@clayandbrush

Giovanni:

I did not mention Qianlong in my first post, only that Peter considered the item a genuine antique. I think though that there were sufficient red flags about this item that no one should have paid $3,100 for it. I think Peter's estimate of $800 to $1,000 was correct if the vase is indeed a 19th century example. It has a nice color and decoration and if I could have got it for $500 I think I might have bought it. Overall, however, buying things from a rather dubious seller is not a good practice although I have not always taken my own advice. . Unfortunately, there are not many totally honest sellers of Chinese antiques on eBay. Josh Chamberlin has total integrity as do the Bob and Freek at Shangrila Antiques in Amsterdam.

Michael thanks for your kind greeting. I'll try to participate more. I got rather turned off by an experience I described here about a year ago where I bought an alleged Kangxi blue and white vase from a Chinese seller in England and was able to get my money back thanks to the advice of all of you here. This case seemed rather similar to mine and that is what set me off. However, I paid about $700 for the fake. If this vase is fake some poor buyer is out of pocket for $3,100. If you think about it, getting $3,100 for a possibly contemporary item represents a huge profit and that is why there are so many fakes out there.

Regards,

Errol

Just to add to the unusual nature of this vase/seller on ebay. The seller in questions has not only the account this vase was listed under, "heianxiesi" but he also sells on the account "mr.xie_collection". You can see many items sell on one account, and then a week later it will show up on the other account. For example: This bowl was listed under "mr.xie_collection" it sold August 6, then it was listed on the other account "heianxiesi" and sold August 16 and once again it is currently back on "mr.xie_collection" So don't be surprised if the double gourd vase in question is listed over on his other ebay account.

@4madeus

Thanks for providing this additional insight into this dubious seller. The cup in question that is described as "Qing" in the one listing and as being from an "old estate" in the other looks to me as if it were made yesterday. The other items that this seller is listing look equally dubious. see eBay link I think that if everything is taken into consideration we are getting closer to the point where the following are likely to be true:

1. The monochrome cobalt blue vase with white relief decoration that was the subject of this thread does not originate from the Cardeiro collection of Chinese  art.

2. The vase has a 90 per cent or higher probability of being a contemporary creation. As Giovanni has pointed out no one has seen one like it before and it has a strikingly new look about it, as Birgit points out. If we had a view of the interior of neck it would probably be snow white rather than slightly discolored as is the case for most old vases. I think that the assertion of one contributor to this thread that the vase is of the Qianlong period is dead wrong. 

3. I think that a price of $3,100 for this vase was absurd. I agree that it will be back on eBay as part of the mr.xie_collection fairly soon.

One has to wonder whether this sort of case should not be reported to eBay. Certainly, sellers of this type should not have any of their wares as featured items on bidamount.com. 

As I mentioned in one of my posts I won an eBay auction for a fake "Kangxi" vase from a Chinese seller in London some time ago and contributors to this site found it sufficiently suspicious to lead to me getting an opinion from Jan-Erik Nilsson at Gotheborg.com who declared it unequivocally to be a contemporary fake and PayPal refunded my money and told me to discard the vase. I waged a campaign to get the seller dismissed from eBay. He is back now and I saw one of his items on the bidamount.com website. see eBay link   There are, of course, cases in which eBay sellers may unintentionally put up occasional fake items for auction and these don't need further attention. However, sellers who persistently misrepresent their items and reap high financial rewards for doing so should be dismissed from eBay and should certainly not have their items listed on bidamount.com.

Errol

Dear Erroll,

unfortunately, eBay is absolutely not interested in trying to do something to contrast the business of false items.  

It is said that 90% or more of antiques listed on eBay are fake. Will they stop this and have a drastic dropping of 90% of their income? They don’t.

About the items listed on Bidamount, this has been discussed many times. At a certain point, after the evidence that fake items were listed too, the following sentence has been added at the top of the Marketplace page:

“About the section below. (For experienced buyers only)

These ICON links are for RAW searches only based on bids and type of object etc. We have not checked these items for authenticity, so be careful.”

Don’t know if that is enough. In my humble opinion, better not to have the list than have a list of good and wrong items mixed together.

I rarely look at the list. Have checked it now and just spotted this fake. Also the other items sold by the same seller are fake, and he is for sure a Chinese guy, regardless if he is really or apparently based in France:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Very-nice-Chinese-porcelain-jar-with-beautiful-figures-painting/133499148056?hash=item1f152b5718:g:vF0AAOSw4iVfP8bL

But talking on this, dear Erroll I see that you often mention Juice1499 as one of the very few reliable sellers,

But that has been proven not so true, here are a couple of examples:

https://bidamount.com/the-bidamount-asian-art-forum/asian-art-currently-on-ebay/guan-type-bowl-juice1499/paged/2

https://bidamount.com/the-bidamount-asian-art-forum/help-identify-this/is-this-bw-jar-a-modern-copy

I think that I have already commented that what I think really bad about this seller is that he is not an occasional seller, he makes thousands and thousands of dollars each month and it is not acceptable that in such conditions, he is putting some fake items on sale, knowing that they are fake.

Regards,

Giovanni

@clayandbrush

Dear Giovanni:

Thanks for drawing these posts to my attention. I had not seen them previously. As regards Chamberlain antiques, I think Josh like any seller of Chinese antiques does make errors from time to time. However, there is a big difference between honest mistakes and deliberate attempts to deceive buyers on a systematic basis and I very much doubt that Josh has ever set out to deliberately deceive anyone.

As regards the bidamount weekly listings, I think the implication has always been there that the items listed have been sorted from the hundreds of postings on eBay and that they are therefore genuine items.  I think many buyers, including myself, use the listings as a buying guide. I realize that time does not permit every item to be thoroughly screened and examined. However, where sellers have been shown over and over again to be purveyors of a mixture of fake and genuine items, none of their items should be included in the listings. In other words, they should be banned. Would the monochrome vase that is the subject of this thread ever have attained a winning bid of $3,100 if it had not been a featured item at bidamount? I think not.

Best regards,

Errol

Hi All,

Think Giovanni's comment above is correct and important for us all to understand. The items that appear in the News letter have been vetted. The items in the raw searches have not and it is buyer beware. I don't know if the item in question appeared in the news letter or the raw searches. If it was featured in the news letter then Errol is justified in bringing to attention.

Michael 

@brettm

Hello Michael:

The vase in question was one of four featured items in the newsletter.

Regards,

Errol

Erroll said: "However, where sellers have been shown over and over again to be purveyors of a mixture of fake and genuine items, none of their items should be included in the listings. In other words, they should be banned."

Dear Erroll, fully agree with you. I suppose that it would not be difficult to do.

Regards,

Giovanni

Hello all:

I see Mr. Xie sold another bowl allegedly from the Cardeiro Collection of Chinese Art in Boston. See eBay link This is its second time around the block and it sold for $511. The first time it was sold from his other account and presumably unpaid for. I'm attaching photographs below. Is there anyone on the forum who thinks this is from a distinguished collection of Chinese Art in Boston or a Qing bowl as it was described in the first auction? If so, I give up!

Regards,

Errol

The fake jar that I mentioned before has been sold for 1400 US$. Not bad for a fake jar:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Very-nice-Chinese-porcelain-jar-with-beautiful-figures-painting/133499148056?hash=item1f152b5718:g:vF0AAOSw4iVfP8bL

This guy, who is for sure a Chinese guy, apparently based in France, is selling fake items.

He has a fake famille verte pot now that I will not be surprised if it will seel very well too.

The problem is that he is "honest", in the sense that he is not claiming is items as genuine:

"Beautiful porcelain jar with wooden cover, in very good condition.

@clayandbrush

Dear Giovanni:

Yes - $1,400 is a pretty good price for a jar that at the earliest would be from about 1970. The faces of the figures are all badly done without any expressions of interest or any animation. The other decoration is poorly done also. As you say, however, he cannot be accused of misrepresentation.  He lets the bidders set the price and suggests that they get expert opinions prior to bidding. 

Errol

Together with the rather non-professional photos he made on a flower patterned tablecloth in his garden he gives buyers the impression that they have found a hidden treasure (even the seller had no idea how valuable it was...). This is a very clever way of selling fakes, nobody can accuse him of giving a false description. And I agree it’s a fake, the faces all look the same and the hair is just an ugly black  mass. 

I love the table cloth. Gives it a homely feel etc etc. 🤣

Actually this jar is a very good example of what to look for in case you are unsure if it's old or new. The inside has been scooped out using a machine and not by hand. If it was by hand the inside would have rippled uneven effect of the hand removal of the clay. Immediately you can see its brand new! 

Mark 

The leaves on the table cloth look better than the ones painted on the vase.

Michael

That is a useful thing to know, Mark, thanks.  I will try to find a photo of the inside of a genuine jar so I can compare.