Well,

Peter in his today’s video about ebay’s result is commenting about the sale of this cup.

I do not understand completely the spoken English, but it seems to me that he is not giving his own opinion, although he is saying that there have been different opinions about the cup. I do not know if he was referring only to this thread or to some other opinions. He said, if I understood correctly, that he hear the opinion of a couple of experts and they say that it is authentic.

I do not know who are such “experts” but regardless how much important or knowledgeable they are, I dare to say that in this case they are wrong with all evidence. Not only that, it is not necessary to be big experts to see how ridiculous is this cup. It is not even 19^th century as claimed by the seller; it is brand new. Could those experts provide a similar one, and genuine, for reference? Please, show one.

I am re-posting here the same picture posted before, with the proper title:

“A group of 18^th century gentleman, ladies and boys, watching Cinderella or White Snow cartoons on a color TV”

Is it possible? Let see if this is opening their eyes. Come on, don't know if it is better to laugh or cry.

I would tell to those experts, that, if they can’t show a similar one (by similar, I am referring to the painting style), then it means that this is the only one around, thus worth much much more than 20,000 dollars.

And would also hear such experts regarding the mark. Please show a genuine Qianlong item with the same mark.

Best regards

Giovanni, more and more disappointed by how the circus of Chinese Antiques is increasingly polluted by actors, acts, unlikely experts, thieves, all in name of “the devil’s dung” as we call it (the money).

Dear Giovanni -

I total concur - let's see if these so called 'experts' can/will post an image of a genuine example for reference, with a similar painting style and a genuine Qinglong mark?!

I expect the silence will be deafening ...... 

Stuart

Dear Giovanni,

You got it right. Peter did talk about others who thought it was ok , he did not give his own opinion other than that he said he believed them. He also talked about the provenance, on which i also have my doubts. If you google that art institute you will find that they keep record of what they sell off, and they barely do...last time the sold something was in 2013. 

I am a bit disappointed I must say. I would have expected Peter to further investigate,  and comment on what was said here, and come to a conclusion. 

The more I look at that bowl the ore ridiculous i find the decoration of the woman...she indeed looks like cinderella. I am almost embarrassed I did not see that the first time I laid eyes on that thing :). I cannot believe Peter does not see that.

Kind regards

Staartmees

In the interest of balance, I don’t think Peter uses the word ‘experts’ even once? He repeatedly uses the word ‘opinion’ and also concedes that others disagree with the opinion.

Nic

Genuine or not I think now that this thread could be bordering on Auction interference.

I certainly wouldn’t want one of my sales compromised after completion and I’m sure you all wouldn't either.

If the buyer is happy then that is all there is to it.

Vic

Posted by: staartmees

Dear Giovanni,

You got it right. Peter did talk about others who thought it was ok , he did not give his own opinion other than that he said he believed them. He also talked about the provenance, on which i also have my doubts. If you google that art institute you will find that they keep record of what they sell off, and they barely do...last time the sold something was in 2013. 

I am a bit disappointed I must say. I would have expected Peter to further investigate,  and comment on what was said here, and come to a conclusion. 

The more I look at that bowl the ore ridiculous i find the decoration of the woman...she indeed looks like cinderella. I am almost embarrassed I did not see that the first time I laid eyes on that thing :). I cannot believe Peter does not see that.

Kind regards

Staartmees

 

I said that few posts before: I was blind but now I see 🙂

There is nothing to be embarrassed, unless you've been in Chinese antiques for half of century as a professional 😉 But even then, so what? Fact is that sometimes even the most experienced experts are making terrible mistakes, their senses got a bit blunt, eyes are not the same as 30 years ago... No, I am serious, I have seen it before many times - guys who rock in certain specialisations are falling for things like that. It happens. I have seen my father, who has like 45 years experience in European paintings and can spot a true gem surrounded by dozens of sharp buyers, buying a rude print on paper 🙂 and I was like: -where's your magnifier, buddy? 🙂 

Regarding this one - same pattern. It's a huge difference between seeing a photos and holding an item in your hands. How many photos does Peter go through a day? I think thousands. How many emails he has to answer? And he answers all of them! You will send him a stupid ashtray you bought at a car boot sale thinking it's a Song piece and he will answer that as well. I don't blame him at all. I think there was a bit of unlucky coincidence with getting opinions on this item and it went on air like that.

But that's the game. Giovanni and few others were conscious enough to not get fooled and thank you for that. Remember what Solon used to say - I'm old but I have to learn everyday.

Giovanni - preach, I'll follow!

Happy Saturday
Adrian

It's not entirely true that Qianlong 'yu zhi' marks are never found on Qianlong period items. Here are a couple of examples of Qianlong period glass items with said mark.

https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/a-rare-imperial-ruby-red-glass-bowl-and-5495557-details.aspx

http://www.e-yaji.com/past%20auctions/meriem2/main/pages/233%20(a)_jpg.asp

And also this pink enamelled wine cup at the mfa, Boston, supossedly have a Qíanlong 'yu zhi' mark since it is noted in the description. Unfortunately I can not find it on their website.

https://www.anthonywuart.com/single-post/2016/09/07/Chinese-Imperial-Porcelain-at-the-Boston-Museum-of-Fine-Arts

And then there is the book shown in the link; Hugh Moss. By Imperial Command: An Introduction to Ch'ing Imperial Painted Enamels. Hong Kong: Hibaya Company, 1976. The  bowl  shown on the frontpage probably also has said mark. While I can not find images of the original online there seems to be copies of the bowl made like this one that also has the mark.

http://dscantique-sandal.blogspot.com/2011/09/qianlong-imperial-mark.html

And the last but not least there are exeptions for every rule. The Yamanaka reticulated vase had an enamelled Qianlong six character mark which is infinitely rare but yet Sotheby's was able to point out other examples with similar marks.

Dear Corey,

I am not expert on glass ware and as said I am also not expert on marks. Nevertheless the mark on that glass cup is far from being of imperial quality, IMO, regardless what said by Christies.

I was no there during Qianlong period, so everything is possible but the information that all Yu Zhi Qianlong marks are later belongs from Mike Vermeer and I trust him more than any Auction house expert.

For sure, if one example may exist, was certainly not reserved to that enameled cup.

Dear Vic, I don’t agree with you so much. On the contrary, I would like that who bought that bowl could read this thread and then ask for a full refund.

It is not correct that some people make their living by cheating others.

Giovanni

Dear Corey - 

As with Giovanni, I also previously said that I’am no expert on these type of wares or indeed marks, and certainly not glass 

One of the things I learnt long ago is that, although there are excepted ‘norms’ for objects from all periods, there are always exceptions so you must allow some flexibility in regards to the dating pieces. 

However - as you cite Hugh Moss 1976 ‘By Imperial Command’ publication, he discusses this group of ‘Yu  Zhi’ mark pieces, pp. 81-2 and suggests that the very close similarity between the Kangxi and Yongzheng examples suggests that the Kangxi bowls should be attributed to the last few months before the death of the emperor and the Yongzheng examples to ‘little more than a year or two at the beginning of the reign’ .... 

My understanding regarding  Yu Zhi Qinglong marks is the same as Giovanni’s, all such marked pieces are later ... 

Stuart

Dear Giovanni,

I fully agree with you, with that exception that Peter said it was recently sold through an auction house. Potentially it was listed as 19th century and the seller on ebay, who obviously bought it there, also listed it as 19th century, so maybe it was not on purpose. He has a strong good feedback and you do not get that from constantly selling fakes. I wonder which auction house that was and how they listed it. 

I also do not think it is brand new. If you look at the foot you see age typical "rust" spots. In my opinion it is republic period.

Kind regards

Staartmees

Dear Staartmees,

look at the picture here below.

Republic pieces, when imitating high grade items, are of very good quality. Please look at the swastikas of this bowl, you must agree that they are sloppily made. Not made by an expert decorator. This is one of the reasons because I think that it is later than Republic. It should be much finer.

Best regards

Giovanni

@ Stuart. Do you have the book by Hugh Moss? If so, can you tell if the bowl on the frontpage is Qianlong period with a 'yu zhi' mark like the modern copy I linked to.

I have been cleaning up my website and... I've just realised I have an enamel item in my stock that I find hmm of same quality actually 🙂
Shall I add few zeros to the asking price? I could finally go to a bank with a deposit for my own house and stop renting :-[
https://www.malkaart.com/collections/asian-antiques/products/chinese-brush-pot

This is what the real thing looks like.

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/lot.2843.html/2008/splendours-of-the-qing-court-hk0285

Buyer and seller are obviously both happy with the deal as positive feedback has been left.

To be honest,the whole thing is a Circus; fake item,fake buyer,fake feedback and fake praise by Peter.

Also how does Ebay allow a seller to list his terms as No returns ?

Shoddy all round.

Vic