There are a couple of things that come to mind, or red flags .

Why sell such a valuable box on ebay (he gives examples of others sold at auction for high prices) ? A genuine qianlong box like this would be indeed worth 10s of thousands of pounds/dollars.

The photography is terrible - photo one is professionally done and 'photoshopped' to minimize the colour variation between the dragons and the inner detail (which has darkened) but the other photos are awful , unsharp, in bad light and hard to study. 

The box looks C19th rather than C18th to me .  Just from the uniformity of the wave background, and its limited depth,

the rim of the base and lid , which looks identical to C19th round boxes with more conventional decoration (elders in the garden type boxes), and the scale - these dragon boxes in the C18th tend to be much larger, and the sides rounded (not sure?). This box is the size of typical C19th examples.

But I'm not an expert, you would need to compare in detail the way the dragons are carved, and the treatment of the wave inner details. 

Cinnabar lacquer is almost impossible to fake, given the painstaking process of layering and carving , and modern resin copies are nowhere  close the originals, so I think this is old , just not C18th. But I think the condition of the box, especially the colour variation , is going to disappoint the buyer. 

One other thought... three claw dragons tend to be found on Japanese objects , could this also be Japanese ?

Hi tam,

Thanks for your input and thoughts therein, very much appreciated.

You are correct the Japanese dragon do have three claws.

Korean ones have four.

According to wiki the four claw was reserved for imperial nobility and top ranking officials.

The three claw was for lower ranks and the general public as widely seen in the Ming period.

I do however agree with your concerns raised. That is why I asked for opinions on this forum.

According to the seller Sotheby's emailed him and informed him that the images he forwarded suggested probably Qianlong period but could be later, or wording to that effect and that the value for auction in the range of 8000 - 10000 pounds. I note said email not attached!

To me there is just something I cant figure out with this item. Something perhaps not right. I don't know a I only looked at it for about five minutes and then emailed the seller for more information. I then posted this question.

I have also have been very sick with the flu which is taking its toll on me.

I would have asked peter but if I recall I believe it ends in a day and half. 

So unless peter looks at this forum today or indeed anybody else who may be able to clarify whether they think it is or is not what it is being sold as.

Alarm bells went of with low ranking feedback, quality of as you have pointed out the pics, high estimate from auction house and selling to ever is the highest bidder etc.

Thank you Tam for your quick response. You are a legend.

Regards

Mark

Hey. These turn up a lot at auction houses and big antique fairs on the continent. From a distance they look quite convincing but when you get up close you can see the air bubbles and feel the sharp touch of molten plastic. This one has been given some cracks and a coat of dust but it is made of resin and is a replica. J

You can see how gentle and soft the carving is on a real one, like it's carved from soap:

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2007/fine-chinese-ceramics-works-of-art-l07210/lot.75.html?locale=en

Dear Forum members,

This is what I can add to the discussion of this cinnabar box, for what it's worth.

I also mailed the seller, and in contrast to you, Mark, he did include an extract of the email response that he had had from Sotheby's. This email was sent on behalf of Stephen Loakes. I know Stephen Loakes, he's a senior specialist in Sotheby's Bond Street, though I haven't had time to get on to him about this box or to verify with him that he authorised the email that the eBay seller gave me an extract from. However, from my experience in dealing with Sotheby's, the email extract looks correct, the kind of thing Sotheby's would send, and I don't believe it's bogus.

HOWEVER, a number of things worry me. First, Stephen Loakes was working from images provided, not from actual physical inspection. That makes a world of difference. The estimate he had suggested, based on the images, was a guide price with Sotheby's of £6,000-8,000. Would he have held the same view if he'd physically handled it? Second, the eBay seller said that the box's provenance was a Belgian auction house. If so, I don't know where. In fact, the box appears to have been offered not in Belgium, but quite recently in Sweden, at Bukowski's, a respected business. Check out the Bukowski link here and you will see that the first eBay image of the box has in fact been lifted from the Bukowski catalogue:

https://www.bukowskis.com/en/auctions/609/639-ask-med-lock-lack-qingdynastin-med-qianlongs-sex-karaktarers-marke?from_language=sv

With Bukowski's, it appears to have made 380,000 SEK. I think the eBay box is the exact same Bukowski box, but what on earth is happening here? It's a scenario that doesn't fully stack up for me. So this is how the story goes: the box sells in Bukowski's for a large sum not so long ago, then pictures of it find their way to Sotheby's Bond Street (either before, or after, its outing with Bukowski's, I'm not sure which way around), where it's given a provisional thumbs up, and then it finally appears here on eBay. I had considered bidding on it, for to my eye, going on the pictures of it, it doesn't raise the issues that it has raised for some other Forum members in this thread. But there are too many unanswered questions about its recent history for me to feel comfortable about it. For that reason, I won't be placing any bids.

Regards to all,

Alan

EDIT:

There is something incredibly strange about how similar the boxes are yet how different. I've taken images from the Bukowski catalogue and put them next to the ebay images. With the photos of the mark, ebay is on the left and Bukowski on the right. On the next two, ebay is on the right and Bukowski on the left.

The bases look completely different to my eyes. And there's something weird about the mark. There are tiny tiny differences. Yes the cracks are in the same places. But study the characters. The most obvious differences are in the 'LONG' character (middle bottom). Also there is patination missing on the ebay example and the cracks seem deeper and lack variation in deepness / thickness.

Call me crazy, but I think they are different boxes. (the ebay one being a direct mould of the Bukowski example). Which is why the bases and patina are different and why the details are 99% the same but just not quite 100% the same. 

J

The character on the left looks like a mould of the one on the right.

In the one on the right you can make out the edge of the calligrapher's knife, where it has cut into the wood.

The one on the left has a totally different appearance, it doesn't look natural, it looks like am impression made in putty.

Anyone see what I mean? 

Maybe modern techniques like 3d print could make it possible to scan an old piece and copy it almost perfectly.

Dear James,

Would you not agree that the first picture of the eBay listing is the self-same same picture featuring on Bukowski's web catalogue? I think there is little doubt about it.

Here they are side by side for comparison:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Fine-Antique-Chinese-Cinnabar-Lacquer-Nine-Dragon-Box-Qing-Dynasty-18th-C/283059527798

https://www.bukowskis.com/en/auctions/609/639-ask-med-lock-lack-qingdynastin-med-qianlongs-sex-karaktarers-marke?from_language=sv

I can't get to the bottom of this eBay listing, and as a result, haven't enough confidence about it to warrant placing any bids.

Alan

Yes, the first picture of the Ebay entry is of better quality and white balance than the other pictures. It seems like the seller stole the first picture from Bukowski as a good looking front for his fake article.

Hi Alan. Yes, definitely the same image. 

I actually think the soapstone carving the seller has listed is also made of resin. There is no depth or translucency to the 'stone' and the edge of the base and the base itself look totally wrong.