I am really disappointed to read that you feel that I am taking our discussion personally, or worse, to think that you believe my disagreements with you are personal attacks on you.

It never occurred to me that you have any difficulty with English, you are very articulate, but if I have misunderstood your position due to a matter of translation, my apologies.  

I had hopes to persuade you to broaden your view of what you currently consider Kangxi revival, but you seem unwilling to give the light of day to any new concept coming from me - I think we had this issue in a previous discussions.  I'll avoid this mistake in future posts.

Dear Greeno, this is what I said:

“As for Kangxi revival, the definition has been made for identifying Guangxu ware that are imitating as close as possible the originals. If a b&w jar that is clearly 19th C. or later should be identified as Kangxi revival only because it is carrying an apocryphal Kangxi mark, then a Kangxi bowl bearing the apocryphal Xuande mark should be called “Xuande revival”?

I am against the not correct use of terminology, it is disguising.

It is not right that a 19th century pot, or even much modern as it happens to see, is called famille verte only because it has some green. That is ridiculous. The definition has been made well after Kangxi for identification of a well-defined type of ware, mainly Kangxi. It is ridiculous to call famille verte a much later item, unless it is copying in all its features an original famille verte one, as it is often seen in real Kangxi revival.

I would not call the following item Famille noire (sorry dear Martin):

https://bidamount.com/the-bidamount-asian-art-forum/main-forum/a-famille-noir-ewer-europe-1920s-goes-to-far#post-45136

It has nothing to do with the type of ware for which the definition has been made.”

Did I say that you are thinking that the presence of green on any item is enough for calling it famille verte?

Or was I explaining why I do not think that it is correct to call Kangxi revival anything clearly later, only because it is bearing the Kangxi mark?

This is your reaction:

“You asked if I thought a Kangxi bowl bearing the apocryphal Xuande mark should be called “Xuande revival” - No.  Apples and oranges. As you know, during the Kangxi there was no time period of renewed interest in Xuande ware, and the use of the mark had to do with the restrictions placed upon using Kangxi marks.”,

and

“As for your suggestion that by my definition of 'revival' that somehow I am suggesting that a green vase could be considered famille verte simply on the merits of its color is completely ridiculous. In fact, I made very clear that 'revival' wares were determined by the time period made, not the manor/quality of the decor  - that actually seems to be your position, and an incorrect one.”

I have invented nothing; I didn’t say that you believe etc. etc. etc., I brought examples.

You are who said that I am saying that you believe etc. etc. etc., which to me means that you took all that as a personal attack.

It is not like that? Is it a misunderstanding? That’s fine, happy to hear that.  

I do not remember if we had a sort of bad discussion in the past, my memory is no more so good. But in principle, saying that “I had hopes to persuade you to broaden your view of what you currently consider Kangxi revival, but you seem unwilling to give the light of day to any new concept coming from me” it presumes that you are convinced of having the truth. For this, I can only repeat what already said: “As I said at the beginning of my post, we all form our ideas based on our personal experience and knowledge. It is all said there.”

Be sure that I am open to broaden my view, if facing substantiated new opinions. Substantiated, backed by solid arguments. My idea about Kangxi revival is not my personal idea, it is what said by better experts than myself, and I go after them.

Kangxi revival is what, at first glance, could be spotted as Kangxi or as copying Kangxi.

B&W doesn’t mean Kangxi, nor a Kangxi mark on something that clearly it isn’t. To me.

Regards,

Giovanni

Going to try this again. A lot of members don’t speak English as a first language. I have noticed that the translation software might be causing some translation issues. This problem is really noticeable on Gotheborg. Sometimes it makes a persons response sound sharp. Correct punctuation and grammar helps to minimize the software overtone. 

In truth Greeno and Giovanni, I think you both pretty much agree with each other, with the only difference perhaps being that Giovanni might use a slightly more specific standard for the quality of decoration he considers something must have to be considered Kangxi revival. That threshold for how similar to original Kangxi something has to be in order to qualify is to some degree a matter of opinion that well informed collectors are allowed to disagree on. With that said, I bet the two of you would agree on 95 out of 100 Kangxi revival pieces, so it seems unfortunate you both seem to think there is some big disagreement and are so offended about it. At any rate, you two are allowed to have a slightly different interpretation of Kangxi revival and discuss it without it having to become some great duel. So for everyone's sake, please call a truce, and keep having discussions with each other on other topics in the future, because we will all learn and benefit from that. Cheers!  John

@clayandbrush Questioning and/or disagreeing with another persons beliefs is not a personal attack, provided we are doing so in the context of the topic of discussion - it is the process of how we learn.  Arguably, the most and best learning is when we are told we are wrong in our thinking, we are forced to reflect and re-evaluate the facts, and more often than not, we move closer to truth.

You wrote - "Be sure that I am open to broaden my view, if facing substantiated new opinions. Substantiated, backed by solid arguments. My idea about Kangxi revival is not my personal idea, it is what said by better experts than myself, and I go after them."

I do believe when you make a statement in a forum, whether you say 'I believe' or not, or whether or not 100 other experts made the same statement, the statement is inherently your belief, too.  The same is true when you choose to contradict a statement.  

I also think it is important to repeat back how you have interpreted others ideas back to them, so they can clarify if there was a misunderstanding of the meaning.

None of this should be considered personal, and the suggestion of such is to overlook the academic merits of a forum.

If you are not making statements of your personal beliefs, then who are you speaking for when you write or respond in this forum?  Let them speak for themselves if that is the case.

One final thought.  I am sure that you have had many great teachers and have acquired tremendous knowledge and experience over the years.  However, the fact that I do not mention their names as a way to bolster the validity of my statements does not mean that my statements are mine alone, and not based upon prior discussions with credible experts, too.

Learning from other experts also does not exclude the possibility that we might have learned incorrectly, either by the discovery of new facts, or simple misunderstanding.  At least that is true for me.

With regards to giving the names of my sources (like Michael Vermeer), it has, and will continue to be, my practice to keep my discussions with colleagues and experts private.  But, I still like to share what I've learned from them, and so I put out a nugget or two once in a while in this forum.

Fortunately, since many of these prior discussions were done by Email, I kept a file for reference purposes.

So, for the first time ever, here is one of many conversation I had with my mentor, a 2nd generation collector and scholar, in April 2010.  the discussion is regarding Famille Noire, and as it so happens, Cixi Dowager's interest in Famille Noire (not just Kangxi wares as you previously mentioned) is referenced.

I'm posting this conversation because it mentions the high price of genuine Kangxi famille noire porcelains which led to the production of late 19th c. copies to fill the demand - the same was true with blue and white...perhaps more so.

Hopefully you don't think that I just fabricated this message for the sake of this discussion.

"Dear (Greeno),

Just like "Clair de Lune", genuine Famille Noire (and the associated groups) pieces, are EXTREMELY rare.
 
Famille Noire is a complex subject and I quite like Famille Noire.
 
1st group: Kangxi Famille Noire: This is a group of FAMILLE VERTE painted on a Black ground. Within this group, there are a few sub-groups. Recently, in the the 80th (1980), many famous museums had to reconsidered the whole "Famille Noire" pieces in their collection, including British Museum, Victoria & Albert Museum, etc... I was part of this research :-). Because many pieces were wrongly attributed as Kangxi Famille Noire, but in fact they are Kangxi-style made in the late 19thC by special order of the Empress Dowager Cixi who was very fond of the genuine Kangxi Famille Noire (see 3rd Group). As a result, many large museums only have a very few genuine Kangxi Famille Noire pieces.
 
2nd Group: Black-ground with Green enamelled pieces, produced in the 18thC. These are SPLENDID small pieces (it is VERY rare to find large pieces (big vase), but it exists), exquisitely painted. The subject is painted using only green enamel (not Famille Verte), on a "black" ground. This black ground is not really black, but a successive layers of dark green glaze. For genuine pieces, it is EXTREMELY difficult to control this "black" color in the kiln. Most of the pieces (99%) were not successfully made and therefore had to be destroyed!!! As a result, VERY FEW pieces have survived from the Yongzheng and Qianlong periods. Pieces from the Kangxi have not yet been discovered to my knowledge.
 
3rd Group, "Cixi late 19thC Famille Noire": This group, Kangxi-style, is composed of lovely pieces, very well rendered and are precious. They were special orders by Empress Dowager Cixi.
 
Copies produced in the 20thC are not at all the same, to say the least...
 
Because of the extreme rarity of the genuine Famille Noire pieces, since the 19thC, collectors started to acquire the Famille Noire pieces for their collection and therefore, the prices for these pieces have gone up considerably. In the early 20thC, the prices of these pieces were exhorbitant. Many collectors have acquired pieces belonging to the 3rd Group and later donated their pieces to the museums... Only in the 80th that a clearer picture was established for the Famille Noire, to distinguish the genuine Kangxi Famille Noire from the rest.
 
Enclosed are some pictures of the genuine Famille Noire pieces:
 
a) (above 1st Group) Kangxi Famille Noire Baluster Vase and Cover (a Jar), 59.8cmH, sold in 2000 for GBP 14,300 (now it could be 3 time higher).
 
b) (above 2nd Group) Yongzheng Black-Ground Green Enamelled Dish, 21.3cmD, sold in 2009 for EUR 65,000 (much higher price if sold by Christie's).
 
c) (above 3rd Group, Cixi late 19thC Famille Noire) A 19thC Famille Noire Square Vase, 55cmH, sold in 2002 for GBP 1,175.
 
 
It seems that the nice piece from Doyle, 28.5cmH (an inspiration from the above 2nd Group), was produced in the 19thC, sold for USD 2,250. Had it been a genuine 18thC, the price would have been over USD 100,000. And the owner (if well informed) would not have consigned it to Doyle 🙂
 
I personally believe that your piece is a mid-20thC. As mentioned above, the "black" ground color is extremely difficult to control and your pieces is an example of this difficult process. The feather of the Phoenix (Ho-Ho bird) was quickly rendered, in my view.
 
Hope you will find one day a genuine Famille Noire.
 
Kindest regards,

(omitted)"

Dear Greeno,

so let stay, for matter of be polite, of Forum’s policy and as also requested by others, on the technical points, letting aside personal’s convincement; I am sure you will agree.

I don’t know why you have reported here what said by your mentor about famille noire, BTW all what he said is well known and universally accepted, I think.

But I think that there is something that should be corrected. You said that “…. the discussion is regarding Famille Noire, and as it so happens, Cixi Dowager's interest in Famille Noire (not just Kangxi wares as you previously mentioned) is referenced.”

Is really that what your mentor meant? Are you sure that he wasn’t actually mean “Ciixi interest in famille noire because of her interest in Kangxi porcelain”?

I think that it should be more correct to say “… Cixi Dowager's interest in Kangxi ware (and not just Famille noire) is referenced.”

I say so because many times my mentor Michael Vermeer has repeatedly mentioned Cixi’s love for all things Kangxi. And it is her love for that, which largely influenced the reproduction of Kangxi ceramics.

In fact, dear Greeno, it is not only famille noire ware that was reproduced during Kangxi revival period.

I would also say that your mentor has not mentioned a large group of famille noire (at least I do not understand it within the three groups he mentioned), and it is the more difficult to spot.

During Kangxi revival, they did exactly what was done during Kangxi, regarding famille noire.

During Kangxi, famille noire was made by adding the black enamel to the background of famille verte ware.

This si exactly what has been made in many cases during Guangxu. They took original, genuine famille verte Kangxi pieces and refired them with the addition of the black enamel.

These are, obviously, the most dangerous pieces, because they are indeed originals, and what must be distinguished is the type/quality of the black enamel only.

Regards,

Giovanni

BTW I have never own a good famille noire piece. Later copies are so obviously fake, which is a further reason IMO for not calling them Kangxi revival.

@clayandbrush I am fortunate to have purchased a genuine Kangxi famille noire, which I promptly gifted to my teacher.  It has never happened again since.

Yes, Cixi loved all objects Kangxi, particularly famille noire.  I stated it poorly.  It is my understanding that genuine Kangxi famille verte were enameled with black to meet the demand, which I think shows her preference for noire, but this is just conjecture.

I've included the excerpt from my discussion from 11 years ago to show that my opinions did not come to me in a dream overnight...I'm still a student, but I've been engaging collectors, scholars, auction houses, and the such for the past 10 years, and I've made every attempt to handle as many genuine pieces that I can get my hands on.

Whether or not you think the content of this message from my mentor is common knowledge or not, it was not to me 11 years ago as I had only just begun to admire Chinese antiques, and it might not be common knowledge to many readers of this forum.  And for the record, it comes off rather condescending for you to critique that of all things - perhaps this is one of those language translation things.

Yes, the specifics of the discussion about the particulars of famille noire is not directly related to our discussion.  However, the part where my mentor mentions the economics and high demand is very relevant.

During this period of increased interest in Kangxi wares, the revival period, it would be impossible that every kiln would be able to produce near perfect copies of Kangxi wares given that artists had varying levels of knowledge and skill, and the high quality materials needed for making the enamels and porcelain were not equally distributed, nor adequate enough in supply to meet demand.

So, naturally, each kiln worked with what they had and produced Kangxi style pieces, some very much like genuine Kangxi, and others sadly created little more than cheap Guangxu porcelains with poorly drawn motifs of the Kangxi, or used Kangxi shaped vessels, or perhaps just wrote a Kangxi mark -  just enough to persuade an uninformed European collector in the early 1900's to buy it as 'Kangxi".  

Would that piece of junk be considered Kangxi revival ware?  I say yes, because calling a porcelain Kangxi revival is not an assessment of the quality of the porcelain's likeness to genuine Kangxi, but an assessment for the time period made, the late 19th c. when there was a renewed interest in Kangxi wares.  Of course the piece needs to have some connection in design to Kangxi, but it can be a badly rendered connection, and it still counts.

Now, to avoid looping around and around, I know you don't agree.  But, I'm telling you that if your definition of Kangxi revival ware is correct, then it would apply to every other form of revival ware... and it is not.

With that, we can agree to disagree and let the other members decide for themselves how they wish to measure what is Kangxi revival, and what is not.  I promise...no more posts from me on this thread.

Aye caramba!

@johnshoe  I love your diplomacy.  So, let me pose a scenario...I don't think I need a photo, but imagine a late 19th c. blue and white prunus jar without the cracked ice motif.  The porcelain has a high iron content, so the foot rim is orange, as well as being formed in a typical late 19th c. manner.  Is it Kangxi revival?

I say yes!  The design is derived from Kangxi, even though it lacks an important element of genuine Kangxi prunus jars, as well as being rendered from materials and in the manner of the Guangxu, the jar was created in the time of the Kangxi revival, and the artist's intention was to create a object that shares that connection.

My guess, Giovanni would disagree.

Look what you've done!  I've posted again to this thread after saying I wouldn't!  Damn you, John!

@greeno107   the answer is that I agree and would call it Kangxi revival as well. But allow me to propose a solution. How about we rank or grade Kangxi revival pieces, much like they do comic books. The great ones that even Giovanni would agree are Kangxi revival would be the highest graded type 8-10 range. The crappy ones you are talking about and the ones I seem to keep buying would be the 1-3 range, etc. How about that? Then instead of arguing if something is or isn't Kangxi revival we can debate what grade to give it. 

Revival is just another word to satisfy the dealer or collector but at the end of the day it’s an imitation. If it’s was made today we would all call it a fake or modern or imitation. But since it’s 100 years old we want to change the rule to say revival. I like the word “style” your 19th century jar is in the Kangxi style. If it’s made to deceive old or not it’s a Kangxi fake. If it’s undetermined it’s possible Kangxi. I don’t look at the revival anything but Qing period. But buy saying revival I guess it put a few dollars on the item. I hate when I good to Antique Mall and nothing is really Antique vintage crap. But no one would shop if it said modern looking vintage items at antique prices. Kangxi revival is no more that a 19th century fake copy or imitation.

@lotusblack  I can't believe you waded into this debate. Good luck!  

@greeno107  Was just looking at this and it made me think of your little vase that started this thread. Quite similar in certain ways I think.

https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/important-chinese-art/a-blue-and-white-figural-baluster-vase-mark-and