Dear Birgit, yeas Avatar is Corey.

Dear Nixe,

believe it or not, last night, while I was writing my answer to Corey, you did come to my mind. I thought “hey, if Nixe will read this, she/he will intervene in defense of Corey. But it is since long that she/he is no more posting, may be she/he is no more active here”.

Well it seems that it was a sort of forecast.

Dear Nixe this is the third or fourth time that you criticize me, with all evidence you must have some reason for not liking me. No problems, do/think as you wish.

You may not like what I am going to tell you; that too is no problem to me, because I am convinced that to be direct is the best way for opening people’s eyes. If somebody tells me directly where I am wrong, I can only thank him.

 Well, you need to learn a bit, before saying what you think in defense or against other’s opinions.

If I am not wrong, you accuse me to simply say, for example, that a piece is modern without explaining why.

If you knew a bit, you would know that in most of the cases it is not matter of saying “the blue is too light”, just for making an example, which in many cases is inappropriate. It is not matter of tone of blues, if a piece is blatantly wrong, it is wrong.

If you submit a naïve paint to an expert of Caravaggio and ask him if it is a Caravaggio, you can’t expect that he will tell you that it is not a Caravaggio work because the black is not deep enough. If you conclude that such expert is not expert because he didn’t tell you why a garbage is not a Caravaggio, well, is not the expert who is wrong, it is you who have to learn a bit.

My last answer to Corey has been a bit cutting because he has repeatedly shown here some pieces that are in most cases fake items bought from ebay dealers who only sell fakes, and not claimed as being genuine by the same dealers. Despite the evidence of the provenance, despite everybody has told him that the item is fake, and in many cases showing him the obvious, Corey invariably insist bringing, to support his thesis,  examples that has nothing to do with the piece in question, or “references” from obscure sites, most of them Chinese, clearly irrelevant sites.

The same he does for common pieces, claiming them to be Imperial.

With a small detail: because he is insisting with his totally unsupported opinion, he has been many times invited to send the pictures of his pieces to Christie’s. He never did that. Or at least, he never reported here the answer he got.

And you always, as you are again saying here above, are the only person who congratulate him for the “clear” explications, the “research” and “references”, etc etc. Which are indeed totally irrelevant. This is why I think that you should learn a bit, just a bit. Or do you think that what he said here has some real importance in determining the authenticity of that bowl? Is it more relevant what he said about the bowl or what has been said, shown, supported by others? If you think so, once more: try to learn a bit before talking.

Regards

Giovanni

PS: BTW I believe that this bowl has been unmotivated discussed too long. I think that I will no more post here.

The confusing thing for all us beginner collectors is the fact that Peter , Josh and many mainland Chinese bidders seem to be certain these pieces were genuine and valuable , But the experts we are lucky have on this forum seem certain that the items are copies .

It is very confusing for the eager junior collectors . Hence why it is so important to view and hold as many genuine pieces as you can to make up your own mind.

Carl

The item isn't a copy,it is copying nothing.

Its a fake,pure and simple.

I like Peter C but the truth of the matter is he knows that it is a fake,Chamberlains know that it is a fake,it is beyond me why they don't put their hands up to the fact.

This is the problem when commerce gets the upper hand,morals go out the window.

Vic

Hello, Member

As we all know Asia markets are full of land mines with fakes and copy’s and everyone’s has a there 

thoughts on this I don’t no why Peter has not commented about this piece to let use know his thoughts 

on it. I hope he does. Me i would like to see him take part in so of these discussions.

                John

Well, he did in the video where he followed up on the sale. He said that he would have to stick to his original view that the bowl is period. I would think he knows what he talks about but it's a little disappointing that he doesn't address the issue with the mark at least.

For some strange reason I can only read the first and the last page of this thread now. I don't know if it's the settings of the computers I'm using or if it's the forum that need some maintenance. I only had the chance to read the post of Nixe in the morning on my phone.

All the best

/Corey

Auction houses choose their estimated selling price to convey information to bidders.   That information includes the following.

1.    Is there a reserve or not.     Example - If you see an item with a $5000-7000 estimate, that should sell for $5000-7000, the auction house is signalling that there is probably a reserve somewhere between $4500 and $5000 (ie the reserve is just below the lower estimate).  

2.   If the auction house does not have specialist knowledge in the subject area, and you see an estimate of $100-200 on an item that should sell for $5000-7000, the auction house is signalling there is no reserve, and the item will sell to the highest bidder.

3.  If the auction house does have specialist knowledge in the subject area (Skinner is one such example), and they have an estimate of $100-200 on an item that you think should sell for $5000-7000, then the auction house is signalling to buyers that they do not believe the item to be an authentic example (or there is something else wrong that you've missed - damage, etc).     This can happen when an important customer (such as an art institute), wants the description to be written a certain way, but the auction house expert disagrees with the content.

4.   Auction houses like Sotheby's, Christies,  in their small print, only guarantee the Bold part of the item description - ie the bold title.    In the case of Skinner, they do not guarantee any part of their description.   Even so, they described this item in bold as "Canton Enamel European-themed Covered Bowl" - which it is.   

In this case of the Skinner Enamel lidded bowl.    The translation goes like this.

1.   The bowl was donated to the Clark Institute.   Their collection is European and American, so the bowl did not fit into their collection, and was sent to auction.   (ie the Institute would rather have cash than a bowl that doesn't fit their collection).

2.   The bowl was donated with a description (likely from the estate/prior owner).

3.   The bowl was auctioned by Skinner with no reserve, and a description that came with it.    Skinner choose to title it as a Canton Enamel European-themed Covered Bowl - which it is.

4.   Skinner's Chinese specialist set the estimate at $700-900 because they thought that was a reasonable estimate for what it was - a 20th Century example.

5.   On March 22, 2019 Some "idiot" won the auction with a bid of US$8500.    After 23% commission, the cost was US$10455.

6.   On April 5, 2019 it appeared in a 10 day ebay auction by Juice1499 - this time it was described as a Beijing Enamel (not Canton Enamel) - an important difference.

7.    It was rapidly bid up to its cost over 2 days, and by April 7, 2019 it was sitting at $10,000.

8.    On April 15, 2019, the ebay auction ended at US$22,324

Several people stood to profit as a result.

1.    The person who owned the bowl

2.    Ebay

3.    Anyone who had an affiliate marketing agreement with ebay, and who got the winning bidder to place a bid, after going through their site to the ebay page.

The moral of this story - was the winning bidder at Skinner an Idiot - given that they were able to double their money in about 3 weeks?    Is there a conflict of interest for affiliate marketers to recommend an item that they expect to bring them money if one of their followers places the winning bid after clicking through their web site?

Footnote - ever since April 15, 2019, somewhere in China, opportunists are probably busy making identical copies of this bowl, that are probably hitting US auctions anytime now - one wonders how long it will be before another one of these shows up on ebay, an how much it brings!

Dear Nixe -

I will also talk directly to say your personal criticism, expressed on several occasions, of Giovanni is total unwarranted ...

Both myself, several others on this forum and especially Giovanni have given their opinions on this piece, with supporting evidence both in detailed written explanations and images to explain our thoughts on why this piece is wrong - in our opinions ....

If you choose, like Corey, not to agree with these opinions then I, as with Giovanni and no doubt others here, have no problem with this - after all that is what this forum is for, to discuss/debate and exchange thoughts on objects posted - but perhaps before deciding to defend  and praise Corey for his approach in/to "research, references and clear explanations' on objects and criticising other's,  you yourself might like to explain to all here - in detailed writing and supporting evidence/images - why a piece may or may not be authentic, a later copy or a fake ... 

If a piece is obviously wrong - and your eye tells such - it is wrong, to then immersing yourself in styles, colour tones, bubble distribution or shapes to try and prove otherwise is pointless ....

Stuart   

Hi all,

It is a bit tough situation. In my opinion it doesn't look good. Sellers who are selling fakes should have receive a fair dose of ostracism and certainly not a form of promotion! There is no discussion about that. Like Giovanni said about having the garage full of wrong buys, we all do mistakes. The important part comes when we decide what to do with them. Chamberlains decided to push it further for profit. Peter consequently is stating the same view that we all are aware of. At the end everyone is building up and working on their own reputation. I am quite sure there will be a lot of potential buyers who will put a line across the name of those fake-selling houses/dealers but maybe those sellers simply don't care as they know that in a long run other buyers will appear, completely blunt and not aware of the whole picture?  

Giovanni and few other members who posted here other items to mark the differences between them- one more time thank you for your persistence in raising alarm and educating others. I am more than grateful you have opened my eyes few months ago!  

Kind regards,
Adrian

Here is the video where Peter follows up on the sale of the bowl. He says he spoke to a well known dealer in Hong Kong who thought the bowl was fine, that it came from the Clark Collection and that the auction house that originally handled it a while ago had the information on it and the don't lie about this kind of stuff. I think Peter knew already that it was sold a Skinner, or am I wrong?

/Corey

Posted by: clayandbrush

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

Yes, Excellent point Giovanni. 

It is very important that we remember it was listed as 19th Century. The argument for it being 18th Century is moot and any relevance is only in so far as it relates to the provenance of the item.

To me that bowl is also clearly a recent copy. I am just really surprised  that an expert as Peter is, thinks it is an 18th century bowl.

Peter has not given his reasons/ shown similar examples and I wonder if he could do that. Maybe he can convince us that we are wrong.

For now I stay away from Juice. 

Kind regards

Staartmees

Peter,

would you be willing to reply ? To me this is important. I see you as a specialist. somebody we can learn from and I really would to know how you came up to conclude this was an authentic 18th century bowl.

Thanks

staartmees