I also have been trying to find a comparison and only found the one posted above. I am intrigued, especially as you think it may be earlier, I hope someone, Stuart maybe, can confirm it.

For me, the male figure in particular does not look like Kangxi men are depicted. I don't know about earlier periods, but I have seen this style of drawing later.  I felt the decoration was too busy for the Yongzheng period, I may be wrong on that, and everything else of course, but the orange peel look to the base also makes me think Qianlong.

This is very interesting, looking forward to hearing more.

@julia Yes, very curious.  I'm starting to think the iron red around the unglazed inner ring is unrelated to the paste - it does not appear on the foot rim, which is the same paste.  So, I'll give it a gentle wash with soap and water later today, and see what happens.

Perhaps it is a very good 19th c. copy, but I've had many Kangxi revival pieces ... the ones I've handled are heavily potted, even when small in size.  This one is remarkably delicate.  But, if it turns out to be 19th c., it won't hurt my feelings any.

About 10 years ago, my mentor told me a story about a time he was asked to assess the collection of Famille Noir porcelains at the Victoria & Albert Museum.  After completing his research, it was discovered that nearly all the Famille Noir examples thought to be Kangxi were in fact either 19th c. revival, or Kangxi famille verte that had later been reglazed in the 19th c. as Noir due to its popularity at the time of the turn of the 20th c.

Mistakes happen.

I've been looking at the manner of how the clouds are rendered, that and the wide foot rim that takes up nearly the entire bottom of the box must be clues to its age.  I'm hoping someone finds another like it in their research.

19th century would be my second choice as the man is veering towards a 19th type but the eyes are wrong, I think.

It may be good if someone could check them out in the Eklof book, it may add something to the discussion.

I think the faces and dress, etc. look like either late Kangxi or Yongzheng/possibly early Qianlong. But my guess would be Yongzheng. At any rate 1710-1740 is my newbie assessment. Nice find! 

On the base of the paste box, it looks like it may have the Y pattern spur mark in one photo or it may just be the light. If it is Y then look at possibility if Japanese. I think both pieces lovely. Sharon

So, I've had my coffee, and I think I've solved a portion of the mystery.

The strange iron accumulation around the inner mouth of the top and bottom are from external sources... Not the paste.

The heavy crazing is because it is soft paste...I missed this because I just don't encounter it often. So, the soft paste has been contaminated.  I'll soak it in peroxide for a week...should clean up just fine.

Not 100% sure, but the use of soft paste is typically early 19th c. or earlier.  So, I don't believe it's late 19th c. revival.

Yongzheng? This would be a surprising design for the Yongzheng, but for those who have handled Yongzheng, you know the paste is remarkably similar.

My conclusion...Kangxi.  Compare to this example....

https://cathy-hunt.co.uk/kangxi-soft-paste-porcelain-box#gallery-1

@greeno107 Must have been the light, first photo of base of paste box, no spur Mark's, second photo close up of base must just be dimples in porcelain. I need to turn off spell check, it is giving everything to Mark again.

@greeno107 

Hi Greeno -

Just to illustrate figural painting progression, attached images:- 

1, large censer dated by inscription to Tiangi five year, so 1625, Butler Family Coll ...

2, large oviod jar/cover, Chongzhen period ca. 1635-40, Butler Family Coll ...

3, large dish, Shunzhi period ca. 1650-60, Butler Family Coll ...

4/5/6, small box/cover, early Kangxi period ca. 1662-75, Shanghai Museum ...

7/8/9, small box/cover, early Kangxi period ca. 1662-75, Shanghai Museum ...

10, small jar/cover, Kangxi period, Palace Museum, Gugong, Beijing ... 

If soft paste then certainly no earlier then 18th C, but really my area so I will defer to yourself and others to compare painting styles between these and your box/cover posted ... 

Perhaps if Giovanni@clayandbrush, who has great knowledge of such wares, see this thread he may like to comment ... 

Stuart 

Dear Greeno,

Since the first picture, I saw that it is a soft paste box, a nice one, and by the overall painting I thought that it should be mid 19^th century.

Soft paste was common then on small objects, especially snuff bottles, for example.

Going further in reading the thread, I see that you have found that it is soft paste. But Kangxi, no, it isn’t, and even less, early than that. As illustrated by Stuart, the painting style was completely different.

Difficult to date it exactly, but I remain with that opinion, about mid 19^th century, or a bit earlier or later.

Instead, it is not easy to date that vase, for what I know. It is a case when the piece must be handled to have the correct feeling of the glaze.

 Regards,

Giovanni

Following Greeno's and Giovanni's comments I have read up on soft paste porcelain and can see this is a fairly typical example. I always forget about it, thinking only of european soft paste. I know it is different and I guess I find it a bit confusing. For anyone else who may feel the same here is a link to an explanation.

http://gotheborg.com/glossary/softpaste.shtml

@clayandbrush and Stuart, Thank you!

I don't disagree at all, but how strange for Kangxi style design to appear outside the Kangxi not the late 19th c. revival.

I'm inclined to date it to late 19th c., just because that follows historical precedent.

Do either of you have any photos of examples of early-mud 19th c. Kangxi style porcelains?

In either case, it was fun to share and learn! Happy to have it regardless of age.

What about my.miniature vase? The application of the slip on the foot is not what I would expect on late Qing. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.

Dear Greeno,

why talking of Kangxi style? I didn’t say that the decoration on your pot is Kangxi style. Rather later 19^th century, if not mid century as I think.

If your box was Kangxi revival, the figures should look Kangxi, which is not the case.

As for the vase, I already said that I can’t have a sure opinion by the pictures only. It should be handled.

Regards,

Giovanni

@clayandbrush Oh...I think I understand.  

If I understand your position, if it is not rendered exactly like a Kangxi piece, with the exception of the paste, then it is not considered revival.

From my perspective, the influence of later Qing dynasty styles can be seen in almost every piece that I consider 'revival'.  For instance, there are countless prunus jars with 'cracked ice' design and Kangxi marks from the late 19 th c. that I consider 'revival', although they lack the cracked ice lines.  The the more figural decorations, dragon design, and the such.

Just think about the number of late 19th c. pieces that bear Kangxi marks, but the design is all wrong for the Kangxi.  Are these not considered 'revival'?  I think they are.

In my opinion, these type of contemporary influences that changed how the design was rendered do not disqualify it from being 'revival', but I have no issue if this is how you feel.

However, even by your perspective, that my box is not revival, I simply come up short with examples from other period of the Qing that produce similar blue and white wares depicting Romance of the Western Chamber.  I think I recall some Yongzheng examples that come very close, but I come up empty for anything in the 19th c., except towards the end.

Nevertheless, an interesting perspective to consider.  Thank you.

Well, dear Greeno, it is matter of opinions, I think.

I call “Kangxi revival” the ware that is copying Kangxi features, same motifs, same style of painting, same shape of vessels. Even the paste is better than other contemporary ware. Items that are immediately recalling the Kangxi ware and can even be trusted as genuine Kangxi to not experts.

I do not think that an item that is immediately spotted as much later should be called “Kangxi revival” only because it is bearing an apocryphal Kangxi mark. Kangxi revival ware was made with the intention of replicate the originals in the best possible way.

Regards,

Giovanni

@clayandbrush You're being awfully harsh to the artists of the 19th c., who commemorated the Kangxi with their interpretation of the 'Kangxi' wares, but whom fell short of your high standards.

I think it is far more accurate to say that a revival in the interest for the Kangxi style took place in the late 19th c., during which varying qualities of porcelains honoring the Kangxi were made, some better than others, but all of which were created during this period of increased interest, and therefor should be considered revival.

In other words, 'revival' is a measurement of a period of time of popularity that occurs after the original period of creation, not a measurement of quality.

If it was intended as a measurement of quality, than all 'revival' period objects (Gothic, Egyptian, Greek, etc) would be determined by subjective assessment of their quality of rendering, rather than the period made.  That's not how it works.

I really do appreciate your remarks, and yes, you and I differ on our views on this piece - that's okay, no harm and no fowl. However, I think your assessment of the age of my box as mid-19th c. is incorrect.

I have never, never, never seen blue and white scene rendered in anything close to this manner from the mid-19th c., and my aversion to believing that I have found a one of a kind anomaly from that period is beyond my ability to suspend reasonable disbelief. 

As I said before, I can accept the possibility that the box is just a nicely rendered late 19th c. example, but in handling the box, I am quite comfortable assigning an earlier age of 17th/18th c.