Hi Tam, thanks for the advice, I very much appreciate it. 

There are currently 2 more of these on the Buy it Now list. The one I posted above and this one:

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F123375004317

There is also this pair on eBay that do not appear on Bidamount 

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F163460606751

whilst I am obviously disappointed at the thought that the jarlets I purchased are modern fakes, it is also a very interesting learning curve. Much worse happens at sea!

BUT, I think this does provide an opportunity for a broader discussion. As much as I would be unwilling to class myself an expert in any field, I do have some expertise in a few areas (clearly not Chinese porcelain?). 

When I imagine the existence of a similar site such as this, perhaps a site on pottery, it is unimaginable that there should be 4 similarly (and clearly) suspicious pieces listed for weeks on end without anyone picking up on it.  Surely, we must all concede that this is odd? 

It really didn’t cross my mind to ask anyone about the authenticity of these. As I say, they were there for a week or two before I put an offer in, so I wasn’t concerned about someone getting there first. Had they sold I would’ve been OK with that. As we can see on this thread, they’re not rare! Another would’ve turned up at some point.

I think us novices sometimes feel we’re a bit of a nuisance if we ask for advice regarding every single purchase, I know I do. So with this, I thought it an unnecessary inconvenience, after all, I thought to myself, there are 4 of them on Bidamount and they’ve been there for a while.

As you say, the BIN items are there for weeks, some are there for months. So the list only needs to be checked say, once a month? The auction page changes weekly, so checking that is far more onerous I would imagine.

Anyway, we are where we are. I will consider my options and formulate a plan... after a cup of tea!

?

Thanks Todd,

yes, I’m not terribly concerned about a refund, I think that when I explain that I came to the item through Bidamount he/she might be amenable.

Thanks for the kind comment. 

Nic

Dear NicDan,

Personally, and judging purely on the basis of the photographs you have provided, I find nothing about your items that inevitably obliges us to regard them as modern or recent (by which I mean, made in the twenty-first century). Nineteenth century seems quite plausible (though I would add, late in that century).

Opinions expressed here about their date have obviously unsettled you. Why not ask Chine de Commande for some further reassurance about them? I have bought from him in the past, and have always found him to be helpful.

Regards,

Alan

Hi Alan,

thank you. It’s difficult because in many other fields I can make a case, but I am totally dependent on others when it comes to Chinese porcelain. 

I think I am more confused than anything else because I feel I was relatively careful in the process of buying these. So it’s a bit of a shock.

I think I’m holding off from contacting the seller because I don’t want to needlessly cause a hoo-ha!

I will have to bit the bullet soon, but I will leave it until tomorrow perhaps? Act in haste, repent at leisure and all that.

Thank you again

Nic

Hi,

Here is another, just like yours.  

https://www.rubylane.com/item/260004-1373/White-Blue-Jar-Boys-Play

I have found others, too. The shape and the dating varies a little and a couple have crazing or crackled bases. 

Let us know what happens.

Julia

Hi Julia,

thank you. The sheer number may suggest that there is someone in China churning these out as we speak?

this seller states that he/she ‘believes’ it is late 19th early 20th. Which is clever. 

Mine were listed as 19thC Kangxi. So 19th century with Kangxi mark, not Kangxi. There was no ‘probably’ or ‘maybe’ or ‘likely’. So my only recourse is if they turn out to be modern copies, not 19th century.

The plot thickens!

Nic

My only impression is that the marks on both appear very sloppily written. The proportions of the characters seem off, almost as if a non-Chinese person wrote them. 

However I don't know if that is typical for late 19thC. Kangxi marks. 

Hi everyone,

quick update:

I was in a quandary yesterday as to what I should do. As I said, I didn’t feel it was fair to question the seller with so little certainty. So, I decided, it was best to contact Peter, after all, if these jars (and possibly the others on BIN) were fakes that slipped through the net it would be right to inform him?

I received a reply this morning. Peter recognises that there is often disagreement over these because this particular style was not made in the Kangxi period. But he does say with complete confidence that they are 19th century. Peter himself has had a number of them over the years.

Having researched “100 boys” I have noticed that the level of detail is, generally, better on larger items, this could be due to the room available on larger pieces for such detail. Ditto the Kangxi mark. Also, it is possible that items that were less expensive in their day didn’t warrant fine detail. 

Anyhow, it has been quite a roller-coaster! But certainly another excellent learning experience!

Thanks to everyone for contributing!

?

Hi Nic,  Sorry for late feedback. Peter is right. It's indeed of (very) late Qing.

All is well that ends well.

Have learned something here today about said item.

Must admit I would not have thought late Qing at first glance.

Full credit to the living legend Alan who picked it up first.

Mark

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/18th-Century-Antique-Chinese-Porcelain-Blue-and-White-Plate-Marks/264121567032

More dancing and Jumping but this is listed as 18th century. 

Nic:

If you are dealing in items of this nature even if they are genuine and of period, I don't think you can possibly make a profit because the items in the Buy it Now section of bidamount.com are all marked up to quite high prices. The sellers then expect buyers to make low offers which in turn are still greater than the actual market values of the items. The seller in question, while reputable, has his items very much overpriced in my opinion. Whether you can return these items or not will depend on the seller's stated policy. Some state that they will accept returns only if they depart significantly from how the item was portrayed in photographs and how it was described. Since dating of antique Chinese art is so difficult, it will be hard to make a case that an item does not belong to a particular period without an appraisal from an expert  and that could be both difficult to obtain and costly in itself.

Regards,

Errol

Hi Errol,

yes, you’re right, there was never any ‘profit’ as such to be had in this deal.

There was something of a saga leading up to the purchase of these jarlets. In short, I’d seen one and liked it, put in an offer, the dealer accepted, then he/she for some reason backed out. It is now back on eBay at 3 times the amount I initially offered.

So when I saw these 2 on BIN, I had Peter’s words ringing in my ears “put in an offer, people are eager to sell”. So I put in an offer well below the asking price. The offer was accepted and I ended up with 2 for the price of one!

So the objective in selling one was merely to recycle some of the money, probably for it to be put towards something else. Whilst there is no profit in it, if I sell one it will mean I had the other much cheaper than had I bought just one at the prices being asked on various sites.

It’s an old dealer’s trick which I utilise regularly - buy a job lot, sell the items I don’t want, thus ending up paying very little (sometimes nothing at all) for the item I did want. Being a dealer, it has the extra benefit of providing nice stock to sell but also means I can put the invoice in against taxes. 

So the only issue with this whole transaction was: were these jarlets what the seller sold them as? Thankfully, that issue has been resolved satisfactorily. So all is well. ?

Regards

Nic