Qing, Qianlong or Jiaqing

I want to say Kangxi/Yongzheng but the cracked ice isn't well done, the building doesn't align by the horse's bottom not does the roof and the horse is rather chunky-looking.  But maybe I am expecting too much ?  Although for that price ....

The ladies look rather modern. 

I am inclined to think that it's either a 19th Century example or a modern reproduction.

I agree with @shinigami and I would also add that the cobalt is very weak.

Mark 

Hello all,

I'm coming back to the forum after almost a year due to several mini strokes in a row that caused me to need some extensive rehabilitation. Thankfully all is well and I am almost back to normal. Never thought that I would have a toddler and had been in this situation.

Anyway, I wanted to chime in here because Stuart and I both agree on this piece. I have absolutely no idea what about this rings to Wanli, but I think this is late Qing to Republic at best. It has some appearances to Kangxi, however I think a later copy.

I have to say, unfortunately, that I have had a very negative experience with Doyle's. I purchased lot 236, the supposed Wanli mark and period dish.

I had this reviewed by multiple people, including one in person, and they all agree that the CT Loo label is fake, and the piece is not Wanli. When I brought this to Doyle's attention, they were extremely rude in their response and actually said "we do not guarantee our lots outside of the title."

The fact that someone like Rich, who portrays himself as such a great expert, would go the route of claiming a lack of responsibility on a fake item being sold is kind of crazy.

I will keep everyone posted on the outcome, however my experience so far with Doyle has been absolutely terrible.

While I understand that it is an auction and must be cognizant of that, when a piece is being blatantly sold as a mark and of the period piece with apparently false provenance, it is very difficult as a buyer to always do the best due diligence. Especially from an auction house like Doyle's that has and portrays themselves as having a great level of expertise. 

Best,

Justin

Welcome back Justin. 

Glad to read that you are on the mend.

Mark 

Yes, welcome back Justin, sorry about your difficult health issue and happy you are on the mend.

@jg1133 Will he take it back on consignment and resell it?

@Jg1133 @gfhandel @julia @shinigami @imperialfinegems @johnshoe 

Hi Justin, George, Julia, Birgit, Mark and John - 

Having had some private correspondence with Justin I know the past year or so has been very difficult, not only for him but also his family, so I am delighted he is now feeling somewhat better and on the way to a full recovery … 

‘Never give in, always keep fighting’ … 

Secondly, I wish to offer my sincere apologies to Justin, who emailed asking for my thoughts and opinions on this Wanli dish and another piece. Based on Doyles website images, additional ones forwarded by Justin when he saw and examined the piece and comparisons made, I believed this was, probably, a genuine example … 

It just goes to prove that images, no matter how good, are at best subjective, and also shows just how good the fakes have now become! There is no substitute for actual seeing and examining pieces closely and in person …

Personally, I think the response Justin has received from Doyles after raising genuine concerns regarding this piece is absolutely disgraceful. I also understand that the fake C.T. Loo label has now, mysteriously, disappeared from the base! No doubt to be used on/seen again sometime in the future … 

As for Lot 237, although a few of the compositional aspects have some affinity with design seen on Kangxi wares other parts, as mentioned by Julia, Brigit and Mark, do not. The base glaze does not seem to exhibit the usual Kangxi characteristics and the Wanli mark, which is seen on Kangxi wares, also contains stroke errors …

Personally, I think this is either late 19th, at best, or fairly new … 

Stuart 

Justin, I am so sorry to hear you have been unwell and having to deal with the attitude from Doyle's is not what one wants to experience - it does seem nowadays that "buyer beware" applies even if an auction house makes an error of judgment.

Thank you Stuart, very interesting what you have to say on this piece.  The variety of issues that have been mentioned in this thread do lead one to suspect that it is probably fairly new.

Good topic, thank you and to Justin, good luck!

@jg1133 

Hi Justin,

I'm sorry to hear about the strokes; glad you are on the mend!

Thank you for sharing your experience. I think Doyle's is being very penny wise and pound foolish here. So much of their success relies on reputation and that's something that's hard to earn back. 

I have learned a lot from this thread! Buyer beware!!!

Warm regards,

Steve

It is very sweet, Stuart, that you feel the need to apologize. I simply asked your thoughts, I thought it was good as well! I always appreciate your input!

I purchased other pieces at the sale, that I am more than willing to proceed with, however they are just now refusing to answer me so I'm kind of stuck in limbo here.

The only reason this even came up was because of the apparent CT Loo sticker when I was going to make payment. I immediately questioned them, and it turned into a very contentious back and forth, and after getting them reviewed by third parties everyone agrees that it is not real.

Since yesterday, I have not gotten a single response from Doyle. Not sure what the next step is here, however I'm not paying $10,500 for a piece with fake provenance that isn't even of the period stated.

Trying to pull the "we only guarantee the statements in bold" is what they are going with. Considering they have multiple levels of font sizes, I'm not really sure what that references. But my guess is now after looking at their page and their responses, they are just guaranteeing the title of the piece, which literally just describes that it is porcelain and is blue and white. They apparently don't guarantee the time periods that are listed underneath the titles? I still do not have clarification on this as they have not responded. Either way, it is extremely misleading and a slimy way of operating.

The response I got was essentially why do you believe them and not me? Along with kind of nasty words and literally telling me that the person who bought them before would not have bought a fake piece, and that is essentially where the dating came from. Extremely wild.

Needless to say, I am going to reach out to Peter on this because I do not think anyone should be doing business with them. If they can't even tell the difference between an authentic and a fake label and use that in the listing as provenance and then claim that they don't guarantee anything, what is the point?

SOTHEBY'S do the same thing. 

They only guarantee items that are listed in bold ink. Which is normally within the lot heading but sometimes also in bold within the item description. 

I believe Bonham's also do this but not 100% sure.

It's not a good look from Doyles who pride themselves as experts in Chinese and Japanese antiques from my understanding of them. But I have never dealt with them personally.

And how do you lose the sticker I wonder? And then claim it wasn't there in the first place. Very unprofessional of them.

I do hope that Doyles are reading this forum/blog and instead of arguing with Justin and or ignoring him agree to withdraw the said lot and allow him to continue with the purchase of the other lots.

It's really becoming very difficult now with the high quality of copies hitting the market. 

And let's not forget the disturbing photo-shopped dragon vase from Australian Bonham's that was recently offered but withdrawn due to it being a brand-new copy. Peter talked about this one. 

One needs to ask many questions about the items in question and not rely solely on the auctions lot pictures. It important to seek additional pictures preferably in both artificial light and daylight if possible. 

Mark 

Still no response from Doyle, if anyone was wondering. I sent them a third email asking this item to be removed from my invoice so that I can pay for the additional $11,000 I purchased. Hopefully they do not try to fight me on this, because I think it was very clear that this item was identified as Mark and period,  as well as having CT Loo provenance.

This entire thing has been extremely frustrating. I reached out to get an insurance idea for when I receive this, and it was identified again as not being of the period.