Recently I had the privilege of seeing and handling some pieces from the collection of Major Montage and Eileen Duberly, bequeathed to Winchester College in 1978 as a memorial their only son James (1925-44), who was killed in the Guards Chapel during WWII …

Attached images and catalogue description below of some of the pieces, and personal thoughts on …

Images 1/2/3/4; Longquan guan and cover. Typically of this type, but decoration wonderfully moulded/ carved and beautifully colour. 
One of the best I have ever seen …

Images 5/6/7; Yongle period meiping. Superb piece, very elegant shape/proportions and just beautiful to handle. Top quality …

Images 8/9/10/11; Xuande mark and period ‘lotus’ bowl. Overall painting/cobalt tone not the best, but a nice piece to handle …

Images 12/13/14; Hongzhi mark and period ‘gardenia’ dish. Typical of type, nicely painted but yellow enamel not the best …

Images 15/16/17&18; Brush rest, cataloged as ‘probably Chenghua’. 
This dating of this caused much debate. Personally I think this is slightly later than Chenghua, probably early Hongzhi into early Zhengde, so around 1500 …

But just my thoughts …

Stuart 

So, here are a couple of items that google lens AI tells me are Kangxi, but I am highly dubious, especially about the first one.  Just a couple of examples of why I don't trust Google AI! 

So the first one is a Chinese peachbloom water pot, of which we have all seem many.  Google assures me that this has all the signs of being a real Kangxi piece of porcelain, no matter how hard I push it.  As I add extra photos, be becomes more and more certain.  It says the glaze is great, the foot rim is fine, and the little steps at the bottom the glaze line are perfect.  I, on the other hand, think it was made yesterday, and would not have bought it, had it been more than $5.  The mouth seems incorrect, too widely flaring.  The foot rim seems incorrect, and there is no sign at all of wear.  The only thing that makes me think it might have a little age is the frosting and minor mineralization on the white mouth.  What do you think?

Here is the second.  Google AI tells me confidently that this is a Kangxi Bataviaware (I found 4 of them) bowl, based on several photos I uploaded.  It tells me that the color, design, and foot rim are diagnostic.  However, I would have bet that they are late 19th century Kangxi revival.  As far as I can tell, Google AI only dates them as Kangxi because most sellers online call them that.  The bowl aren't worth enough to be sold at a reputable auction house, so I can't find a reputable source.  What age do you think they are?  Now these bowls COULD be Kangxi, but can anyone be certain, and if so, why?

I am posting these mainly to make the point that Google AI, while it has improved tremendously, especially with respect to translating Chinese and Japanese, is still terrible at actually identifying and dating Chinese porcelain.  The fact is, it pulls a lot of garbage off the internet, and reaches conclusions based on that unqualified information.  Have any of you had similar experiences?

Thanks,

Charles

Auction permits pre-bidding and ends on Sept 20th. The live auction begins at 10:30 AM eastern time.

Bonhams New York have put this timed auction online, commencing 15th September …

89 lots, mostly ceramics but also some jades, bronzes, furniture, scholars objects, carved amber and a few textiles and paintings. A number of lots have ‘no reserver’ …

Enjoy viewing via Bonhams auction website page …

Stuart 

The figure is approximately 64 cm high as catalogued, although I have not yet had the opportunity to take my own measurements. It came from a deceased London estate and appears to have been electrified at some point in its history.

In researching it, I have found a closely related example sold by Reeman Dansie in 2025 for £4,000, and another larger lantern-bearing Hōsei figure sold by Nagel in Stuttgart in 2025 for €16,000 hammer. The lantern arrangements differ between the known examples, which makes me wonder whether Hōsei produced this composition in several variants.

I would be especially interested in opinions on:

• whether this is a known Hōsei model;
• whether anyone has seen other examples;
• whether the lantern appears original or period to the figure;
• and whether there is any known connection between this type and Hōsei’s documented 1907 exhibition of a woman with a lantern.

I can post further photographs of the signature, underside, lantern fittings and construction once I have the bronze in hand.

Many thanks in advance for any information or references.

I first thing I noticed was the weight; they are translucent but the diving bird one weighs 10.4 oz and the silk ball one weighs 9.2 oz. They are a lovely color.  Fuku marks are hand drawn not stamped. They are handpainted with some added gilding in places. 

Not sure of the age. They did not speak to me, they shouted, because I love to watch the diving birds drop straight down into the lake. I am very pleased with them and I enjoy searching Ebay for Japanese porcelain. Thank you. Sharon

Today the auction took place and many items did not sell, which makes me wonder if it was because of the reserves issue. I messaged the dealer to offer my feedback.

When the opening bid does not meet the reserve it feels disrespectful to the bidder, like game-playing or bait-and-switch. Why every auction house doesn't just set the two to the same price is beyond me. Are any of you auctioneers? And do you practice this? And, if so, why?

OK, I will end my rant now.

Thank you,
Steve