Hi Giovanni,

I hope you are going to enlighten me in what I am not seeing, I probably wouldn't have taken much notice of this and accepted their view even though there are some things I find jarring but maybe simply because I, personally, I don't find it aesthetically pleasing.  I am not sure I would have called it wucai, although that style is there, but the amount of pink would have probably made me call it famille rose. 

What I dislike: the cumbersome phoenix - it's head looks odd and angular and the body looks quite heavy and messy, I don't like the tone of pink it doesn't go with the rest very well. 

I don't like the huge flowers, either, they just seem too overbearing and the style of them is very like those on a Kangxi revival vase I have.  I have seen overly large ones on wucai pots described as 17th c Kangxi, but of course, that may mean nothing.  The stepped foot rim is perhaps a Kangxi shape but I feel if this were earlier than 18th c the flowers would most likely all be red? 

Is that over-glaze blue, I can't quite tell.  Also, what about the yellow, is that more of a 19th c yellow?  I can't work out what the yellow dotty bits are meant to be, either.

So, I have assumed you have a reason as to why this is not 18th century, so I have tried to see it as earlier or later and because it is quite busy with colours, and I don't like the phoenix (very graceless) I am going to say late 19th century?

All criticism of my thoughts most welcome! ? 

Julia

Hi Giovanni,

the design reminds me of a jar of mine that I believed up to now to be Kangxi. The design was quite widespread and was also made later as far as I know.

The flower looks quite credible to me, the yellow part and the dots are also there. Here are the two flowers in comparison:

Although they used the design later too, the vase looks to me as if it's from the time when they introduced the famille rose colors. The pink doesn't really improve the design here, especially as they also used the old iron red along with it. I agree with Julia, the vase is rather ugly. But I think it's from the beginning of the famille rose colors in the first half of the 18th century. Just my opinion though, others might surely know better.

Dear Julia and Birgit, the reasons are many.

Dear Julia all the bad things that you have noted are valid.

I do not think that this jar could have been made in the 18^th century after the introduction of the pink enamel because I have never seen a similar one. This type of ware was made during Kangxi and not during Yongzheng and Qianlong for what I know; it has been only copied during the late 19th C .

More important, the painting style is very sloppy, the pink is not of the type that we see in the 18^th century, as also the aubergine has a very strange tone.

At first glance I thought that it could be matter of wrong setting of the white balance of the camera, but because the white is really white the setting is correct.

Dear Birgit in the two pictures that you have posted the difference of the green enamel and the iron red are evident.

Note also the black surrounding lines. They are not so black in the 18^th century, and, more important, they are fading in the areas not covered by an enamel. We do not see that fading here.

The paste is off. I do not know what it is actually, but I think that most probably it is a fake and not a 19^th century copy.

Giovanni

A Kangxi wucai

Dear Giovanni,

thanks a lot for showing and explaining the difference. This is one of the posts where one can really learn something. Also I'm glad that the ugly vase is most probably modern, because beauty and elegance are always one of the criteria of antique items for me (although it might rather be a soft skill than a hard fact).

Birgit

The experts have put an estimate of €770-850 on it!

Like Julia, I find it very harsh on the eyes,
and a bit ‘messy’ too.

Giovani’s Kangxi Wucai is lovely. It’s balanced
and the colours do not fight with each other.

Nic

Birgit, I think yours is probably fine for Kangxi.  I have seen many others similar.  The red flower did not bother me like the pink one did.  It is good to see the yellow dotty thing - what is that meant to be?  Or, are these two flower head together?  One we see straight on, the other is in side profile and that is meant to be pollen.  The yellow is much nicer on yours.

Giovanni, thank you for this interesting analysis.  I had to really look at the catawiki item to understand why I didn't like it and see what might be a problem and really I should pay attention like this all the time.  Your own vase is so much nicer, the phoenix much more elegant the other looked too heavy to get off the ground let alone fly!

I did wonder if the first one had been deliberately drilled for a lamp to make it seem older; if it is a modern copy, then I suppose it is more likely it was.  

Julia

Dear Julia,

the peony on Birgit’s jar is perfect for Kangxi. The upper part is much smaller than the lower part and shaped like two horns. The yellow is pollen and can either be there or not.

It is good that you mention it, in fact I forgot in my previous post to say that the yellow on Katawiki vase is wrong. The yellow on Kangxi wucai is very pale and thin, with a rough surface.

The one on the vase is thicker, we can see dripping and darker.

Giovanni

Ah dear Julia, yes that is true, they are doing everything for something looking old; holes, cracks, labels, provenances, dirty etc.

Giovanni

Thanks, Giovanni, I see now the shape that is being conveyed.  It is much clearer on Birgit's vase and the proportions are better.  

It is interesting to hear that the yellow on Kangxi wucai should feel rough.  May I ask why that is and when it stopped feeling like that?

Thank you!

Julia

Dear Julia,

I see now that I have written just “during Kangxi”. I must double check what I write.

I should have said “on wucai, even during Kangxi”.

You can see the thin yellow (the appearance is that of a dried glue) on Birgit’s little jar.

In famille verte ware the yellow is already thicker, becoming really more thik and opaque in the 19^th century.

Giovanni

Thank you, Giovanni; that's very helpful.  ? 

Hi Giovanni, Julia and Birgit:

During a thread on the forum I created about Catawiki and its multiple and manifold defects, someone asked how much expertise the so-called experts at Catawiki had and I responded that I did not know. I think we can now see from Giovanni's discovery that the answer is close to none. This hideous vase is an ugly mixture of features from every reign during the Qing period and from the Republic period. I think it is a contemporary fake that has suffered maltreatment possibly deliberate to make it look old. How can it be "wucai" as Giovanni points out when "wucai" as defined by Gotheborg means five enamels or "five color ware" and is in reality mostly three enamels (red, green and yellow) within outlines in blackish dry cobalt, underglaze blue, plus the white of the porcelain body, all in all making up five colors? Where does pink of this hue fit into a vase from the Kangxi reign? As Julia points out the phoenix looks like something done by  a five-year-old!  If we add to that the drilling in the foot and the damage to the neck, this vase is worth about $3 at a garage sale for someone looking for a really garish lamp. The estimates in the 800 Euro range are laughable. My advice to everyone is to stay away from Catawiki unless you are an expert. Even then their lack of communication and their absurdly high shipping fees should disqualify them as a good source for Chinese antiques. With all its defects eBay is miles ahead of them and eBay makes no claims to have verified authenticity!

Regards,

Errol

Maybe the fact that it didn't reach its reserve might make the experts reconsider their opinion.  I wonder how much input they actually have, clearly they don't get to see the items, so do they get paid per item or per hour?  Maybe, it is more of a gimmick and they just give a cursory glance that allows them to reject any obviously poorly described (being generous with my remarks! ? ) items.

It isn't easy just going by photos and the word of a seller, and some things are going to slip through.  As always, it is a case of buyer beware.  I am far from being an expert and as I said earlier, I wouldn't have challenged this because I personally don't like it and am not interested in buying it.  Had I liked it, would I have paid enough attention to the detail without Giovanni inviting us to look?  Especially as it has been accepted by the experts. 

In a way, that makes buying from Catawiki more risky for beginners who may not question the authenticity any further simply because it has been given the green light by people who know what they are talking about. 

Julia