Dear Thegoldentoad,

we did post at the same time. I agree with you that more ebay’s competitors are really welcome. But in my opinion, as it is now, I do not consider Catawiki to be an ebay competitor. Why should they be competitors if they take bigger fees and has a not honest policy to say the least? Anyway, anyone on its own.  

As for the big auction houses, I believe (suppose, actually) that they are trying to act online because of the large amount of good but not high end pieces that customers are asking them to sell.

I am happy that you has shown the two monochrome dishes from Bonhams. They correctly dated them to the 19^th century.

Compare them to the smallest one currently listed on Catawiki as genuine Qianlong, and pay attention to the thickness at the rim. No game!!

Giovanni

Dear Giovanni,

in saying that Catawiki is a market for wealthy people I just quoted thegoldentoad's post. But I can agree to what he said. When you look around on Catawiki prices seem decent but they go up heavily towards the end of the auction. In my first post I said I almost had a bad experience with the "bid directly" button. I bid 1060 EUR for a Kangxi plate and was outbid. In my opinion the plate wasn't worth that much, but used to Ebay I made the mistake to bid too much in the last minute - like many others it seems. Someone clearly overpaid in the end but luckily it wasn't me.

They have different categories for Asian antiques. There is "Asian arts and objects" for the medium priced items. The more expensive items are under "Exclusive Asian art and objects". "Asian Curio" is a melting pot where they put all kinds of copies and modern stuff. The more affordable items are often damaged. I don't think you can make a bargain on Catawiki, you rather pay more than it's worth.

You're right, Giovanni, Catawiki is for beginners, but not for the beginners with the small purse. Add the 9% fee and it might be cheaper to buy directly at a dealer you can trust.

Dear Giovanni,

But check out the price discrepancy, the pair of chargers achieved £212 at Bonhams (Buyers premium included) and were then listed on eBay and achieved nearly £3000. Also taking into account the image fee and the insurance etc the seller probably ended up with around £100 for the pair at Bonhams.

You are correct that they described them correctly, but Bonhams do make mistakes. For example:

Are these really 19th century?

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24755/lot/225/?category=grid&length=560&page=1

http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24524/lot/88/?category=grid&length=560&page=1

Are these really 20th century?

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24755/lot/231/?category=grid&length=560&page=1

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24755/lot/245/?category=grid&length=560&page=1

I don't think I will be using catawiki at the moment personally, partly for the reasons that you have pointed out such as the fees and incorrectly describing items. This being said I hope that it grows stronger and deals with these issues as I think that we both can agree that another competitor to eBay is probably a good thing.

Best wishes.

Dear Shinigami,

I didn’t know that there is also the “Exclusive Asian art” section.

Both you and Thegoldentoad are right, average pieces reach much more higher prices on ebay or other online platforms than at the major auction houses. That is absolutely true.

Dear Thegoldentoad, I agree and know perfectly that the big Auction houses can make mistakes too. Today is even more frequently than in the past. It happened also to me to experience that.

All those lots from Bonhams are correctly described to me.

The porcelain plaque is surely late 19^th or very early 20^th century.

The brush pot is a 19^th century copy of the famille verte of 18^th century.

The water pot is no doubt Republic.

I am less precise about the bottle vase, because after Republic I have no interest and hence have no experience, but to me it can span from Republic to let say middle 20^th century.

Giovanni

Hi Giovanni, some of the pieces I am more sure about than others, but these were my thoughts.

The porcelain plaque- Republic?

The brush pot- Seems to be a modern copy of a Kangxi piece to me. I see a lot of this type of thing in provincial auction houses and eBay (especially America and China). My thinking is that they looked at it and thought, ah it looks like a Kangxi piece but a few aspects are wrong such as the foot so we will say that it is 19th century.

I have seen them do this with Samson and Japanese copies. For example, I actually now own this exact plate and can tell you that it is not even Chinese:

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/22676/lot/335/

It is still antique, but it is either a Japanese or French copy. I think that they looked at it, thought that it looked Kangxi style but some aspects were wrong, they realized it was antique and just went with 19th century Chinese.

The water pot - To me this is completely modern but I could be wrong. I think listing it as 20th century rather than Republic indicates some doubt at least on their part.

The bottle vase - To me this is either 21st century or at quite a push possibly 1990's but I doubt it.

Here are some photos of the Bonhams charger that they listed as 19th century Chinese:

The porcelain plaque with the ladies might be 1890-1900 in my opinion, judging from the faces.

Yeah I am not as sure on some as I am on others. I could see it as being a bit earlier, that one was more of a suspicion.

Dear Thegoldentoad,

Shinigami is right, the plaque is surely pre-Republic, as I said it could be very early 20^th century but the style is that of late 19^th.

The brush pot is not Republic, I have handled similar ones of the Guangxu period.

And the water pot is clearly Republic to me.

Note that the large famille verte dish is from Bonhams Oxford and not one of the two places in London. There is a BIG difference!! It is not the same. Who make more mistakes are Bonhams San Francisco and Bonhams Australia. Either Knightsbridge and Bond Street are much better. I know experts in either places.

I am not absolutely sure about the famille verte dish, but to me it is Chinese. Surely far from being Kangxi, but the Japanese ware is quite different, the blue is very typical. I am not expert of Japanese and even less European ware, which is the reason why I said that I am not absolutely sure, but all the Japanese and Samson ware that I have seen were easily identifiable as such. I would be surprised if that dish is Samson. May be, but I think that it should be indeed Chinese.

Giovanni

Dear Giovanni,

I will have to respectfully disagree on all counts apart from perhaps the plaque. I could see it being slightly earlier than Republic as you say, for that one it is just a suspician.

I do agree that the specialists vary in ability accross different venues, with San Franciso and Australia being noteable examples.

I will say on Samson that they actually did make brilliant copies, often of quite obscure pieces in small runs. See this thread for example where a seller actually (semi-plausibly) passed off a Samson vase as a Chinese one by removing the mark https://bidamount.com/the-bidamount-asian-art-forum/suspected-fakes-copies-being-sold/the-mystery-of-the-missing-s#post-6397 An interesting thing about this Samson copy is that the Chinese originals of this type are quite rare and niche to begin with. Of course the foot rim etc is a bit off, but it is fairly convincingly Chinese and it is still antique.

Just one more item I would like to bring up, (that I unsuccesfully bid on unfortunately). This bowl:

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24755/lot/211/

It was described as Jiajing mark and period but for me this is one of the Kangxi versions. Also they said that the animals are deer in the description when this is actually the classic pattern of 'three rams'. The price it went for seems about correct for a Kangxi example in this condition, whereas Jiajing mark and period ones seem to go for millions if they are in good condition so even with a little bit of damage you would expect substantially more.

For reference here is a genuine Kangxi example:

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2011/chinese-ceramics-works-of-art-hk0358/lot.3102.html

And a pair of Jiajing mark & period examples:

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2007/fine-chinese-ceramics-and-works-of-art-hk0263/lot.1559.html

Hi thegoldentoad,

The chinese famille verte charger 19th century that you posted looks like a french copy.

I recently saw a similar mark on a repeat of antiques roadshow.

Mark

Hi Mark,

I thought that it was most likely French, the one thing that made me think that it was possibly Japanese was the kiln spurs. Thanks for sharing this.

Best wishes.

Dear thegoldentoad,

As regards the blue and white bowl that you referred to that was sold recently in Bonhams Edinburgh, I think you are quite right, this is a Kangxi version with retrospective reign mark, not Jiajing mark and period, and certainly, the animals are rams, not deer. Even with its repaired broken section, it was a very good buy for whoever got it. A more sympathetic restoration would be warranted.

Best wishes,

Alan

Dear Alan,

Yes not a bad price, with the initial estimate (The estimate was £800-£1200) I was hoping to buy it for a steal and have it restored to a high standard but it is fairly rare for something like that to happen with an item like this.

Best wishes.

Dear Thegoldentoad, as said I am not expert on European ware. I know that Samson made copies of the Chinese wareand have seen some, which was easily identifiable as such. Then if they made much better copies, it is good to know that.

That bowl from Bonhams Edimburg is clealry not Ming. But as we said above, they too make mistakes, especially on these secundary sales.

Giovanni