@erroll Good question.

@erroll Green vase Good Blue vase Fake, BTW did you watch Peters last week video he had some statement to make about JHT.

best  wishes Martin

@webboy

Hello Martin:

Yes, I did watch Peter's video and I thought it was both timely and needed. This whole business of items coming from one estate has been used for at least 3-4 years by JHT. This particular estate seems to have no ending. They always claim that an  auction will represent the last items from the estate. Then a couple of months later some additional items are found in containers in a garage or elsewhere and the containers have been unopened for 60 years. Additionally, it is a stretch when much later items are described as Ming. In auctions such as this, every item has to be considered doubtful. 

I must say though that if you and others are correct that both JHT sapphire-blue Cong vases are fakes, whoever made them did quite an effective job of it. It's curious though that one should have a poorly-executed Daoguang mark (as compared with the mark on the Christie's vase) and that the more recent one should have a Guangxu mark that also seems to be somewhat poorly executed. I chuckled over the use of the word "imperial" in the vase's description.

Regards,

Errol 

This is an interesting thread.  Hope nobody objects to my late entry.

Monochromes are notoriously difficult to assess on the basis of photos - bless all of you that are capable of doing it.

I see subtle differences the the Dauguang vase sold by Joannie's and the Christie's example, but if someone sent me these photos offering to sell the vase, I would be more than willing to make the trip to see the vase in person. On the other hand, if I had to make  basis of my decision to buy just on photos, this would be a pass.

However, I do not support making claims of support one way or another that the vase is genuine or fake on the basis of these photos. There is no obvious clue(s) to it's authenticity.  We could be  damaging the reputation of the piece.

Now, I agree with of the prior comments, but...

The colors of the blue could have been the result of the photography.  I also agree that the glaze looks very thick in comparison, but perhaps again a minor variation in thickness appears more signifigant because of light and shadow.

The wear on the side would be easy to fake, but could just as easily be genuine. I would be inclined to believe that careful inspection of the surface of any genuine 200 year old piece shoukd have quite a few micro scratches on the mouth, top of the elephant's head & trunk, and certainly arounf the foot ring, but the photos don't offer this level of resolution. 

I am not a great judge of marks, and the foot ring looks fine, but without touching it to feel the texture/ smoothness, again, no guarantee of authenticity.

I would have liked to have seen a photo of the inside of the vase, and an angle shot of the surface of the glue glaze reflecting light (which usually shows surface textures and micro scratches on genuine pieces).

I suspect that I would know the answer, as I am sure many of us would, within a minute or so of handling it, if the vase was the real deal or not.

So, that brings us to the reputation of the seller.  Has anyone ever bought from Joanie's and tried to return an item that did not measure up to the description? I would be very interested in hearing first hand experience from an actual Joanie's customer.

If the reputation of the auction house is poor, perhaps it's best resist temptation and avoid buying from them regardless of how good a piece appears.

@Greeno107,

I have purchased a, number of items from JHT over the years. All have been mainly jade related items from a few hundred dollars to $6000. The exception being a large contemporary art piece by Chinese artist Jin Weihong. They had immense trouble and expense in sending this to me which apparently resulted in a loss to them. 

Corresponding with them has been without fault. As has their packing. Highly professional. Every item I purchased has been as listed. 

As with any purchase from eBay one has to be diligent in their own research. Too many dealers selling mixed genuine with fakes etc. JHT are no exception! Their listings always seems to have the same rhetoric. 

Fortunately I have never had reason to return anything.

With regards to fake items and returning them. It is my understanding that if one purchases an item purported to be genuine and it turns out that it is in fact fake one does not have to return it. They will be reimbursed by the seller/eBay. Point in hand take fake Louis Vuitton items etc. 

I read this somewhere before. However I could be totally wrong about this. Does anyone else know of this return policy? 

Mark 

@imperialfinegems

Hello all:

I have purchased several items from JHT over the years. I agree with Mark that the packaging is excellent and the items arrive very quickly. They also respond well to inquiries.

I think that most of the items I have bought from JHT are genuine. In some cases, I bought items knowing that they were not of the period claimed, but of later origin. However, I paid the price for the later period and so I was not dissatisfied.  I have never attempted to return an item to them on the basis of quality issues or incorrect age and therefore cannot comment regarding that.

My problem with them is their tendency to mix genuine items with those that are questionable and to claim provenances that are very dubious and seem contrived. I don't think it is true that every eBay seller does that although in the cases of most sellers claims are made that tend to err on the side of making the items appear more valuable than they actually are.

As far as returning items that turn out to be obvious fakes is concerned, I have had one such experience that I described in a thread here a couple of years ago. I bought a blue and white vase from a seller in London. It was claimed to be Kangxi. When i got the vase there was all sorts of evidence that it was neither Kangxi nor antique. I posted photographs on the forum and most members thought it was a contemporary product of poor quality. To bolster my case, I got an opinion from Jan-Erik Nilsson at Gotheborg.com who responded that the vase was a modern replica. I presented the findings to PayPal. They investigated the matter and after a month issued a full refund. They told me I should discard the vase and I did that. I think eBay has the same policy, but one would need an expert opinion to convince them that the item was a fake.

Regarding the sapphire-blue Cong vases, I agree that it is going too far to claim that the JHT vases are both fakes. They look very similar to the Christie's vase. However, I think that one having a poorly executed Daoguang mark and the other having a Guangxu mark is suspicious especially since they apparently originated from the same "estate." We will never know for sure.

Regards,

Errol

Hello all:

As a follow up, the blue Cong vase from JHT whose photographs I posted today (see above) sold at auction this evening for $4,054 (See link).  This compares with $9,000 plus for the first blue Cong vase from JHT for which I provided photographs in the first post of this thread and as compared with about GBP 36,000 for the very similar sapphire-blue Cong vase sold in 2020 by Christie's. I assume that even though the two vases from JHT were very similar, the second attained a lower price because it was supposedly Guangxu whereas the first was attributed to the Daoguang period. Also, the second JHT vase had scratches in the enamel that were absent from the first. The price spread though for three very similar vases is remarkable. The Christie's vase just looks better and I assume the much higher price is because of the provenance. 

Regards,

Errol 

Hello to all

I wanna point out what enormus damage this whole Faking business has done to the antique market.

Selling Fakes should really be seen as a crime and not be pardon at all. 

@webboy You bring up a very interesting point, but authentication is challenging, even for experienced collectors which is why this forum exists, so I think it is important that we be very clear not to group a seller doing their best to identify the pieces they are selling, but occassionally get it wrong, with those who misrepresent provenance, alter photos, and atificially boost bidding to decieve.

I have never dealt with Joanie's, but the two responses don't suggest anything nefarious.  

I think to prove wrong doing, you'd have to sue them, and during deposition ask for proof of provenance, then depose source of the provenance.  Yikes!

I have gone through a lawsuit regarding some underhanded dealings related to a Chinese porcelain piece sold by a business partner. Fortunately, I kept careful records of all statements by my former partner, so things went my way. 

I think what this forum does is far more impactful - you are alerting and educating potential buyers!

How people choose to use this information, or forbthat matter spend their money, is ultimately outside our control.

But I think if we are interested in presenting assessment of antique pieces on their individual merits, we need to tread cautiously about how we catagories the seller.  Or, we need to be more precise about the seller's performance.

I just looked at Joanie's Ebay star rating ...19,000 plus!  That is a lot of positive feedback. Nobody is obligated to leave stars, so, what does that represent of their total sales? I have no idea.

But, if there is an interest in having an evaluation of auction houses that sell Asian antiques, perhaps we could come up with a scorecard of sorts that does it imperically, rather than subjectively or annecdotedly.

Errol - The sale prices on Ebay vs. major auction houses can vary for a number of reason, including individual quality of the piece, but also just a differnt audience with deeper pockets.  However, I think it is risky to use sales results as justification of authenticity, whether a piece sells for less or more than expected.  The old adage, the ends does not justify the means, is very appropriate in these situations.

@greeno107 Hi Greeno, such a list already exists, though a bit hidden, on Bidamount: https://bidamount.com/about-bidamount-global-auction-members-auctioneer-report-card The full list is only visible to members.

@shinigami You stole me idea! 🤣... before I actually ever thought about it!

That's great! Perhaps then just referring back to the report card link more often will benefit everyone.

@greeno107

Hi:

Regarding JHT, I recommend that you listen to Peter's weekly video of last Friday. It was highly illuminating. He pointed out that for their most recent auction several items (most from the Republican period or later) were claimed to be from much earlier periods some going back as far as the Ming dynasty and also that there were items that were probably contemporary but that were described as being antiques.  It could be argued that these were just honest differences of interpretation and opinion. However, that seems unlikely because it is rare for JHT to offer an auction item that is actually earlier in origin than the period they claim it belongs to. If one adds to that the unchanged cover story that has been going on for four or more years that these items all originated from one or two estates of families that moved from China to Canada in the late 1940s or from long-dead sellers of Chinese art, the whole thing seems very dubious. The dead cannot come back to deny that they were the source of items.

JHT is a high-volume seller and therefore much beloved by eBay. They do get nice items and they do run a good operation. However, Peter's video of last Friday clearly shows that when one bids on their items  one has to be exceedingly cautious. 

Regards,

Errol

What is totally not explicable to me is the approach of eBay’s buyers. I already said this many times: it seems that most of the buyers are convinced that real antiques can only be found at supermarkets.

I have no other way of describing such sellers which have hundreds of items on sale each month.

Honesty, competence, and reliability of the seller has no importance to most of the buyers, what is important to them is only quantity. More items you have on sale, and more reliable you are, at their eyes.

How should, honestly, be called this approach? You figure out.

Giovanni

BTW both those blue Cong vases are brand new. I do not know if that seller is claiming them too as belonging from the Vermeer collection, as he falsely and routinely does, because I can’t access his auctions (the reason is that he/she is not selling to Italy, who knows why).

Giovanni

@clayandbrush

Dear Giovanni:

I think there is a significant psychological factor at play in large auctions even if the items are dubious. They generate a sense of excitement and bring out the gambling instinct that seems especially strong in Chinese mainland buyers. As you point out, there are many eBay sellers who offer 6-9 items per week all of which are clearly genuine and of the period stated. However, they do not receive the attention and recognition that they deserve and their items often sell at lower prices than fake items from big auction holders. It would seem that when selling Chinese antiques honesty and integrity are not rewarded. 

I was interested to learn your opinion of the two sapphire-blue Cong vases from JHT. It is true that photography cannot convey everything one needs to know about an item. However, the Christie's vase just has something indefinable about it that makes it look genuine and really lovely. Whether it was worth GBP 36,000 is another question entirely.

Regards,

Errol

@erroll I will make sure to watch the video.

I don't want to come off sounding like I am defending JHT. But, I wonder if they made no claim of age if the results would be all that different.

Years ago when I use to sell on Ebay, I used 'antique' in the titles so my items would show up when searched, but would make no claim of authenticity or age, but I also gave a 7 day return, no questions asked.  I had many sales in the price range of JHT, and rarely had a return, and never a negative feedback.

Was it that I never sold a fake?  Probably not.

In the end, I found that most buyers form their own opinions about the age/authenticity, even if goes against conventional wisdom, and even when presented with a mountain of evidence of having made a bad buy, these buyers stick to their own beliefs.

Sometimes I am guilty of this....but not always.  But I sure have met some die hard believers that think their junk is gold!