bowl in the newsletter is a fake ie not Guangxu at all?

Julia

RE: Why is this bowl included in the Bidamount weekly newsletter but only sold for $640?

Shinigami — Sat, 29 Aug 2020 05:01:57 +0000

It’s always difficult to tell from pictures only, but I wouldn’t describe the bowl in question as imperial quality. I have a famille rose imperial quality bowl from Guangxu, it looks a bit more refined and the mark on the bottom is perfectly crisp. In fact the somewhat blurred underglaze blue worries me here. They were able to do better at this time.

RE: Why is this bowl included in the Bidamount weekly newsletter but only sold for $640?

Sharon P — Sat, 29 Aug 2020 03:58:20 +0000

What is it worth? $640 plus shipping, if it gets paid for and if not then better luck next time. I'm with Julia in that I'm unsure of the purpose of this circular hypothetical, straight thinking please.

RE: Why is this bowl included in the Bidamount weekly newsletter but only sold for $640?

Ubecha — Sat, 29 Aug 2020 03:07:37 +0000

@julia Hi, Thank you for sharing with us another Doucai example with a Guangxu mark. I don't know where you got the picture from, but to be frank with you, I do have some concerns about the authenticity of the dish in the picture. Attached please find another picture of a pair of Guangxu imperial Doucai dishes from Sotheby's, which were sold at the price of 5,040 GBP in the year of 2006. If you would pay close attention to the details of the four peaches near the center and compare with the picture that you posted, it is pretty obvious that, 1) the red and green parts on the peaches in your picture are so clearly divided, while the shading and blending of the two colors are done much better in Sotheby's examples; and 2) the peaches in your picture look more like acorns instead of peaches, which indicates that there are some problems in the painter's brushwork and skills. Furthermore, if you also pay close attention to how the ribbons were drawn, you would also find similarly stiff brush strokes. It takes very sharp and artistic eyes to tell all these subtle difference between authentic pieces and high-end modern copies. Thanks, Jacob

27234

RE: Why is this bowl included in the Bidamount weekly newsletter but only sold for $640?

Craig — Sat, 29 Aug 2020 00:08:26 +0000

Posted by: @ubecha

In general, does it look more like a provincial ware for the domestic market or an high end product for imperial court or export?

It seems what you're failing to realize is that there are many, many, many levels of quality between provincial and imperial ware. The bowl in question is one such example.

RE: Why is this bowl included in the Bidamount weekly newsletter but only sold for $640?

Julia — Fri, 28 Aug 2020 19:45:56 +0000

Sorry, everyone, I think the only confusion here is mine. 🙄 I don't understand what the issue is.

Why wouldn't Peter put this type of item in the newsletter? What has the price got to do with whether or not a piece is included?

If this were Imperial, sure it would have gone for more but look at the difference in quality of this piece:

27218

There is no comparison, but that doesn't mean the bowl in question isn't a Guangxu piece with a reign mark, as many other items of non-Imperial quality also have, that some people liked enough to bid up to $640. I wouldn't have, I find it rather harshly coloured and unappealing but it has every right to be in the newsletter.

Or are you saying it is a deliberately faked Imperial bowl?

RE: Why is this bowl included in the Bidamount weekly newsletter but only sold for $640?

Ubecha — Fri, 28 Aug 2020 18:52:45 +0000

From some of the replies above, we can already tell how much controversy and confusion this type of example being listed in the weekly newsletter may cause among Chinese porcelain collectors.

While I appreciate everyone’s replies, I would like to ask everybody to pay closer attention to some of the details, for example, how the foot rim was trimmed, what does the paste at the foot rim look like, how was the Doucai painting executed, the overall shape and quality of pottery of the entire piece, and how well the mark was written? In general, does it look more like a provincial ware for the domestic market or an high end product for imperial court or export? Are you able to find any of the information contradictory to each other?

Just so you know, an authentic Guangxu imperial blue and white dish, in regular size, mark and of the period, in good condition, is worth around $2,000. This Doucai bowl, if it was indeed an authentic imperial bowl, would definitely be much more expensive.

RE: Why is this bowl included in the Bidamount weekly newsletter but only sold for $640?

tam18 — Fri, 28 Aug 2020 07:12:27 +0000

There are many , many mark and period Guangxu bowls and porcelain items which are not 'imperial' . I think by the late C19th imperial supervision of the kilns in Jingdezhen was much laxer. Also Guangxu-marked pieces continued to be produced into the Republican period , so this bowl also could be a bit later than the Guangxu period .