Dear Stuart,

agree completely with you, fake at first glance.

As usual, I focus first at all on the painting style: that dragon is horrible (or ridiculous, one can choose what is preferable). And what about the waves? And the horses? And the petals of the lotuses? Everything wrong. If it has been painted during Ming, it has been painted by a Ming child.

Regards,

Giovanni

Hello Stuart and Giovanni

If you are both correct it would seem that novices like myself have very little chance of successfully purchasing a genuine Ming piece on eBay with any confidence.

I had noticed this vase on the eBay recommendations of Chinese vases and I had wondered if it was genuine. I really look forward to watching Peter's video on a Friday night or Saturday morning, depending on how late it turns up on YouTube, and when I saw the image at the start of his video I thought that he may point out that it was fake, so when he said that it was an early Ming piece I immediately decided that I obviously still hadn't learned enough about Chinese ceramics.

I had become dissolutioned about collecting Chinese watercolours and in the last couple of years I have enjoyed finding out more about other types of Chinese art, trying to find and purchase interesting pieces, but I think that my recent acquisition of the Amphora may be my last purchase for the time being so that I don't also become dissolutioned with Chinese ceramics.

Kind regards,

Jeremy

A 5 year old child would draw a better dragon :))

Jeremy, from time to time there are mistakes on the news Letter, but usually the pieces are authentic.

Michael

Funnily enough, given that I know so little, my first thought was it was a fake when I saw the video this morning, but listening to Peter, I assumed I must be wrong.  I usually am on the wrong side of these Ming decisions. 

I can't believe my instinct may be correct - you must all be teaching me well. 😊 Thank you!

I also thought the dragon was horrible AND ridiculous.  What's more, I will continue to think that even if this turns out to be genuine.  Just because something is Ming, doesn't mean I need to like it!

These were some of the points I was trying to make regarding the cobalt blue vase with white relief elements in my posts of last week. See link I have confined myself to collecting Qing porcelains, silver and other Qing art and cannot comment about Ming porcelains in general or this vase in particular. However, the old Roman warning of caveat emptor continues to apply regardless of who makes the recommendations! 

Are the last two photos of the one in the British museum?  If so, then it must be the kiss of death for me to like something, because that dragon does not look any better to me.  I do not expect to be purchasing Ming unless my horse comes in.

@sharonp

No kidding. 

Someday I'll make it to Jingdezhen and purchase a nice reproduction. At least I'll know what I'm getting. 

@steve

Hi Steve:

Indeed! The quality of many contemporary replicas is exceedingly good. Some look absolutely wonderful. One could make a trip to Jingdezhen and buy a couple of full crates of items from Ming to Qing. One could use one crate to decorate one's home attractively and sell the contents of the other crate on eBay as period pieces. This would more than pay for one's airfare and lodgings while in China and when we see our contemporary items being lauded we would have the pleasure of laughing at the foolishness of others!

Errol

I first thought that this jar was possibly Swatow.

Swatow feiyu dragon jars from " Zhangzhou Export Ceramics" by Jorge Welsh

Hi all -

Firstly - thank you all for taking the time to respond and for all your thoughts and opinions, it’s much appreciated ...

Kaolin had posted a very interesting Swatow example for comparison. Although there are some design similarities, personally I do not think the eBay jar is a Swatow example for the reasons stated in my response - although such wares are not really my area ... 

Before responding to individuals - I would like to thank the member who original contacted me regarding this jar and who, quite correctly, pointed out that the interior appears to have been ‘scooped out by a machine’ and is ‘far to smooth’ - something that I missed totally!!🙄😂

@clayandbrush 

Dear Giovanni, 

I am pleased we concur ...!!

Also agree with you re: looking closely at the painting style - first and foremost always!!!

Regards, 

Stuart 

@jeremy 

Hi Jeremy -

Try not to become to disillusioned!! Although the chances of an authentic example of this type of jar, which are very rare, turning up on eBay are extremely remote genuine Ming examples do turn up. These are mainly bowls, dishes, jars and occasionally vases, that are, mainly, medium to low quality .. 

As an alternative, there are some excellent dealers such as Robert McPerson and Brian Page, who sometimes have very good Ming pieces, some of which are still reasonable price ...

Your recently acquired Amphora is a lovely example of type, by the way!!😊

Stuart 

@Julia 

Hi Julia - 

You do yourself a disservice!!🤔

One only has to read some of the careful observations made in your post to know you have a very ‘good eye’!!😉

Your are quite correct. As with all periods, the quality of Ming wares varies enormously. This is especially true of pieces produced in the ‘minyo’ kilns who catered for a large and diverse range of patrons and markets ... 

Stuart 

@kaolin 

Hi Kaolin -

A very interesting Swatow example posted ... 

However, although there are some similarities there are still major differences in the painting style between this and the eBay jar - look at the ‘feiyu’ dragons, and compare the drawings of heads, wings and bodies?! Also note the drawing of the eBay  shoulder lotus scroll - which is trying to copy the Ming style - but  such drawing is far to ‘precise’ for Swatow pieces which tends to be much more ‘sketchy, free and losser’ ... 

The eBay jar also lacks the four attached lug handles - used either to hold cords for the cover or for carrying - and also the sand or kiln grit commonly seen on these Swatow wares ... 

Stuart 

@erroll

Hi Erroll,

Oh, I couldn't live with myself. And St. Peter would be watching!

And just for the record I am inclined to believe Peter about the vase although really I have no idea when it comes to Ming items. 

-Steve

Hi Stuart.

I concur that the shoulder lotus scroll is overly stiff for typical Swatow. It looks contrived. But I am not 100% ready to rule it out either. Lets see what others say.

A couple other points . Not all Swatow jars have lug handles. Examples without them are less common but not at all rare. There are numerous examples in the books I have. Also, although it is an identifying feature of the vast majority of Swatow ware, not all pieces have sand adhesions on the bottom. This could be a later evolution or simply kiln dependent.

It could be that later 17th century Swatow became more labored and stiff (as with Kangxi style Kraak for example) while benefiting from improved firing techniques with regards to sand.

FWIW, the images I posted earlier are of two different Jars.

Here are a couple of further images.

The first, from "China as the inspiration for Japanese porcelain, Kyushu Museum" shows a Swatow jar without handles or sand adhesions. Painting or rather stiff as well.

The second, from the book "Zhangzhou Ceramics 16th to 17th Centuries Found in Indonesia" by Sumarah Adhyatman, shows two more Jars with feiyu dragons; one without handles.

For the life of me I can't see anything but shadow on that interior shot except a small crackle bit beneath the lip, were there other shots of the interior available before the item was sold?  If I had an investigator submit that to me as possible evidence, I would reject it and ask, "do you expect this shot to survive cross examination?"

@kaolin 

Hi Kaolin -

Firstly thank you for the additional jar images and your thoughts/confirmation regarding pieces without the lug handles and sand/kiln grit to the base, both of which I was not aware of!!

However, on all the images you have posted the differences in painting styles, the way the designs have been applied and the detailing within is vastly different to that seen on the eBay jar ...

To mention just two things:-

Note the differences in the dragons positioning and posture? The Swatow dragons all display some ‘life and movement’, the head, wings and bodies drawn at slightly different angles - the eBay dragons are very ‘stiff and place’, indeed ‘lifeless‘ - as indeed are all the motifs on this piece ... 

Then look at the drawing of the wave design? Again, on all the Swatow examples these have a degree of uniformity, the elements/drawing and shading are basically the same with minor difference - the waves on the eBay jar are drawn totally differently, and are attempting to copy the known 16thC type but again are ‘overly stiff/lifeless’ ...

As with you, I would welcome any/all comments from others ...

Stuart