Hi Jamie.

So, you saw that I went to the mat in defense of your famille verte bowl, and I stated right away that this vase was probably late 19th c., so I hope you know that I try to be fair and supportive when possible.

This vase is not like the Ming or transitional wucai in several areas.

First off, you should have left the ‘CHINA’ mark on the bottom as it added support to the late 19th assessment. Now, there will be those who will question the age.

Why not Ming?

The dragons are rendered in late Qing style.

The red is iron based (orange color), not copper (red).

The porcelain paste is late Qing, not Ming or transitional.  The foot rim shows the nature of the paste as well as the style of foot used in the late Qing.

The mark is written poorly, although personally I’m not a great judge of marks.

The wear is consistent with late 19th c. and a reflection of the less stable enamels used at that time.  Period Ming would have more stable enamels, but likely show more wear due to age and use (for example, the slip on the mouth of genuine Ming vases tend to have wear in areas right down to the unglazed porcelain - Qing might only show a few scratches).

Your vase is a copy of Ming wucai, so of course there are aspects that look Ming.  BUT, it is best to approach each and every piece you research from the negative.  Ask yourself, ‘What about this piece isn’t right?’

One problem or area of concern is enough to prove beyond doubt that a piece is a copy - I’ve proven this in many of my own posts where my colleagues here in the forum have been gracious to show me I was wrong.

I hate to be told I’m wrong, but it’s the only way I learn, so I lick my wounds and move on.

Now it’s your turn. The bowl was a good buy…this vase…no.

Best of luck with future buying.

Thanks, Bro. greatly appreciated. So the vase is what I purchased it as. The glaze and trimming of the foot is so damn good! I'm not unhappy about buying. Sincerely, JT

Oh by the way Greeno, the export stamp came off by itself when I hit with a little easy off. JT

Compare to the real thing….

https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6043256

The glaze ending perfectly at the feet and the foot trimming of late 19th pieces can be amazingly good. 

Thanks, I was wondering what happened to the red China mark. 

@loveli4236 I guess that's why they call it easy off. The stuff works.

@loveli4236 

Hi Jamie -

Concur with Greeno, very far from 16thC Ming or mid 17thC Transitional ... 

The painting style, enamel tones, handles type, shape/profile and writing of the six-character Jiajing mark are all wrong for such ...

As before, I will defer to others regarding dating attribution ...

Stuart 

Dear Jamie,

well I am condemned to repeating again and again the same thing. It seems that there is no way to avoid that, except keeping silent.

You said that you are educated in fine Art. Then, let me ask you a simple question.

If you see an oil panted canvas, which quality is clearly of the average type that can be found at tons in any church (at least here in Italy), will you suspect that it could be a, let say, Guido Reni work? Will you suspect that, or the style of the painting will immediately keep your feeling really far from thinking about Guido Reni? That will be enough and stop all the hypothesis/elucubration about it.

But suppose that somebody, not educated, will ask you if it could be a Guido Reni work. What you will do to verify if it is or not, will you look at the painting style first, or will you look at the type of canvas, the frame, the oil colors? Wouldn’t these be the last thing to check, and only check after having concluded that it could be ok?

Isn’t all the above logical? Especially if you are educated in appreciating fine Arts, as for your premise?

If so, why are you only mentioning here enamels, paste, foot, and all details that taken alone are not useful? Why you didn’t simply google for Ming wucai or Transitional wucai vase and check the painting style? The answer will immediately be clear.

Dear Greeno, please take it with good mood. Recently, in another thread, I said that I would avoid to comment many inconsistencies said by some posters, and you suspected that you could be one of them. Yes, you were 😊.

And still are 😊:

You said here that the dragon is rendered in late Qing style. I would never think that this dragon could be late Qing, it is quite far from late 19^th / early 20^th dragons.

Then you see a problem because the red is iron based and not copper based. Do you know what is wucai? Where have you seen a Ming or Transitional wucai with copper red enamel?

I do not comment what you said about the wear, because it is not clear (at least to me), since you are mentioning at the same time enamels, slip, glaze and unglazed area, and it is not clear what you mean.

These are misleading, because a novice could take that dragon as typical Qing, and think that wucai had overglaze copper red.

But you are very right on one thing. I fully agree with you that being shown where we are wrong, is the best way for learning and moving on.

Regards,

Giovanni

@clayandbrush Once in a while the sun and the moon cross paths during an eclipse. They seem to be practically touching, but they are always millions of miles apart.  This is the situation you and I share.

I hold no ill feelings for the differences of our views.

However, I hope you will present evidence that supports your views, rather than just stating your objections.

Is the red in Wucai of the Ming and early Qing made from copper or iron?  I believe copper.

What elements did they use for the red enamel on wucai?

Wikipedia states wucai porcelain ‘… normally uses underglaze cobalt blue for the design outline and some parts of the images, and overglaze enamels in red, green, and yellow for the rest of the designs.’

Please advise how I’m wrong.

To correct your quote that I said the dragons are in the ‘Qing style’, I said ‘LATE Qing style’.  

You forgot a very important part.

I stand by my statement - the dragons look like hundreds of late 19th c. porcelains I have seen.

Earlier Qing dragons styles are quite different from one period of the Qing to the next.

Sorry to read you don’t understand my comments on the wear. 

Anyway my friend… for all that you’ve said about struggling with language in this forum, you seem to grasp sarcasm remarkably well.

All the best!

This thread is demonstrating perfectly why Greeno and Giovanni need to star together in reality show about collecting Asian antiques. I suggest the title "Seeking Kangxi" be used. It would be good tv, I'm telling you. Somebody make this happen. 

@johnshoe Let me give that idea of a show some careful…No.

Dear Greeno,

first at all let make clear one thing. When speaking in my language, I can eb very sarcastic, but believe me, in all faith, I was not sarcastic at all in my comments above. Really. If I have appeared as such, I am asking to be apologized.

But in all faith, I have read and re-read what I have written, and I do not see any sarcasm. I actually tried to be amiable, but with all evidence I failed. Sorry, please apologize.

Said that, let come back to the questions.

Dragon. I repeat: where have you seen a Qing dragon painted that way? The scales are not Qing, but alas trying more to copy Ming. The hair are typically Ming.

Please ask our Ming expert Stuart if in his opinion the dragon is more trying (just trying) to look Ming or Qing.

Wucai. That Wikipedia definition is not saying that the red is copper not iron. Just red. Please show a wucai item with overglaze copper red. You will not find it. Not only the red wucai is iron red, but the later famille verte red too is iron red. Again, please ask Stuart.

After having checked all the above, and after having seen that both my statements are correct, I am expecting that you will accomplish your sentence, as I would, and admit that it has been a learning experience.

Let me add that if I were in your place, I would not answer that I am sorry if I have not been understood (regarding the wear) but would rather try to express my meaning more clearly. And I am not sarcastic, just my own opinion.

Please check who has been wrong, after that I am always ready to shake your hand.

Regards,

Giovanni

@clayandbrush 

Perhaps I misunderstood the implications of the article as it does say ‘under glazed’ and not all Ming red glazes. But, the dark red of the wucai seems a long way off from the orange colors in the 19th c wucai. Is this not the reason why?

https://www.gotheborg.com/qa/manganese_red.shtml