I’ve been working on a small project with Peter’s kind support: a website where you can see what others collect, research your own objects and get expert opinions, including from Peter himself.

I hired a development agency in India. They initially proposed a two-month timeline. After 10 months, they told me they couldn’t build it and offered only a tiny refund, saying they’d already spent too much time on it.

Pretty hard to swallow after nearly a year.

Long story short, I found another developer, and we’re finally close to getting it live. A few things left to finish, and hopefully I’ll have something for you guys to try soon!

Its decoration depicts a bird on a plum blossom branch, alongside an orchid motif. Other examples also feature bamboo. Yes, that is supposed to be a bird, even though it is not immediately evident.

But why Dangyangyu Revival?

The Dangyangyu kiln ceased production during the Yuan dynasty and so I have to assume that the later porcelain bowls were most likely made in Jingdezhen.

The following comparison images provide the clue.

The top image is a Northern Song dynasty Dangyangyu zisu bowl, with its rare slip-painted bird and prunus branch. Zisu refers to the black-glazed exterior and ivory-white interior. The bowl is one of three which came from a private collection that had gone unnoticed for many years.

Notice the orchid motif, painted in a Song-inspired style.

I had originally, incorrectly, assumed that the motif was pine, but assessing the group of three Dangyangyu bowls together shows that this is a very early artistic representation of an orchid.

There is a clear difference in the shades of the interior glaze: ivory-white on the original Dangyangyu bowl, compared with the bluish-white glaze of the Revival example.

The Museum of East Asian Art in Bath holds a comparable bowl, dated by its founder, Brian McElney, to the seventeenth century and classified as Batavian ware, reflecting the trade in Chinese ceramics through Batavia, present-day Jakarta. This particular bowl has a very simplified orchid motif as well as the bird on a prunus branch.

It would appear that later bowls during the nineteenth century also included the bamboo motif. Below is the Dangyangyu bamboo motif.

The three Dangyangyu bowls share a remarkably distinctive decorative vocabulary.
The decoration includes motifs that could be recognised individually — orchid, bamboo, flowering branches and bird — but their particular treatment and combination seem highly unusual on Northern Song ceramics.
The three bowls are especially intriguing because they are not identical.
Each carry related decoration, but the designs clearly vary in their execution. Together, however, they suggest that the motifs belong to a coherent decorative repertoire rather than being isolated or accidental additions. Not the "Three Friends of Winter" or the "Four Gentlemen", but instead a long lost symbolism.

There are a few published examples of rare Dangyangyu ceramics with the bird on a branch motif and it would seem that the bamboo motif is also known, but as for the orchid motif it would seem that these three bowls may be the only ones currently known to have this particular decoration on Northern Song wares.

The revival bowls, on the other hand, have an impressionistic interpretation of the original motifs, which I believe shows that the later potters were copying a particular and possibly highly revered bowl, rather than fully understanding the true meaning of this group of motifs.

Dangyangyu Revival is my proposed term for these intriguing bowls, and a hypothesis that deserves further research.

I hope that you find this post interesting.

In his weekly videos, Peter often mentions that certain books can be far more useful than the internet for the research of specific Asian Art. Perhaps my experience regarding a small dish in my collection backs up his good advice.

The dish, or perhaps brush washer, is definitely atypical, hence the reason why I was able to purchase it.

I purchased my dish from Edmund Grundner and he informed me that he had bought it from the sale of an old family estate in the former East Germany. Even with over 30 years experience of acquiring early Chinese ceramics, especially from Indonesia, he did not know if this dish was fired in a Longquan or Ge kiln.

In terms of characteristics, my dish shares features with Song through Ming Longquan wares—particularly the form, glazed foot ring, and unglazed base. A typical Longquan celadon dish made during the Yuan to Ming period with a similar type of glazed footring and unglazed base would have a light grey stoneware body which would have normally fired an orange brown shade on the surface of the unglazed base. This is definitely not the case with my dish, however, the glaze, with its pronounced “gold thread” crackle, the concentration of bubbles below the glaze causing an "oily skin" affect in the sunlight and the iron rich, purplish dark brown body appear much closer to Ge-type wares.

Over the years I have searched for any Longquan kiln which produced any wares combining all of these features, but without any success. Believing that I had exhausted any possibility of finding a possible origin, I decided to put it in an auction and move on. However, it didn't sell and now I am glad that I still own it and it will stay in my collection.

Without having a confirmed comparison, I hope that published information can support a strong attribution for my Ge-type dish, with the following summary identifying the main elements,

• Combination of features aligns better with Tiger Cave than Longquan: While the form, foot ring, and base resemble Longquan wares, the “gold thread” crackle glaze, the "oily skin" appearance of the glaze due to the concentration of bubbles below the surface and the purplish dark brown body are much closer to Ge-type wares, which are strongly associated with the Tiger Cave kiln site during the Yuan period shown in "Selected Porcelain from the Tiger Cave Kiln Site in Hangzhou" and "Selection of Ge Ware".
• Comparative shard evidence from Laohudong kiln: Specimens documented in Yonaiyama Shards III (especially specimen M9) show celadon wares with glazed foot rings and unglazed bases, matching my dish’s construction.
• Body characteristics consistent with Yuan stratum at Tiger Cave: Excavated material from the Tiger Cave site (2002 publication) is described as having thicker, coarser, dark bodies and lower refinement, which correspond closely with my dish’s fabric and suggest a Yuan-period context. Also, published excavated shards show that the iron rich dark grey body fired a purplish-brown shade on the surface of unglazed areas.
• Glaze parallels with excavated Ge-type wares: Published examples (e.g. Ge-type bird feeder, censer fragments, tripod washer) from the Tiger Cave pieces show only a distinct “gold thread” crackle caused by the permeated iron oxide and no "iron wire" crackle, closely matching the glaze surface observed on my dish.

The Tiger Cave book puts forward the suggestion that due to the excavated specimens the Official Laohudong kiln became the possible main center for the firing of Ge-type wares during the Yuan period. If this is correct, it is written that one of the colours of these glazes was a greyish-green and also published excavated shards show "gold thread" crackle being present without the additional "iron wire" crackle during this period of production. I have to admit that although I have had the Selection of Ge Ware book for sometime and I had not fully appreciated the relevance of the Laohudong specimens until I had read the other book.

By way of further detail, with the dish measuring 5 1/2", 14 cm in diameter, which coincides with the size of the Guan lobed dish sold by Sotheby’s in New York, 25th March 2026. However, apart from the size and the similar "gold thread" crackle glaze that is where the similarity ends.

Researching another item in my small collection led me to information that showed the Tiger Cave (Xiuneisi) kiln as being a possible source, due to shards from both the Jiaotanxia and Xiuneisi kiln sites which were collected by Tsuneo Yonaiyama whilst he was the Japanese consul of Hangzhou in 1920-1930’s and were later divided in 1951 between the Tokyo National Museum and Mayuyama Ryusendo. These specimens are shown in three books published by the Tokiwayama Bunko Foundation. I purchased two of the books, but it is the Xiuneisi shards which I have found to be relevant to my small dish.

I think it is fair to say that it is commonly considered that Guan and Ge ware dishes and bowls had one of the following features,

• An unglazed foot ring and glazed base
• A glazed foot ring and glazed base with spur marks
• An unglazed foot ring and a glazed base with spur marks 

In reviewing the Tokiwayama Bunko Foundation publications, especially the "Yonaiyama Shards III" which focuses on just the Xiuneisi shards collection, I noted that several specimens (e.g. M4, M9, M23, M127, M312) demonstrate celadon wares with glazed foot rings and unglazed bases, which are similar to the features found on some Longquan ware during the Southern Song to Ming period.

Mr Yonaiyama's labels show that he found the M4 and M9 specimens in the Fenghuangshan area, which the later official excavations have confirmed to be that of the Tiger Cave Kiln site. Hence, these specimens would appear to confirm that this particular Guan kiln produced wares with footring and unglazed base design features not commonly associated with an official kiln during the Southern Song to Yuan period.

I believe that the profile reconstruction of M312 is particularly comparable to my piece. However, as these finds lack firm archaeological context, they did not clearly resolve a Southern Song versus Yuan attribution.

The 2002 publication "Selected Porcelain from the Tiger Cave Kiln Site in Hangzhou" is especially helpful in this regard. Its discussion of the excavated Yuan stratum—indicating thicker, coarser dark bodies and of inferior quality to Southern Song wares—seems consistent with my example. The cross-section of the Ge-type stem cup (p.168) appears to offer a close and compelling comparison to the exposed body of my dish. This stem dish is also shown in "Selection of Ge Ware" (2017), (pp. 196-197) after it had been subject to restoration.

The 2002 book provides images of excavated specimens which clearly show how the dark iron rich clay fired the similar shade on unglazed areas to the body under the glaze on other examples. This is particularly evident on page 172. This would suggest that the purplish-brown shade of the surface on the unglazed base of my dish has most likely a very similar dark grey body underneath the glaze. I have shown the base of my dish on top this page in the book for comparison of the same type of iron rich body.

Also on page 180 of "Selection of Ge Ware", it shows a fragment of a celadon bowl excavated from the kiln site of Laohudong which has the same dark shade of body both underneath the glaze and on the surface of the unglazed bottom of the footring.

I also note that examples illustrated on pp.166–167 of the Tiger Cave publication (Ge-type bird feeder and fragments of a censer) exhibit just “gold thread” crackle.

Also on pp. 174-175 of "Selection of Ge Ware" a restoration of a tripod brush washer shows the excavated fragment having a greyish-green celadon glaze with just "gold thread" crackle similar to my dish and brown exposed body on the bottom of the remaining foot. Below is a photograph showing my dish placed on top of this published example.

Another example is fragments of a dish shown on pp. 190-191 of "Selection of Ge Ware".

On the evidence presently available, I consider the most appropriate description of my dish to be:

Ge-type celadon brush washer, probably Yuan dynasty, with Laohudong (Tiger Cave/Xiuneisi), Hangzhou, as a plausible kiln attribution.

This should be regarded as a research-based attribution rather than a definitive archaeological identification. The case is strengthened by the convergence of several independent physical characteristics with excavated Tiger Cave material, while the principal alternative—Longquan—has not produced a convincing published comparison combining the same clay body, glaze, crackle and surface characteristics.

In this respect, the dish represents an interesting example of how the attribution of rare Chinese ceramics can sometimes be approached when provenance is limited and destructive scientific testing is inappropriate. Rather than relying upon one diagnostic feature, the attribution rests upon the cumulative correspondence of multiple characteristics with excavated material shown in the three books.

I hope that you may enjoy my story about my small dish with its exquisite glaze.

The set includes 8 cups, 8 saucers and 8 porcelain spoons in the original fitted WhitePeony presentation box. The saucers are marked “国宴 2014” (State Banquet 2014).

This is the yellow Shengshi Ruyi / APEC banquet design associated with the 2014 Beijing APEC leaders’ table. The exact original 

Condition is excellent and the set is unused.

Asking $3,080 with free U.S. shipping. Open to reasonable offers.

Etsy listing: https://www.etsy.com/listing/4568132503/official-2014-state-banquet-apec-guo-yan

Tags:
Chinese Porcelain, APEC, Gaochun Ceramics, WhitePeony, Chinese Ceramics

Recently I had the privilege of seeing and handling some pieces from the collection of Major Montage and Eileen Duberly, bequeathed to Winchester College in 1978 as a memorial their only son James (1925-44), who was killed in the Guards Chapel during WWII …

Attached images and catalogue description below of some of the pieces, and personal thoughts on …

Images 1/2/3/4; Longquan guan and cover. Typically of this type, but decoration wonderfully moulded/ carved and beautifully colour. 
One of the best I have ever seen …

Images 5/6/7; Yongle period meiping. Superb piece, very elegant shape/proportions and just beautiful to handle. Top quality …

Images 8/9/10/11; Xuande mark and period ‘lotus’ bowl. Overall painting/cobalt tone not the best, but a nice piece to handle …

Images 12/13/14; Hongzhi mark and period ‘gardenia’ dish. Typical of type, nicely painted but yellow enamel not the best …

Images 15/16/17&18; Brush rest, cataloged as ‘probably Chenghua’. 
This dating of this caused much debate. Personally I think this is slightly later than Chenghua, probably early Hongzhi into early Zhengde, so around 1500 …

But just my thoughts …

Stuart 

The figure is approximately 64 cm high as catalogued, although I have not yet had the opportunity to take my own measurements. It came from a deceased London estate and appears to have been electrified at some point in its history.

In researching it, I have found a closely related example sold by Reeman Dansie in 2025 for £4,000, and another larger lantern-bearing Hōsei figure sold by Nagel in Stuttgart in 2025 for €16,000 hammer. The lantern arrangements differ between the known examples, which makes me wonder whether Hōsei produced this composition in several variants.

I would be especially interested in opinions on:

• whether this is a known Hōsei model;
• whether anyone has seen other examples;
• whether the lantern appears original or period to the figure;
• and whether there is any known connection between this type and Hōsei’s documented 1907 exhibition of a woman with a lantern.

I can post further photographs of the signature, underside, lantern fittings and construction once I have the bronze in hand.

Many thanks in advance for any information or references.

Today the auction took place and many items did not sell, which makes me wonder if it was because of the reserves issue. I messaged the dealer to offer my feedback.

When the opening bid does not meet the reserve it feels disrespectful to the bidder, like game-playing or bait-and-switch. Why every auction house doesn't just set the two to the same price is beyond me. Are any of you auctioneers? And do you practice this? And, if so, why?

OK, I will end my rant now.

Thank you,
Steve

I am in a quandary (nice word!). I bought two beautiful chargers on eBay on 21st September 2026. I had made the seller an offer for both of them and he accepted and I paid immediately. Then I heard nothing from the seller, there were no tracking updates, silence. On 27th August I messaged the seller asking him for the tracking details. On the 30th August he responded with a brief message 'Hi, going out soon. Will update with the details.' and then silence again. I suspected that he might have been regretting the sale because he had used AI to identify the chargers which had incorrectly identified them as being Meiji period circa 1900. Well, one is 18th century the other late 18th early 19th century and were cheap even for 1900. I had run the descriptions through a program which had identified many AI typical markers. Still I waited and the days went by but I decided to wait it out because I did not want to give the seller a chance to cancel the sale and refund me. Eventually on 7th September the seller posted the chargers and eBay was able to show the details. I'm expecting to receive them today or tomorrow. It took this seller 17 (seventeen) days to get around to posting them after I had paid immediately. Assuming that they arrive intact and unharmed, what sort of review should I leave? I'm furious, by the way. Very cross. I think that this is appalling business practice. Currently he has 100% positive feedback. If I'm going to be honest that'll be smashed. 

So, I'm just wondering how other people might react. Thanks. Neil

I really like this well-painted Japanese Koransha vase, but it has crack in it that is badly stained.  Any suggestions on how to clean the crack?  I tried hydrogen peroxide paste, but it had no effect.  I am afraid to submerge it in anything, as that might damage the gilding.  

Thanks,

Charles