Here's an interesting vase.  Not wanli but c18, however imperial, so one would assume 5 claws.  But this has a 3 clawed winged dragon.  And a five clawed normal dragon on the lid...

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24027/lot/21/

Also, for what it's worth, the Wikipedia page on winged Chinese dragons shows an image of a dragon with 3 claws...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinglong

I'll have to do some more.research...

@thomasumjohnson

Hi Thomas - 

Images/descriptions for comparison from:- 

1-9:- Three bowls, exhibited in ‘The Fame of Flame’, an exhibition of Imperial Wares of the Jiajing and Wanli periods, held at the University Museum and Art Gallery, University of Hong Kong,  14 October 2009 till 28 February 2010 …

10-13:- Bowl, exhibited in ‘Enlightening Elegance’, Imperial Porcelain of the mid/late Ming’, Huaihaitang Coll, private Hong Kong collection … 

14-18:- Two bowls and a dish, Gugong, The Palace Museum, Beijing … 

Due to the massive orders from the Imperial household, Wanli period wares can vary considerably in quality and painting styles, as can the mark writing. However, they always exhibited an overall ‘uniformity’ in drawing, enamel tones and ‘feel’ when held … 

I will let you make your own comparisons, but note the difference in the drawing execution of the central dragon or the pine tree needles on your piece and those posted, to name just two … 

Then compare the enamel tones, especially the red and, to a lesser  extent, the yellow … 

Brian @lotusblack and Tim @greeno107 are quite correct regarding 3 clawed dragons. Personally, I have only seen 4/5 claws on Imperial Wanli wucai wares and Tim is also right regarding the spacing of the mark and the closeness of the enclosing double line boarder to the edge of the interior footrim … 

Very good copies of Wanli wucai were produced in the Kangxi period, although the painting style is very different. I have no knowledge of the late 19/early 20th century Japanese copies, so defer to Tim … 

From the images it does seem to have some age but, personally, I think it is a later copy and not of the period … 

Stuart

@thomasumjohnson That Bonham's example went unsold... I wonder why (not sarcastic).

If the Bonham's piece is genuine, it looks to me to be very different than your bowl.  Let's compare...

The red is a different color. The blue is a different color. The yellow is a different color. The manner of facial rendering is different. The scrolling is not only different in color, but green and red look to be flamese, while the black lines with green enamel look like scrolling vines (but I think they're related to the water).

I see Stuart has taken a look at this post... let's see what he finds.

Looks like he posted while I was typing.  Thank you Stuart! @ming1449 

@greeno107 thanks again, I was more interested in the wings on the dragon...  It seems most wanli winged dragons have no claws,  also that a traditional Chinese winged dragons has 3 claws.  I'm not 100% on this, I need to do some more research.  I just thought it was strange that an imperial ware has a 3 clawed "winged" dragon, described as "withering" and the lid has an imperial 5 clawed dragon with no wings.  Here's the link again...

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24027/lot/21/

I'm assuming the dragon in question also has wings (and 3 claws as in the above link)

Also the Wikipedia page for Chinese winged dragons, has 3 claws.   I'm trying to find out about winged dragons, it seems they may have 3 claws but I'm not 100% as I need to do more research..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinglong

When I look at the piece I see some elements that remind me of Kangxi Yongzheng.

Here's a wanli winged dragon that appears to have 3 claws, not sure on the reliability of the source

https://www.carters.com.au/index.cfm/item/1396748-a-chinese-blue-and-white-dragon-charger-wanli-period-1572-1620-d/

Another wanli 3 clawed dragon .

https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/pavilion-online-chinese-art/blue-white-dragon-vase-meiping-22/54075

@thomasumjohnson I remember the first one - that was sold at Leonard Joel in Australia:

https://www.antiquesreporter.com.au/index.cfm/lot/1396748-a-chinese-blue-and-white-dragon-charger-wanli-period-1572-1620-d/

@jg1133 ah cool, thanks, maybe winged dragons usually have 3 claws?  

Here's another wanli dragon with 3 claws.. no wings thou...

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/11909/lot/159/

Your Bowl may possibly be Japanese early to mid 19th c.

I have one with a central winged Dragon and immortals to the exterior.

Wucai in style but the red reminds me of your Bowl. 

I may have posted it,if not I’ll look for images.

It has a 4 character auspicious mark if I recall.

Vic

@thomasumjohnson I think the examples you’ve cited are very interesting… solid evidence of the use of 3 claws on dragons on Wanli period wares - but not marked & period.

Anyway, the other elements also require some attention. Right?

I had posted a link in another thread on Japanese copies of Chinese marks - the Wanli mark is mentioned.

In Japanese, the mark translates to Dai Min manreki nensei, and is found on Edo and Meiji porcelains.

Here’s an example… not a very well done dragon design, but a fairly good Wanli copy overall.

https://www.catawiki.com/en/l/7957327-imari-chawan-lidded-bowl-with-figural-decoration-and-ming-wanli-mark-japan-1750-80

Here are some very convincing 'wucai' style round boxes from the Britich Museum.... Japanese c. 1900.  Not a dragon design, but look how well the porcelain mimics Ming wucai wares.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1930-0717-7

@greeno107 thanks Tim, I see where you're coming from..  what's striking about the link is that it's the same scene, with the same characters (the people, the scene) which is a cause for concern.  Unless it's a known scene from the wanli period). The difference is it looks newer, the green colour is off, more kangxi, compared to the bowl in question and it's not as convincing in its general composition.  The enamels aren't as convincing in colour or contrast.  But yes you have a point..  I disagree about the red thou, that others have pointed out.  The comparison early posted with the Christie's example.  

Is this a know motif, or is it more specific to my bowl and the one you posted? 

@thomasumjohnson 

Is this a know motif, or is it more specific to my bowl and the one you posted? 

All of the motiffs on genuine pieces are 'known' by Chinese and Japanese artists during the 17th c. until about the mid 19th c., and consequently copied very closely.  After that, motiffs often do go through some changes, but are still copied.  Why?

The answer is simple - the making of ceramics was a lifelong trade, and one did not dedicate their life to the pursuit with only mediocre ability.

We (modern day collectors) often struggle with this overly simple explination because we struggle with a our own modern paradigm - that art is trade created by both amatuer and expert.

This simply was not true prior to the mid 19th c.

The making and decorating of ceramics was a life long pursuit... people did not just walk off a farm to become an artist, or pick it up as a hobby.  So, apprentices would be required to tediously study every aspect of their art - especially designs, and especially Chinese wares.

The process of copying pushed students towards mastery, and when successful, led some to become masters of their trade.  As a result, some Japanese copies are extremely convincing, and more challenging, even of the same period, but subtle differences in the materials and styles give us clues that they are of different origins.

That is why so many collectors are quick to point out difference in color, form, foot rim, mark, paste quality, etc... you get the point.

Since I personally deal very little with Ming wares, I defer to Stuart @ming1449 and others to clarify if they can point to specific known Wanli pieces with the same design as your bowl.  

However, I trust my eyes, and I believe it is best to follow a process of evaluation that begins with the critical question, 'what is wrong about this piece?"

One detail that can not be resolved is sufficient to prove an item is not of the period.

Every detail has to be correct to prove an item is of the period.

Unfortunately for all of us, the burden of proof required for authenticity is not fairly balanced with what little is required to disprove.

In the case of your beautiful bowl, there are just too many aspects that do not line up with known Wanli wucai wares.

Here's a challenge for you - Find me a genuine Wanli wucai piece with that squiggly green cloud/fire design with black lines, or the square mark that almost touches the foot rim.  If you do, I'll print this thread and eat it - jokes aside, see what you can find.

Good luck!

Tim

I agree with @shine.

The mark is done very oddly and with two squares.

Also of interest are the two horns on the dragon.

Front facing dragons are very popular atm. Hence the market place is flooded with copies.

My personal feeling is that it's either a Japanese example from the late 19th century or its a chinese modern copy.

I dont like the way the dragon is depicted. Very stiffly painted. And those claws! 

I only have one that I purchased from @shine awhile ago. It's a Kangxi period. One day I hope to get it restored. 

Mark