Dear all,

this is a delicate issue. It is one of the two main reasons why I do not like so much to post on Forums open to anyone. The other reason being that I do not like to share some information, because it is simply wrong to do that. The fake industry is out there.

The matter here is quite different from that of the recent “two snuff bottles” thread. There, the problem is very simple: suppose that I spot a super rare Ming vase misrepresented on ebay. What I, and everybody else in my shoes, I believe, would do? Of course keep quiet hoping that nobody else will spot it. But suddenly Stuart will point out here that that vase is a misrepresented super rare one. What would I do? I would kill him! 😊😊😊

Instead, here the problem is related to one member. The problem is simple: is him in bona fide or is him trying to scam others? First at all, this is the typical case when the possibility of contacting members with private messages would be very useful and solve the matter without problems. I already did request this in the past but it is not possible.

So, back to the fundamental question: is him (the seller member, meaning anyone and not directly Avionsumantique, to whom I am not addressing in particular but in general) in bona fide or not?

In my view, if the seller is in bona fide he should admit his mistake and act consequently, relisting the item with the appropriate description.

If he is trying to scam others, then it is up to him, he is not acting honestly and he must be prepared for the consequences, being it to be exposed here or even worst.

I really do not see the problem; if I do a mistake, ok, thank you for pointing it out to me, and will do the proper correction.

The matter remains delicate, if an item from a member is wrong, the best to do should be to contact him, but being not possible it is also right to alert unexperienced members that that thing is not as represented.

If I have to refer directly to Avionsumantiques sales, that vase is absolutely not 18^th century. There is not the slightest possibility. And it is not matter of orange peeling, enamels etc, it is just because it is not possible that a vase has been painted that way in the 18^th century.

I did a quick look at the first page of the many items that he is selling and spotted at least three items not correctly represented. One is the supposed Kangxi vase also spotted by Malka Art, the other one is the supposed Kangxi yellow cup with incised dragon. If I can, I would suggest Avionsumantiques to be more careful in making attribution.

Regards,

Giovanni

@adrian

It's a popular decoration during the 19th C. Look at the enamels on this part, do they look like enamels on Republic wares?

Please check the face expressions, painting style of the mountains and enamels on them.

@xin_fawis

Thank you Xin for your confirmation with pointed out important aspects, that helps a lot!

I was pretty much concerned with the way flowers and leafs were painted on that picture.

Best regards,
Adrian

Thank you for all for your thoughts.

Interestingly this thread started shortly after I decided to block someone from bidding on my ebay items.   This person was accusing me of using two fake accounts to out bid him/her on one of the  listings.   I looked at the listing, and could see one of the competing accounts was a local dealer who has bought many items from me in the past, and the other was someone new located in China.    Instead of accepting they'd been legitimately outbid, they got nasty and I decided it was best to block them.    They went away making various threats

I must say, I do not make my attributions lightly, and I date items conservatively.

The Republic vase mentioned above, does indeed look Daoguang, but in person it feels Republic.    Does that mean its not Daoguang? - No it does not.   What it means is I'm not sure if its Daoguang or Republic, and as such, I choose to sell it Republic, and indicate it could be older.   Its the nicest Republic vase I've ever had (well half of one, its part of a pair, and I sold the other vase individually on ebay a month or two ago).    I was going to keep one and sell one, but it just wasn't the same on its own, so the second one it looking for a new home.

The same applies to the Qianlong vase.    My experience in handling and examining this vase, tells me thats what it is - right down to the way the glaze has formed on the underside of the undercut foot rim.    I don't think its Qianlong or maybe Republic - if I did, it would be described as above.    If someone buys it, and doesn't agree, they will send it back, and quite frankly, if that happens, I'll keep it.   I have never seen another like it, and I've been looking for 20-30 years.   If this were Republic, or a modern copy as Malka Art seems to suggest, there would be others.

As for the Water Margin vase, I had some doubts about this one at first (ie being Kangxi, or late 19th Century Kangxi revival).   The main issue I had was the undecorated area on the back.   There are very few of these water margin pieces made in the 19th Century.   The very transparent light green - so pale it almost looks white, used on parts of the uniforms, is also a strong indication of Kangxi origin.   I agree its not a typical Kangxi piece, but I do think that is what it is.   Again, if this one is purchased by someone who thinks its something else, and sends it back, then I'm keeping it.

As for the yellow bowl, thats another interesting one.    I wish it had a double circle around the mark - that bothered me initially.    However the form and the incised dragon design (very hard to capture in photographs), along with the believe of the prior owner convinced me.

All of which brings me to why I never buy items based on pictures.    Everything I own, I purchased only after holding it in my hands and looking at it under magnification, and learning all I could about its history.    A picture can give you an idea of what an item might be, but thats all.    The Chinese are very good at making something look like something else - thats what mimicry is all about.    But they are not good at getting the feel right.

As Bill Sargent stated at the seminar mentioned elsewhere, in his opinion, about half the Chinese pieces at Sothebys and Christies are modern copies - and if he points them out, they do not want to know.   It also works the other way around.   Sometimes very good pieces are offered on ebay.    

When people see something they've not seen before, they tend to look for other examples to form their opinion.    This is a how Xerox upper management dismissed the idea of a windows like computer interface years before microsoft introduced the idea - ie they hadn't seen it before, so they were uncomfortable with the idea.    However, when it comes to Chinese porcelain, if an item is a modern copy, then the chances are there are lots of others that look very similar.   Instead, many people tend to go the other way, if they havn't seen an item before, they assume it must be a copy.    In reality, it tends to be other other way around.   If you've not seen something before, its more likely to be one of very few surviving examples, than one of many new copies.

Unlike Malka Art's claims, I do not have a "tendency to list items with incorrect/misleading dates".   I stand behind everything I sell.   I don't get many items back, but once in a while it happens. 

@xin_fawis

Thanks for the additional info. The vase first sold  for $2,280 (I guess the highest didn't pay so he had to re-list it). That price seems quite low for a daoguang vase of good quality. Do you think it was a bargain or is it usually what this should sell for?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Exceptional-Chinese-Porcelain-Vase-Republic-Period-or-Earlier-Figures-Landscape-/383587840676?hash=item594f9df2a4%3Ag%3AfcwAAOSwNK5e5DNJ&nma=true&si=yw5vREAjK%252Bm18jkyAxYcUIdry2Q%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

@springmeier, please refrain from knowingly stating false information.    

I understand how people can have differing opinions, but I take except to straight out lying.

From my above reply, you knew this was one of a pair, and the other one was sold on ebay a month or two ago. 

From comparing the pictures, even those cut and pasted above, you know this is not the same vase.     Nevertheless you have deliberately attempted to interfere in this auction by suggesting this item was previously sold, and was either not paid for or returned.

That is called auction interference, and that is unacceptable.

As you are the originator of this thread, I think Shine is right, and your intentions here have been unmasked.

Posted by: @springmeier

@xin_fawis

Thanks for the additional info. The vase first sold  for $2,280 (I guess the highest didn't pay so he had to re-list it). That price seems quite low for a daoguang vase of good quality. Do you think it was a bargain or is it usually what this should sell for?

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Exceptional-Chinese-Porcelain-Vase-Republic-Period-or-Earlier-Figures-Landscape-/383587840676?hash=item594f9df2a4%3Ag%3AfcwAAOSwNK5e5DNJ&nma=true&si=yw5vREAjK%252Bm18jkyAxYcUIdry2Q%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Between $2000-3000 is a very good price. This one is in very good condition, so I think around $3000 is quite fair.

@avionsunantiques

Ok, please forgive me. I thought it was the exact same vase at first glance as they are almost identical. After your answer I double checked and they are indeed a mirrored pair. I didn't have any malicious intend and please don't assume I red every single  reply in length considering some of them are 40 lines long .  Also, It was natural for me to think it was the same vase because I would have never imagined you would sell a split pair 1 month apart as it is common knowledge that a matching pair sold together will achieve roughly 3x the price of a single vase. 

My apology if I offended you. 

And yes $2200 ish was much less than I expected.   I thought it would sell for $10,000 plus.   It was in perfect condition.   The buyer got a fantastic deal, and they are very happy with their purchase.

Which vase are you talking about?  These strings get so long you can't tell the players apart without a scorecard.

Well Well we have to be very cautious as I said on my previous post on this thread. The Qianlong vase we are talking about has just been listed on Peters' ebay weekly suggestions. In fact that does not mean it is a Qianlong but there is reasonable doubt. I am sure that we all on here wish Avionsunantiques a good sale for his vase :))

A Kangxi piece never has a blank side like this.

Thank you Siseno found the posting.

Dear Avionsunantiques,

I think we have to clarify few things. First of all (I have already mentioned that at least twice) I do not care about your reputation, I care about mine. Life is too short and unpredictable, today I'm here, tomorrow I might not have that privilege and I do not wish to spare my vital energy on pointless disputes. Moreover I do not intend to get myself involved in some personal ping-pong match and that's out of respect for others - it brings nothing to the discussion. Problem is we have a problem here 🙂

Looks like you are much more experienced in handling Oriental antiques than myself. In this filed I consider myself still a novice and I do rely on the advice of people who are better educated in this area. However it was me who spotted Kangxi revival listed on your ebay and described as item from Kangxi period. 

You are claiming you have no intentions of misleading customers (4th time I admit I do not care about that at all) by providing an inaccurate dating. You have also made claim, that you stand firmly behind your own statement. Again, you have said yourself, that you are very experienced in this field. That vase of yours is not Kangxi and there is no further discussion about it. Kangxi and much later copy of that style that is two different worlds we are talking about, to completely different selling scenarios.

My question is: can someone present her or himself as a professional in particular field, yet make a mistake of that nature?

I think you understand that this problem implies a question about intentions...

What exactly is going on here? Are you completely ignorant to obvious fact the item in your stock (not only one!) is not what you think it is? Or do you know exactly it isn't yet you don't care and deliberately trying to make extra profit selling a copy? After all you have just admitted that your ultimate criteria is only if a customer returns an item or not! That is seriously perverted 'selling logic' my friend (5th time I mention - I don't care about that, it's your choice, not mine).

One more thing - I have few item I do not list online, instead I carry them on fairs where I have an opportunity to equip potential buyer with all my knowledge, doubts, etc. The price has to be adequately low to represent my incompetence in judgement and the client has to be absolutely aware that, that I am not 100% sure about particular item. All my clients know my tactics, which is 100% transparency and honesty, period! If I have acquired mixed opinions about certain item and I am not sure about it myself, then I feel totally obligated to make my customers aware what are we talking about. In other words I intentionally decline making extra profit by presenting an item with false description. You can do whatever you want - I do believe in freedom after all.

Kind regards,
Adrian

Dear Xin,

you preceded me in talking about the not decorated back on Kangxi vases.

Dear Avionsumantiques, I am sorry of having to go further, but it must be said what is right, when is right.

In my opinion, you can’t support your view by means of things like the light blue etc etc. I never judge a piece by these technical details, and I believe that I have very often solicited members here to not pay attention to that, but to the painting style indeed. The tone of color or other technical details can easily be misrepresented in pictures, the painting style not. And more important, technical details can be perfectly copied, but the hand of an historical period, no, that is peculiar to the period.

A faker is, at first instance, betrayed by his hand. The technical details he can reproduce perfectly, but the style, not so easily. If he is very good, he can copy the painting style too and in that rare case we have those items that are sold at the major auction houses as genuine.

But at the times of Vermeer it is impossible that a painter would have painted in Grosz’ style, exaggerating things to make them clear. That is the reason why the first vase mentioned here can’t be Qianlong, whatever said by whoever expert.

If you compare the incised dragon of your bowl with those sold by the major auction houses, the difference will be evident. And not only that, also the difference in potting will be there. The genuine ones, although with apparently slight difference, are much more elegant. Frankly, if it were genuine with that buy-it-now price I would buy it immediately.

Dear Siseno, in the list of weekly suggestion there are many fake or badly represented items. Not only surely genuine items are listed there, and it is clearly said. Buy what you know.

Regards,

Giovanni

PS: regardless, that vase is very nice!

PPS: Frankly, saying that if the item is not correctly represented it can be returned is not so fair. Most of these items are sold in China, and it is clear that not all Chinese buyers are competent, quite the opposite instead.