http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2013/fine-chinese-ceramics-and-works-of-art-hk0477/lot.3267.html For reference.

I also saw this piece and initially thought it looked OK. Much less obviously fake than the 'Qianlong' piece you posted IMO. I agree the foot rim doesn't look good on this butterfly piece, although I have not much issue with this orange peel type glaze on the base which can be seen on pieces from this period. The gilding also looks to be of the right sort with genuine wear. I can imagine seeing it in person , it might become a lot for obvious for me to agree with you. Perhaps we could have a deeper technical discussion to emphasise some points regarding this vase

Hello Sanderse,

NOTE: CLICK ANY IMAGE TO ENLARGE

First, I should point out, they now very masterfully gild and then rub it down to give the effect you'd expect to see, they've been doing it now for ten years or more on copies of Chinese Export tureen finals. 

As for the wavy looking orange peel on the base against that dead glaze it is another red flag, its a bit exaggerated and the finish is rather "matt" looking. . Also note the odd scuffing on the lid, but no place else on the piece, its possible, but not probable.

Next is the mark, much too mechanical, Check around and looks at examples of the marks on known authentic pieces, perhaps from Sotheby's or Christie's . Many can be found on Google Image search. The blue is also not the right tone, the script also looks a bit too large. 

Now onto the decoration/butterflys. The image on the left is from a Christie's butterfly vase, then on the right is the one on eBay.  Note the translucency of the Christie's example and the fine thinness of it, as well as the gentle shading. The eBay example has harsh looking colors in comparison, its also much too thick off the surface in places. (almost three dimensional)  The Christie's example the butterflys look much more "gentle" as though they are floating, the eBay example looks stiff and unrealistic, also very crowded. 

Then you have the exposed paste on the foot and rim, it's blackish grey as though it's been "inked" and rather coarse-looking, it should be smooth, and a creamy tone.  

These pieces are notoriously tricky, which is why they make so many copies these days.  Always look at the artwork, the telltale foot rims, shape and signs of "applied wear" and the glaze, as well as the script and it's scale and quality. 

Then look at an overall authentic piece. Like this one side by side with the eBay example.

I hope this helps. 

Best Peter

its now only up just over a $1000 did a few bidders retract their bid?

Hello peter 

Seller honestly doesn't no, or he selling nice peace to slip fake bye 

Hi,

Thanks for the comparison and explanation of the differences.  I agree the butterflies look so stiff, almost as though they had been stuck on to the jar.  Their lack of fragility and movement is even more obvious when compared to the genuine example.

I often find the "stiffness" hard to spot unless I have a direct comparison.  I guess this is one of the things where it pays to study hard and visit as many real pieces at museums and auctions as possible.  I really must work on this, as stiffness is clearly a good pointer; technical painting skills can recreate perfect copies, but they don't necessarily convey life and movement like originals do.

Best wishes,

Julia

When a seller who's been around for a while, hedges on age in their description as in this case, usually indicates they know and are feigning ignorance.  The reality is, the possibility of anyone today having several authentic mark and period pieces of this caliber is very improbable.  Having just one piece in excellent condition, beyond a plate or small bowl, is also very remote. 

Best Peter

I do feel that such a piece would not be sold on eBay if it were genuine but rather a high level auctioneer that can provide a seal of approval for a potential buyer. 

Thanks for your great informative post, Peter. It has helped a great deal in examining this piece in more detail and understanding its flaws. The Sotheby's vase I referenced does have more similarities to the congested butterfly design than the genuine bottle vase. So I guess there may be slight differences in the butterfly designs depending on which part of the Guangxu period they were produced. 

I have seen this auction in the past on eBay and not too rarely there appears to be some underlying feign of ignorance as you say. 

Best regards 

she has a lot of nice things up for auction, I was planing to bid on a few items. Anything else that might look off ? 

Things tend to look different even if correct when you see a incorrect object mixed with real ones.

I think the vase will sell for 7-8 with someone trying to resell it as a period piece. Decorative value its worth a few hundred if that. 

The listing has been removed by the seller. I also got a rather absurd and terse eMail form them on this topic. 

Actually, the listing says, "Not having seen another example like this myself I am not positive if this jar would be of the period or possibly a later", they then provide an image of a very similar piece that did sell for $45,000, which is actually quite different 

If any dealer thought for one second this piece might, just might be authentic, they would have it examined immediately as the value would be much higher if sold as such with a confident statement of age.   No dealer would sell it with the caveat of basically "you decide based on the pictures."  

Attached are some images of the one used in the listing for comparison, which is much more convincing looking.  It sold in Texas last year. Numerous images of HIGH RES are available for comparison.  You'll note, the details are very similar to the Christie's butterfly vase above and are very different from the example previously offered on eBay. 

Wow, this one is beautiful  - and somehow the other isn't.  It isn't just that the one-that-is-the-object-of-this-thread is harsher looking, the shape is far less elegant, more dumpy.  The lid suits it much better being the slimmer shape.

Julia

Also note the enamelling, finer, more delicate, very feminine. Also, note the foot rim and other aspects. 

Just so there is no confusion Joanie was selling this vase as a “later” example and not as 19th century as commented above, please refer to the description and you can see it was in no way miss-represented. Additionally, although Joanie felt the vase has age, likely Republic soon as it was brought to her attention it may be even later 20th century she very hastily ended this auction. The comment of mixed modern pieces in her sales is totally and utterly ridiculous. Anyone that has bought from Joanie over the years can contest to this, not to mention her thousands of happy customer feedbacks.

And to note the one shown above from Texas is exactly the same, color tones different in photography, different ware ect. but none of the differences commented on above. It is obviously a later example as well. If you want to confirm with an expert at Christies or Sotheby's they will surely tell you the one sold in Texas is later. The comments above about this other vase and its authenticity in compairision are totally incorrect.  

First, my apologies to everyone on the FORUM for this little Kerfufal regarding this vase. This is what happens you mention fakes, copies and misrepresented items specifically. 

______________________________________________

In the spirit of full disclosure  "qianlongdream" works at Joanies House of Treasures, in case it's not clear to everyone.

Second, there is no Joanie that anyone has ever heard of, its just a business name.  So "she" didn't remove anything. 

The Title of the listing's intent was VERY clear, it said:

"SUPERB SIGNED CHINESE GUANGXU FAMILLE ROSE 100 BUTTERFLIES LIDDED LOTUS VASE JAR"

 I quoted the description from the listing word for word deep at the end of the listing "I am not positive if this jar would be of the period or possibly a later",

The description did not say  "Joanie" was selling the vase as a “a later  example and is not 19th century"  

As for the other vase that sold for $45,000, this was a well known sale within the trade nearly a year ago. The sale got a lot of attention from Mainland Chinese heavyweights who bought most of the auction. Nor were there any accusations or knocks regarding the quality of the items.  Its a shame they haven't' been able to do another, but then REAL things are hard to find. 

Here is a link to the sale: CLICK TO VIEW "PRINCE CASTLE AUCTIONS" 

A review of the sale with more images

I do not want to get involved in the discussion above in dating this vase, but I do feel that there are a lot of honest dealers out there which are getting caught out with these copies, not knowing what they are buying. At the end of the day there has been good salerooms which also have been caught out with these copies, so if you are not sure do not buy it. Be careful, I have also been caught out a few times myself, but I have only just started dealing in Chinese. These are two things I have bought, which were fakes, good fakes in my opinion.  One of them, I know that the dealer who was selling them had sold at least four over a period of two months, according to what I heard from a couple of other people in the trade. Like Peter has mentioned in the past, these auction rooms do not care about what they are selling, it is all about the money. If someone is not prepared to give you a receipt, saying what it is or the auction room is being very vague about what they are selling, stay away. Things has been faked for years, so what do you call a fake, something made fifty years ago or ten years ago? Some of the top auction rooms, the big names, has had fakes going through their sales not knowing. There are some very clever people out there, so watch out.