To Malka Art: you posted while I was writing my post.

I started this thread in hope of having a civil discussion about the age of the vase firstly mentioned. Now, I am being accused of being part of a complex conspiracy to undermine avionunantique's ebay sale. My original intend was to discuss the vase itself, not the seller. 

I never purchased any items from avionsunantique on ebay and had never visited his ebay page until yesterday.

Concerning the other pieces that are inaccurately described, I would recommend to avionsantique to consult other sources when learning about chinese antiques. There is a lot of pseudo-experts out there, some of them even doing lectures at universities, who think they can date a piece of chinese ceramic only by inspecting details with a magnification glass or other insignificant measures. You would be much better looking at images of thousands of pieces from reputable sources on the internet and get a good feeling of what an authentic piece look like rather than paying to assist to all those lectures teaching about bubble bursts and so on. 

Hi Giovanni,

I was talking about the weekly newsletter and not the weekly shopping page. My understanding is that the weekly newsletters are only items checked by Peter and the shopping pages "Chinese art ending soon US, Europe and UK" not but I might be wrong? Correct me if I am wrong. I also understood that peter lists items on the weekly newsletter that he likes and are antiques but in fact the dating maybe wrong. right? 

Regarding the Qianlong vase in my opinion I agree with many of you that it does not look like it is a geniune and prospect buyers shall not take what I say as an advice. What I meant in my previous post is if there is a boubt regarding the periode for the seller the buyer shall benefit from it not the seller but that is just my way and my opinion. 

Have a great weekend Friends 

@springmeier Your claim that its more informative to look at pictures, than attend seminars given by the leading authorities, where you engage in hands on study and examination of authentic examples, puts your level of understanding in perspective.

Hello,

I have a lovely piece of furniture, it's a repro of 18th Century crust pie tilt top table. Really nicely done, beautifully carved, very very well made. Not a brand new one. It has some age, around 50-70 years old. Absolutely stunning piece. Now I think I would rather jump off the cliff, than present that to a public and potential buyers as original 18th C table...

Kind regards,
Adrian

@avionsunantiques

You misunderstood what I said. I never said looking at photos is better than having the item in your hands. I said examining thousands of photos of authentic pieces over the years is better than assisting a seminar. You need to get a general feeling of what an authentic piece look like to know if the style, enamels, proportions or shape are wrong.If you do it as a hobby and don't travel the world to assist auctions, the internet is by far the best way to achieve it. Assisting 2-3 seminars a year will never come close in terms of you ability to date  chinese ceramic than spending 100 hours browsing online museum collections, auction results or online catalogues. 

What everyone here is trying to nicely tell you is that we are not trying to attack your reputation or question your intentions and please don't take everything we say personally and reply with personal attacks. Based on your previous posts and attributions, maybe your approach in dating chinese ceramic might be not well oriented.  Like Giovanni said in another thread, I have never seen any established dealers or auction experts rely on such measures to evaluate chinese ceramic. A piece as a whole comes first, then the details. If the whole isn't right there is no point in going any further. 

@springmeier it sounds like you've never been to a seminar given by a leading authority, like Rose Kerr, William Sargent, or even heard of them, and you have no idea what occurs at those seminars.

Since you apparently like to look at pictures online, and still seem stuck on my Qianlong vase, I suggest you start looking at Qianlong and yongzheng Famille Rose Chinese export platters - maybe if you look at enough, you'll start to see the similarities in glaze etc etc etc etc.

Sorry Avionsunantiques, but you are trying to defend a wrong position with weak arguments, and this will lead others here to change their opinion about your supposed innocent misattribution. No more innocent if you insist that way.

Make it short: since you are used to meet people like Rose Kerr etc, show her your vase and then report here what she said. Very simple, don't you think so? Make it even easier: just send her a single picture of that vase, be sure that it will be enough.

Sorry, but it is not my or other's attitude forcing the situation, it is your one.

And if you are so introduced to those high circles, why are you not selling through them your Kangxi dragon yellow bowl instead of offering it on abay with buy it now option at a fraction of the potential value, if Kangxi?

Come on, do not think that everybody is blind accepting everything.

Regards,

Giovanni

The idea that someone who has only looked at photos, and who has never seen an item in person, or handled it, knows more about it than an expert who has it in their hands, is an error.    

As a trained mediator and after 3 pages, I think this has reached an impasse.  Further discussion is meaningless, everyone is entitled to their opinion and has the right to remain silent, use it.

@clayandbrush I had a second close look at my yellow bowl.

It is 100% 18th Century.   It is certainly within 25 years of the end of the Kangxi period - one way or the other, so by accepted convention, it is reasonable to state it as mark and period.

As for the experts - while they are indeed well known and respected, they generally don't have much money to spend.

Some of our items are available on ebay at wholesale prices.    Many of the same ebay items with buy-it-now prices may also be available elsewhere at retail.    As a wholesale dealer, we are not opposed to selling at wholesale numbers.

Hey @avionsunantiques You should look at this week newsletter from Peter he actually referred to your sold vase. I agree with Sharon sometimes is better to agree to disagree and move on 🙂

Instead dear Siseno and Sharon, for matter of being correct it is better to reiterate what is right than moving on. Avionsunantiques has directly addressed to myself, hence I have to answer.

I am very sorry in having to interfere further, but it is not due to myself, rather to him.

“The idea that someone who has only looked at photos, and who has never seen an item in person, or handled it, knows more about it than an expert who has it in their hands, is an error.”

That is, instead, perfectly possible and this is an excellent example. You can’t show the picture of a modern car and claim that it is a Roman chariot, adding that Worldwide known experts supported the idea by means of technical details, like for example saying that the diameter of the wheel is exactly the same.

Regardless who is such expert, the car is not a chariot, and a picture is absolutely enough. It is the case of your vase, in the 18^th century that decoration simply did not exist in that same manner.

The same is for the yellow bowl with incised dragon. Here is a detail of the dragon. Being us on a Forum open to anyone, I will not say here why it is impossible that it has been made in the Kangxi period, but I am sure that many members here knows that. It is not difficult; a basic knowledge of dragons’ styles is enough.

 Over all this, sorry, I am really sorry, but talking about “wholesale sellers” referred to rare Kangxi yellow monochrome dragon bowls is frankly ridiculous. Don’t you have a bit more decent excuse?

Do you have a ton of those bowls? I could be interested in buying. I was not believing at my eyes in reading that.

You are putting yourself under a bad light by means of your own hands.

Regards

Giovanni

PS: to Siseno: I did look at the Weekly newsletter. What Peter said about the vase is that it is late 19^th century, not 18^th century. Then?