I think this just emphasises the importance of good well regarded publications and the importance of building a library along with visiting museums and such. 

Too much information out there . Anyone can build a website and claim to be a specialist . 

Carl

Dear Carl -

I totally agree, well researched publications with high quality images are important, and a good library is almost a prerequisite for continual reference. Visiting museum to look at pieces, as well as reliable dealers and the auction houses is see and handle as many objects as possible is essential. I would advise a degree of caution at the auction houses however as these, no matter now reputable, are not immune to mistakes and errors. I have seen a large number of fakes passing through over the years, one must be careful!!

Dear Giovanni -

you may like to view the website of this London based specialist Oriental art book dealer:- 

www.hanshan.com

who can get hold of most publications, but is not cheap!!

Stuart

Thank you dear Stuart.

Best regards

Giovanni

@ Stuart (Ming1449) That book you recommend from Hubei Provincial Museum, do you think it would be worth buying just for the pictures in order to make comparisons of the bubble size/distribution seen in a suspected authentic Yuan or Ming dynasty piece. I have a Xuande style blue and white dragon jar that was bought as 19th century but to me looks like it might be the real deal. In general do you think that a study of the bubbles in the glaze can still be considered a guide-line in the process of correctly dating or authenticating porcelain. And also do you know some good books in English on the subject? For various reasons I'm a little hesitate of sending pictures of my jar to Christie's or Sotheby's and TL-testing is both expensive and not always reliable...

....instead bubbles are VERY reliable and precise.

Hi Corey - 

The Hubei publication is fine if you just need images of bubble size/distribution and cobalt surface burn but, as mentioned, the best duel language book is the NPM 2000 publication which has excellent images, English essays and descriptions.

A word of caution however, you can not use one or two features to authentic or dismiss any piece.

As an example, much has been written regarding bubble distribution on the glaze surface of Yongle and Xuande wares exhibiting     the texture of an orange, the so called ‘orange peel’ effect. Whilst this is indeed true on many pieces I have handled, it is not true of all pieces, some E15th wares exhibit totally smooth surfaces!

So if one was just using the ‘orange peel’ texture as authentication, one good easily dismissed a genuine piece! 

In fact there are several known differences between Imperial Yongle and Xuande objects. These include overall proportions and size, width, trimming/finish of foot rim, and weight. But the most important is the painting style, execution of compositions and, to some extent the combinations of motifs used.

Painting style is critical in determining the possible period of any object, and also therefore whether it is authentic, a later copy, a modern piece or a fake! 

Before I joined this Forum I took the time to read most of post within the diffirent section entries. It was quickly obvious, through answers given, that there are some very knowledgeable people who contribute here!

I did read and view the post regarding your Xuande style b/w dragon/cloud jar. IMO this is fairly new, and is attempting to copy a Yongle period reconstructed jar excavated from the Yongle layer at the Imperial Kiln site in 1994.

I attached images of your piece and the Yongle jar for comparison.

I hope all the above is of some help.

Stuart.

Hi Corey -

In the post regarding you cited a link to lot 149, a Xuande marked b/w square basin, decorated with yinglong dragons amongst waves and clouds, from the I. M. Chait sale, held on 20 March 2016. 

Again this piece is clearly a modern fake, again attempting to copy of a reconstructed basin, excavated at the Imperial kiln site from the Xuande layers in 2004. 

I attached images of the I. M.  Chait basin and a large shard - H 31 cm/W 20 cm - from the Imperial kilns for comparison. 

Look very closely at the painting style on the shard - the differences are obvious when compared to the modern copy.

Again, I hope this is of some help ...

Stuart

Thank you for the reply. I must say that it would have been kind of you not to copy the pictures. You could have posted a link to the thread with the jar instead. Then the other readers of this thread would also see that in fact the whole reason why the jar caught my interest in the first place was because of the existance of the very similar excavated jar from the Yongle period at Henan Museum.

https://bidamount.com/the-bidamount-asian-art-forum/suspected-fakes-copies-being-sold/fake-xuande-underglaze-red-dragon-bowl-on-ebay

If the jar I have should be a copy of that one it must be later than 1994 where the Yongle period jar was found but in my opinion it appears to be genuinely antique. If you could have posted another similar example in a museum or a private collection it would have been interesting since that would increase the likeliness that my jar is actually an antique copy. That said, there probably are other examples of similar period jars hidden in collections somewhere that I don't know of.

I don't think lot 1954, the Xuande bassin, is fake since I. M. Chait is an experienced and renowed dealer and auctioneer and also there was a provenance in the form of some named Los Angeles collector. But the reason why I posted that one was because it was the only Xuande period example with an entirely flat base I could find online. But just now I coincidentally came across another one at  The Museum of Oriental Ceramics, Osaka, and this time even a jar in very similar shape.

https://alaintruong2014.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/xuande-mark-and-period-porcelains-at-the-museum-of-oriental-ceramics-osaka/

All the other example I have seen, old or new, have had a footring. So I've got to say thanks for bringing me a little step further. Now I must carry on with a closer study of the bubbles as I have already done comparisons of the heap and pile which looks very authentic...

Dear Stuart,

you make me happy! When I saw that square basin with the winged dragon in the previous thread, my immediate reaction was: “it’s a blatant fake!”

But then because of the provenance I keep quiet, although convinced of my idea about it.

I am very happy that you too think the same!

A note about what you said here above, that by judging a piece by a feature like the bubbles, one can risk to pass a genuine piece. Much worst, IMO, and surely much frequent due to the great number of fakes, is the fact that many could think that their fake piece is genuine because of the bubbles, or the heap and pile effect.

I am very happy in hearing that you too are basing your opinion mainly on the painting style, which is the more correct approach and that I continue stressing. All the rest comes after that.

Best regards

Giovanni

Stuart and Giovanni, I absolutely agree with you. The painting style is the most important criterion to judge an item. If it looks stiff or not in accordance with the time there’s no sense in looking further (bubbles, form, glaze etc.)

The second criterion (if the painting style looks ok) is the foot rim. I have noticed that instead of trying to copy old foot rims many fakers now use the unglazed base as it’s obviously easier to produce. So an unglazed base is as much a warning sign to me as a dirty glazed one. 

The tricky thing is that high end antique porcelain often has perfect foot rims. Below are two pictures of Ming porcelain I took in the V&A museum. If you asked me I would have said it must be a modern fake, made yesterday. Luckily the items we usual people can afford have ordinary foot rims that help in dating them. 

Hi Corey - 

Firstly, apologies for copying the image, I ment no offense.  

Secondly, whilst respecting your opinion on your piece, if one compares the painting style of the excavated Yongle jar and the painting style on your jar, the differences are very clear - look carefully at the brush strokes and details on the Yongle jar, they emanate movement, power and freedom, the dragon and clouds flow beautifully. These are absent on your jar, the drawing is somewhat stiff and placed - it lacks the movement and flow. 

I do not know I. M. Chait so can not comment on either his reputation, experience  or that of the Chinese art specialist within those auction rooms. But all auction houses, no matter how reputable can and do make occasional errors and mistakes. Provenance of a piece can be very important, but only if back up with genuine documentation, such as dealer and collectors labels, images within older publications and past exhibitions, but even old lables and dealer recipes are been faked now. Apart from the named Los Angeles collector, no other provenance details of lot 149 were given. 

This square basin shape was unknown before the 2003/4 Imperial kiln excavations but even if it had been, when comparing the painting style of lot 149 and that of the shard posted, the differences are obvious - the I. M. Chait piece is clearly a modern fake. 

As for other Xuande wares with flat bases please see the attached images. The small cricket cage was excavated from the Xuande layers at Imperial kiln site in 2014. The reconstructed bowl with Yinglong dragons/waves was excavated from thr Imperial kilns in 1982, the similar but slightly smaller complete bowl is in the Percival David Foundation, British Museum. Both these large bowls are described as having a ‘flat, unglazed base’ - unfortunately I do not have base images for either piece.

From the images posted the Xuande jar you cite as been a ‘very similar shape’ to your piece, ex Ataka collection and know in the MOC, Osaka, is rather different, both in overall shape and proportions to your jar, IMO. 

Dear Giovanni - 

The Xuande square Yinglong/wave b/w basin offered for sale is an obvious fake - the stated provenance is meaningless in this case - the painting style alone indicates its a modern copy. 

I concur totally with you comments regarding fakes been considered as genuine based on the presence of either the heap and pile effect, bubble distribution or indeed in some case both. 

The panting style is critical - the most important factor  - when looking at any object. If that appears correct then everything else comes after.

I am pleased all the above ‘makes you happy’!!??

Dear Birgit,

As above with Giovanni, I totally agree. If the motifs or designs look stiff, placed or do not conform with the preposed period this will, usually, betray the ‘fakers hand’. I would also concur that for the copyists and fakers an unglazed base is easier, and more cost effective, to produce.

The footrims of most, though not all, Imperial pieces, are indeed beautiful finished and look ‘perfect’. This is especially true of 15th century wares, but this changed somewhat in the 16th century, especially during the Jiajing/Wanli periods due to the huge orders placed. 

With best regards,

Stuart.

I'm still not convinced lot 194 at I. M. Chait is fake. But I was impressed that you know of the existance of a sherd from a similar bassin. You say it was excavated in 2003/2004 and if I understand you right you mean that the Chait bassin is a copy based solely on that single sherd which mean that it should have enetered the Wolch Collection, cited as the provenance, later than 2004. I find that a little hard to belive but if that is the case I must say I'm impressed how advanced the copyists are. 

I just did an online search for the picture of the sherd and came across this site with  another example of the bassins you posted. Even on these bassins a difference in the painting style can be seen. On this one the cobalt blue bleeds extensively almost like on the Yongle jar.

https://kknews.cc/history/eaj3o54.html

The contrast is even stronger when compared to yet another example found on the same site. 

https://kknews.cc/history/oobjm4p.html

Likewise the painting style of the jar I have is indeed different to the Yongle jar but compares well with other Xuande period examples like these two jars in Metropolitan and Idemitsu museum collections, both depicted in a Sotheby's catalogue. But let's not continue a discussion regarding that jar. I'll go with a study of the bubbles and then eventually contact an auction if it seems relevant.

http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2016/05/29/33884119.html

Hi Corey - 

I do not know whether the Chait basin was made based on the published single shard, but the 2002/4 excavations uncovered what may be a complete destroyed example, mixed in with other debris, see attached images. I only have the shard image, published in book published in 2009 that covered these excavations. 

I am also unaware if the Jingdezhen Ceramic Institute have yet to reconstruct these basin shards and, if they have, whether it has subsequently been published.

Stuart

Hi Corey - 

As for the copyist, they can and do produce fakes very quickly.

On 17 October 2017 Sotheby’s HK sold a Xuande marked Guan decorated with ‘kui’ dragons, lot 101, with provenance back to the early 1960’s. It realised nearly HK$35.6 million. 

Another ‘rare example’ of these guans appeared for sale on the website of a Indonesia dealer.  Clearly a fake, and not a particular good example, this piece had been made, broken and reconstructed within just 5 weeks of Sotheby’s HK sale.

This is just but one example of how quickly such pieces are produced, trying not only to cash in on the sale of a genuine object, but also catching out the unwary!!

Attached images of both the Sotheby’s and fake for comparison. 

Stuart