I've known Josh for many years, if he calls something that it's not, it's not intentional from what I've ever seen.  Has he made mistakes? Absolutely and he'll be the first to admit it. 

Often he's also sold things that are clearly 18th C. and he only refers to them as "antique".  In a couple of cases, he's called things Ming, that were actually Northern Song.  In answer to the question, which is a fair one, I do not believe he buys copies knowingly and tries to pass them as something they aren't.  He is a relatively young guy in the business,  I do not believe he is inherently dishonest in any way. 

Best Peter

I think I outlined quite clearly that I have no problem with any commercial aspect of the site. I was absolutely clear that I think it is a good thing from which we can all benefit in some way. I have praised the site and the members and thanked both for their support. I trust that has finally been understood?

I tried to clarify what the nub of the question was at the beginning of the thread whilst also acknowledging that I was in no way qualified to judge the authenticity of any of the items. I hope that this, too, is now unambiguous enough?

As regards Vic’s point, I think if everyone resisted buying until they had gained such a degree of expertise that they could be 99% sure they were not making a mistake, without any third party advice, no one would buy anything for the first 5-10 years of their study. By that time, they would only want to buy the rarer pieces. The experiences sellers who wish to sell some of their earlier, more basic purchases or ones found on their hunting expeditions would have no one to whom they can sell. The majority of small-scale seller’s inventories are such items, they would only be of interest to beginners tentatively starting their collection. So I find this ‘advice’ very odd. I think the term is ‘shooting yourself in the foot’?

Beginners are the foundation of any collecting field, without it the market eventually shrivels and dies, people who collect pottery, Victorian furniture, Georgian glass and antique silver know this too well. They have collections that are worth a tenth of what they paid for them in the 80s and 90s. Sellers of Asian art should be grateful that there are new people entering the market and spending their money. The fact that they come here for advice shows that they are willing to learn.

As I said, this site seems specifically designed for people exactly like me. What percentage of what is offered on the site would be of interest to an experienced collector that has a house full of high-end pieces? I don’t know, but it’s clear that many of the items would be of interest only to those just starting out.

I don’t see how telling them to not buy anything until they can do so 100% unassisted and to join a different forum are particularly helpful pieces of advice.

Nic

Nic,

I’ll be straight with you.

I urge you and everyone who wishes to learn about Asian art to join Gotheborg.com

The nominal fee is extremely low and there are around 300,000 threads in the archive with some of the most astonishing genuine pieces that you are likely to see outside of s Museum.

I still make mistakes and you really never stop learning.

The situation in the market is fluid simply because of the amount of fake items at all types of venues; EBay,Trocadero,Ruby Lane,Etsy and especially auction houses.

As regards Victorian items,Glass,Delft etc. all I will say is buy things that you like and not just to sell as you may be looking at them for a long time.

I don’t say things out of malice.

Vic

Posted by: Shinigami

Posted by: Short Dong

I say truncated because the majority of sellers in UK for example are almost unintentionally very ethical, and perhaps that speaks of the high regard antiques are held in UK and in the USA that may well be very different. 

The 95% fake on Ebay is true if the sellers from China that sell worldwide are included. I usually change the default to sellers located in Europe which considerably lowers the fake rate. I can only speak for Europe but think that most of the professional European dealers are honest. Still there are so many private people that list some trash from their attic as Ming vases, so the fake rate altogether might still be 50%. 

Yes, I agree there are many listings that claim any old item is kangxi and Ming but these same sellers also list genuine antiques as mere trash or vintage. So it swings both ways. 

Correct, when we say 95% we are including objects being exported out of the mainland and a number of nearby countries who offer the same materials. As of this morning, there were around 350,000 items listed from sellers on just the mainland. The numbers of fake being sold out of the UK and EU is a much smaller percentage.  There are also hundreds of sellers with deep connection in China selling the same types of things, in the US particularly.  Just as we have these travelling auctions criss crossing the US for Live auctions. One week in Georgia and then what doesn't get sold, gets packed up and sent to an auction house in California, New York, Ohio...etc.. 

Its a problem.

Best Peter

The issue at hand Peter, is you've done a wonderful job of building a web site which seems to be based upon the following premise

1.   Fake Chinese antiques are abundant on Ebay (95%)

2.   Authentic Chinese antiques exist on ebay, but they are few and far between (5%)

3.   You are an expert on the subject

4.   You draw traffic to your web site by offering to help buyers find the authentic examples, by sorting through ebay, and picking out a short list, that based on your expertise, are authentic.

This is wonderful gift to collectors of Chinese antiques.

But it comes with responsibilities.

When you present yourself in this way, you are putting yourself in a position of trust with vulnerable people.

Trust is built and maintained through congruence with the above four steps.

When actions are incongruent with those four steps, trust erodes - and an appearance of conflict of interest can occur.

I ask you to consider if promoting the entire auctions of individual sellers, is congruent, or incongruent with the expressed principles of this web site.

There is no right or wrong answer - its your site, and you can do with it as you wish. 

I haven't recived the email from bidamount and also haven't really had the time to go through the completed listings of Chamberland Antiques but regarding the enamelled bowl that was discussed here I can see that it was purchased at Skinner for $10,500 and that it was dated to the 18th century in that sale, so at least Mr. Chamberland has been in good faith. I've just updated that thread so here is a direct link to it for the convenience:

https://bidamount.com/the-bidamount-asian-art-forum/main-forum/a-terrific-beijing-enamel-in-case-anyone-has-missed-it-on-ebay-this-week

Dear Corey,

sorry but that means nothing to me. Nobody can say for sure that the bowl has been bought by Chamberlain.

Either of the following is possible:

A) Somebody bought it, then found that it was not 18th century and decided to re-sell it through Chamberlain, or

B) Chamberlain bought it knowing that it was not 18th century, and bought it being confident that, almost surely, it would sell for much more (in fact it was sold for more than twice) and relying on the fact that, in case of the winner contesting the authenticity, it was already described as 18th century by others. Or,

C) Chamberlain bought it in bona fide, judging it 18th century, and then after receiving it he found that it was recent. In fact he didn't dated it to the 18th century in his listing. He dated it to the "19th century or earlier". Don't forget this detail, it is important.

Asd said, it changes nothing to me.

Regards,

Giovanni

Here is the Skinner link to the above enamel lidded bowl.

A few things come to mind

1.  Their estimate was $700-900.    In auction language, that means they didn't think much of it

2.   "Sold to benefit the Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts."   In auction language that means one of a few different things.

a)    It was donated to this Institute, and they didn't want it (ie they didn't want it in their collection), so they put in in an auction, or

b)    It was part of a bequest in a Will, which required it be sold at auction, and the proceeds be given to the Institute.

Both of which support the views expressed elsewhere on this forum - that it was a suspect piece, and claiming provenance from the Clark Art Institute is stretching the meaning of provenance.  Any dealer who frequents auctions, would know this.

https://www.skinnerinc.com/auctions/3212B/lots/308

Also note the preceding Skinner Lot, likely from the same origin, and sold under the same terms (which looks like a late 19th Century/early 20th Century example, and obtained an appropriate final bid).

https://www.skinnerinc.com/auctions/3212B/lots/307

Hi Corey and all - 

Just for comparison, the attached image is of an century bowl/lid, first quarter of the 18th century, in The State Hermitage Museum, decorated with image which is possibly of the Holy Family ...

The differences in the painting style and enamel colour is obvious ...

Stuart

So we can conclude that either Chamberlain Antiques or Skinner Auctions or both of them are scammers? I don't think so. I don't belive the bowl is a modern fake but since I have zero experience with enamelled metal ware I can only make guesses. I actually think there were many aspects surrounding the sale that were quite interesting and that would almost deserve further investigation.

@ avionsunantiques. I have recently come across a lot at Skinner that were wrongly dated and estimated at less than $1000 even though there was a solid provenance. It sold a little higher than that but soon after the same piece was offered at one of the major houses, this time correctly dated and with an estimate at $1,000,000! I'm not making this up.

@ Stuart. When I researched the bowl myself I actually came across some Qianlong period enamels that were painted in a style I thought matched quite well with the bowl but unfortunately I didn't bookmark the sites.

But thanks for the replies anyway. Just wanted to let you know that I had found the bowl at Skinner and hear you reactions to that.

And then? What are you proving, dear Corey? The same happened this time, Skinner valued it 600 dollars and it was sold for 10,000. And then? Would they be so stupid to value the bowl 600 dollars if they knew that it was worth much much more? I don't understand what you are meaning, really.

You said that you are not expert but you are convinced that it is right. That too means nothing. All the ones that said that the bowl is a modern copy has supported the opinion with evidences, not with a general "I think", based on what?

Have you seen the example shown by Stuart? It is not necessary to be expert to see the abismal difference.

You said that you found similar examples of the 18th century. First, I would like to see if they are really similar. Second, are you sure that those were 18th century and not simply claimed as being so, in some obscure place on the net? You have repeatedly shown in the past that you are particularly attracted by those unreliable places. Please show the "similar" examples, if you have found them, you can easily find them again.

Regards,

Giovanni

Dear Cory - 

Unfortunately I only have the one image of the Hermitage bowl/cover but, as mentioned by others, you only have to look at the differences in the painting style and colour/tone of the enamels between the two pieces ...

Also, notice the numerous areas of wear on the Hermitage example, especially to the cover and rim of the bowl - totally absent from the other piece ...

Stuart  

clayandbrush in the post you’ve just shared there is no information nor facts relating the the topic of the thread. The post seems again to be personal opinions about Corey and so i find it is not very interesting. I appreciate reading the posts that make good use of the expertise on ceramics.

Corey thanks again for informative and original approach on all the topics you bring up and all the work it shows on it, shared in all your posts. Your posts invariably show exactly what you base your observations on, they're never based on an opinion -expert or otherwise, but always showing exactly the process you follow, exact sources, quotes, numbers, they are always on topic, and always with such good manners to all. Any posts that just expresses your thoughts are also well informed.

I look forward to reading more on those aspects of the sale that may deserve further looking into, if and when you do, or on the next topic up for discussion.

Also i especially appreciated a thread i read -the VanHam Qianlong d-g Vase) and where you make such good use of valuable off-mainstream sites and sources that most would never go out of our way to find nor be able to access, that would be beyond general experience, but you freely share them.

I think that in the age of ‘alternative facts’ and media control, it is inspiring to see someone that can research equally throughout a wide range of sources, access many varied relevant sources, correlate all the information, make their own unbiased conclusions, and share it. 

That is useful even beyond the themes of this forum, but especially useful when determining fake vs original in a field apparently full of imitations, whether it be 95% or otherwise, global or local. - As useful as all other markers of authenticity. 

Nx

Did I miss something? This thread is confusing me. I can only see a new member called avatar. Do you think he‘s identical with  Corey? He well might be though as nixe comes to his defend.