Hi,

I am not going to be terribly helpful, I'm afraid.  I agree, yours is the more interesting design, but the dots bother me.  Why not make those into small flowers?  Why did the artist run out of inspiration?  The shape is a little odd, as though it changed its mind half way through manufacture, but being unusual may be in its favour.  

The other vase must be Kangxi if Peter put it in his video.  The foot looks rather chubby, the glaze inside the footrim isn't very neat and the design seems rather slapdash compared to most Kangxi pieces.  To be totally honest, if you told me only one of these was Kangxi, I would be 70/30 in favour of it being yours, however, if you told me neither was Kangxi, I wouldn't argue against you.

So, not terribly helpful as I said. Sorry, I am probably too tired and waffling!  Will look again in the morning! ? 

Dear Julia:

I enjoyed your response very much because I feel the same. Even if both vases are Kangxi, and Peter seemed to like the Catawiki one very much, I don't think the Emperor himself would have been too pleased with either of them. That said, I agree also that my vase is rather unusual and it looks very nice. Most of my Chinese pieces especially the vases have classical shapes. This one's shape cannot be characterized. I think one point we can agree on though is that both pieces are old. So at least we are not so far debating whether these are recent fakes!

I'll look forward to hearing what Birgit and Giovanni think and, of course, to hearing what all the other Forum members think.

Regards,

Errol

Hi Errol,

I also saw these two vases in the newsletter and my first thought about the Catawiki vase was, just like Julia said, that it had a strange decoration, that I down know of Kangxi pieces.

But I thought about bidding on the other vase, the one that is now yours, but somehow the foot for me doesn't look right for a Kangxi piece. I can't quite explain what it was, maybe it was too smooth, too good to be a Kangxi foot. But I may be wrong, I'm still learning. That's just my thoughts.

Chris

Hello Chris:

I shared your thoughts about the foot when I saw the vase in the newsletter and that was one of the reasons I inquired whether the vase was not a Guangxu reproduction of a Kangxi-style item. I remember asking about a similar issue on the forum about ten months ago and Alan Fletcher asked me to feel the foot rim and let him know whether it had a smooth or rough feel. I cannot remember, however, what significance he attached to that and if he sees this thread perhaps he would be kind enough to comment? The feel of the slightly discolored or buff foot rim is that it is totally  smooth to the touch. Anyway I have obtained some additional images of the foot so Forum members can assess it better (see below). As you can see, there is a flared area above the rim where the rim transitions into the base of the vase. The rim looks very different from that of the Catawiki vase (see photograph in the first post of this thread).

Again thank you for your comments!

Regards,

Errol

Morning,

Feeling a little more awake now ( ? ) and have just stopped in the middle of watching Peter's latest video to come here to say that there is a Kangxi vase on there with dots.  That makes me feel better about them.

Your foot rim has the typical Kangxi stepped bit and I am pretty sure smooth is good for Qianlong, so maybe also good for Kangxi, especially given the quality of Kangxi porcelain. 

I am sure if we could hold these we would know immediately if it felt right or not.  I am not sure why I have a slight hesitation, is it the colour?  I really don't know but here is a similarly decorated one (Rob Michaelis) and you can tell it is Kangxi just from looking at it.  I am not getting that instinctive feeling of yes, Kangxi, but that is probably just my inexperience.

Dear Errol,

far from being an expert, I can only give my personal opinion. The foot doesn't seem right. I have looked at all my Kangxi bottoms, and from large vases to small plates they share a common appearance. The flat middle is not mirrorlike but full of small bubbles and impurities, so it never looks shiny, even on better quality items. The edge where the middle turns into the foot is rather a 90 degrees angle that's only a little curved. Shiny bottoms curving out into the foot rim are a feature of more modern items. Maybe from late Qing onwards. Here's a typical Kangxi foot:

Another point that bothers me is the form of the vase, it seems to be a bit unbalanced. The Catawiki garlic vase looks like Kitchen Qing at first glance, but has a good form and vigorous though simple painting.

It's always a good idea to run your finger around the foot rim. Kangxi to Qianlong feels like the finest kind of abrasive paper, then the granulation is getting courser during the 19th century to become smooth again in Guangxu. Modern fakes are often extraordinarily smooth and marble-like.

Best regards

Birgit

Thanks for correcting my memory and so politely!  ?  That is a lovely base picture for comparison.  I also feel the smooth appearance within the foot rim looks wrong, and that is an interesting point about the curving out.  I can see what you mean. That is a useful thing to be aware of.

The shape is definitely odd.  To my mind, that can either mean it is a genuine Kangxi one-off or was made later as a copy by someone not quite sure what they are doing.  I think I will trust my instinct on this, I don't think it is Kangxi and after what Shinigami has said about the base, maybe it is a more recent copy?  Would such an unbalanced shape have been made in the 19th c, for example?  

I actually came back here to apologise to Rob for spelling his name wrong, I meant to correct, realised I had forgotten and now it is too late.  Sorry. ?

I think these garlic form vases are export shapes, and what is striking about the catawiki one is white porcelain, white foot, and evidence of turning/making on the base. Also the catawiki one and the one from rob michaels posted by Julia have that sapphire blue associated with kangxi. 

Erroll's vase  has the stepped foot and similar appearance on the base to Shinigami's - I think the photos of the base showing it smooth are deceptive; also the photos making it look top heavy give perhaps the wrong idea. The tan colour of the foot is strange but maybe that would clean up and is residue from a wooden stand. 

Hello all:

Thanks for taking so much time to evaluate the vase. The features you point out all struck me before I decided to bid on it. I understand Birgit's doubts about the foot. However, if one looks at them side by side the differences are not very marked to my eye with mine mainly lacking the impurities and slight irregularities shown on the foot of Birgit's vase.

I'll be interested to see what others have to say, but this is likely one of those cases where we will never really know. All in all though the overall appearance of the vase is rather pleasing and it has a certain elegance about it. I have it near another vase that was classifed as Guangxu when I bid on it and I actually prefer the somewhat larger new acquisition (see photographs of other vase below).

I suppose the vase is an illustration of just how difficult it is to collect Chinese art. This has been another interesting exercise.

Again many thanks to you all.

Kind regards,

Errol

Dear Friends:

Julia is quite correct. This vase is a modern fake. This is most disapppointing since I had always assumed that items shown prominently on bidamount.com would have had some preliminary screening. The reason I know this is a fake (apart from Julia and Birgit's opinions) is that I wrote to Jan-Erik Nilsson, the Secretary of Gotheborg.com. He usually takes a few days to respond, but he replied immediately because he felt that I should insist on a full refund. I can paraphrase Mr. Nilsson's email to me as follows: "Unfortunately this vase seems to be a modern product. The signs are very clear to me but might be difficult to explain. One difficult to see thing that takes a lot of experience, is that the shape and the proportions in-between the various decorative elements are wrong. The most obvious is the dark flower in the midway band, that is too large, or at least too dominating. I think it should usually look like a quatrefoil with sharp corners, but is here rendered like a flower. Close but not quite. Basically the decoration is not right. The foot rim also suggests slip casting of the body rather than turning, which is also completely wrong, as is the cobalt used for the double rings on the base. It should absolutely not look like this. Sorry about this.  If you can ask for a refund that would be the best. Dealers who trade in this kind of wares usually don't have anything real at all, so a trade in would not be much of a point."

I must say that I feel very foolish about this. I should have trusted my instinct that there were features that were not correct. However, I thought that this was probably a later vase. The fact that it is a modern fake is somewhat shocking to me. I have filed a claim with PayPal for a refund. Again thank you all for your help on this. It is inescapable that even something posted on bidamount.com can turn out to be a modern replica. So collectors need to exercise the same caution with those items as they would with any other items.

Kind regards,

Errol

Is there anything Jan-Erik doesn't know? What a pity he isn't on this forum. I'm really sorry for you Errol, now you have all the trouble sending the vase back. It is not the first fake that sneaked into bidamount.com, but the others were more obvious.

That’s very disappointing and I really do sympathise. I had a near miss last week if you remember. I was so irritated because, like you, I thought I had done everything possible to try and mitigate against the risk of buying a fake.

Despite the inconvenience involved, I would ask to send it back as a mater of principle. 

Nic

Hello Birgit:

I looked at the seller's other eBay postings. He states that he does not give refunds and that it is up to the buyer to verify the age of the item. However, I did message him via the eBay message system before bidding on the vase and he responded that the vase was definitely of the Kangxi period giving as the reason that he knew it was Kangxi! I think a cautious and honest seller would have equivocated in the initital posting and certainly if asked about it specifically in a message. However, when someone is so dogmatic they are either being deceptive or totally ignorant. PayPal has never let me down yet and I assume that they will see this as a possible fraud attempt. I will let you and the others know though. I think this unfortunate incident does illustrate the value of the Forum. Your and Julia's opinions gave me a lot of cause for further thought. It is great to be able to turn to others for good advice. I think this vase was not as obviously a fraud as many others are or were that have made it on to bidamount.com. However, the need for caution and vigilance is always there.

Best regards,

Errol

Hi Nic:

Yes I do remember your experience.  This item is certainly going back. If Mr. Nilsson had said it was Guangxu, for example, I would have kept it. However, the thought of having a worthless modern replica is so distasteful to me that the vase would be a daily irritant for me whenever I saw it. Also, these sellers need to be punished for their offenses. It is too bad though that the financial incentives of dealing in fake Chinese porcelains are so strong that eBay and others will go on aiding and abetting them. After I dispose of this vase, I will try to get something similar but genuine. However, I will be much more cautious. I think my days as a buyer are coming to an end though. The field is too fraught with risk and one cannot rely on anything.

Regards,

Errol