I agree with William authenticity will be in question until handled by an expert.

Hello Guys,

appreciate so much your feedback as this has turned out to a very healthy conversation which reflects my own feeling.

I saw this piece when Peter showed Twent Veilinghuis and this product showed up so I thought it was good to go.  (yes, i also did saw the mandarin duck as well on the same page.. i believe.)

But I will ask Peter to authenticate the piece.

One of the questions, I would like to ask if why would a modern reproduction do the following:

1.) create a plate only 16.4 cm in diameter when almost with the same effort, he could do a 20.0 cm and sell it at a higher price.

2.) a smaller piece could also mean, a more difficult space to paint.  could that be the reason why they cannot get the level of accuracy. the style of painting specially on the edge (roughy compare to the accuracy of Yongzheng of hyper detail).

3.) as pointed out in this healthy post, could there have been imperial kiln imitator during those time.  I remember watching those Qing Dynasty movie (Ruyi, royal place) and what the common people do is to follow what is in fashion in the royal court.  Could this be one of those "wanna be ceramics" ?  Let us say a Minyao version ?

4.) Looking at the back, there seems to be a few firing crack but it looks too clean to me.  Would it be good to know if the plate "only" itself if its modern or not ?  as Brian pointed out, it doese resemble the highish footrim of a 20th century plate with ladies (which is made much much more elaborately than mine...also bigger in size).  The earlier 20th century paste seems dirtier and I think the remnant of Jingdazhen ceramics are based on Jiangxi company and will often be marked with the company name... 

5.) lastly, let me imagine I am the faker, can I just get a finished red plate (on a porcelain status) with white inner surface and over enamel it and paint the ladies and rebake it ?

  Thanks again guys...

Al 

@superox me personally I don’t think of this plate as being a fake modern or republic. To me it’s a copy or authentic of the period. A fake is to deceive I don’t see anything that leads me to think they are deceiving anyone. Etc aging or Yongzheng mark. Not everyone shares this opinion but as for fakes they come in all sizes and shapes. 

Hello Guys.

I think I found the border that would be similar to the style.

It is a product being sold by Ceramic and collectable (ebay) the one reommended by Peter.

Here is the photos.

hope this helps the conversation...

It is possible that it is a Guangxu period and perhaps the team can look into the similarity of the enamel... 

good night from sydney...

Al

@shinigami 

Thanks Brigit for this information....

When everyone is sharing their opinions and ideas every one is learning and emjoying this (not to affordable) hobby...

I have two ladies plate now...so..I will slowly keep collecting ...and enjoying the education...

hope Peter have the same opinion...

Al

I think your border pattern is fine for the 18th c. You see the basic principle ie cartouches with the strips between using various patterns, from Kangxi to Qianlong.  Actually, Shangri-la have a Kangxi plate with it - the content is different but the structure of the pattern is the same. In that sense I think yours is fine for a first half of the 18th c plate (which is what I am still inclined to think it is). 

If you are referring to the narrowness, that could possibly be to do with the size as it would otherwise mean a cramped central decoration or just because the artist made it like that.  You will often see the narrow border on 18th c pieces- and later of course.

Personally don't think the enamels on the front of that particular plate are similar.  That doesn't mean there isn't some similarity between the enamels of other 19th c pieces.

I am sure others will have different opinions and as William said, we could all be seeing different variations on our screens.  Judging by photos is not infallible, but hopefully Peter will be able to let you know - especially as he flagged it up in the first place.

Hello Ladies and Gents...

I got the reply from Peter.

He said that he has handled this type of ruby back before and even had  2 few expert from a museum looked at it.  Both were torn between whether it is a genuine piece or not.

However, according to Peter, the colour of the stool and the purple robe colour looked more like republic.

His prognosis is that this could possibly be a late Qing or Early Republic ware during the revival period of this type of ware and a lot were exported to Europe.

This piece has legitimate wear.

Can anyway, see if this purple colour existed in Yongzheng period ?  

But now, we are at a level where even musuem experts and at a crossroad but which ever way, I am happy with it and the learning that comes from this...

Al

From sotheby's. Sold as Qianlong period bowl. 

Not exactly the same degree of dark purple. 

My vase sold as republican period but probably late 18th century to early 19th century.

Interestingly the early purple appears to be watered down when compared with Republican period.

All very interesting.

Mark 

It is also similar to the deep aubergine used on biscuit-glazed pieces. 

@imperialfinegems 

Hi Mark.  Interesting indeed, suddenly I have become more aware of the subtlety in colour.  Would the difference in the dye colour a result of (Qianlong using natural pigments...probably from plants... and while the late Qing Republican probably use more chemical based ?)

I also wondered how these products were sold during the Late Qing/Early Republic.  Was it sold as a set ?  a part of a sauce and cup for tea ?

Could the gold rim and that pattern somethign that is in line with the artdeco feel of the 1900s .... the stiff design signaling advent of industrialisation (less organic and more rigid)....

Or perhaps an exhibition in Europe during that time where this product was sold...

How much would this plate have cost during those period ?  (we all wish we have a time machine...and just see those period right ?)

to dream is to be free indeed....

Al 

@julia 

Hi Julia...

can you share a photo so I can visualise it ? 😎 

Thanks

Al 

Later, just going out dog-walking. There should be pictures online.

Not 100% sure but I think it artificial or chemical colours used from about 1900 onwards.

The purple was something that I never really thought about until today. 

@superox 

I think you have mistaken the application of organic vs. chemical dyes in oriental rugs or fabrics.  Those materials would be be burned to ash if applied to clay and fired in a kiln.  The enamel colors on your saucer are based on metallic oxides that were introduced to the Chinese from Europe in the first quarter of the 18th century.  These colors are known as ‘famile rose’ in the West, but were called ‘foreign colors’ by the Chinese.  They are actually applied in a second firing at a lower temperature after the initial firing of the porcelain body.  You can research the term ‘overgraze enamels’ for further information on this process.

Like Mark, I had also not given it much thought, probably because you see purple quite a bit like on purple splashed Jun glazes and aubergine monochromes.  To be honest much of the aubergine on the biscuit wares is more of a brown, but I have found some examples of purple tones from 17th/early 18th c.  The pictures are from two books A Culture Revealed (Stamen, Volk, Ni) and Sam Marsh's Brush Pots.  I added the plate to make it simpler.

There is also a link to a monochrome.  The thing is I am not sure if we are sll seeing the exact same shades which makes it difficult.  But at least you know purples existed.

https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5418232

Then there is a lighter shade on this plate. This catalogue shows a range of colours (some pieces are later); according to the A Culture Revealed book, there was a lot of experimentation with colours around the Yongzheng period.

https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-5400822?ldp_breadcrumb=back&intObjectID=5400822&from=salessummary&lid=1