Thanks for all the warnings.  Is that pale blue blob meant to be the pearl?

I see this has had several bids.

Julia

Dear Julia,

That's the pearl. You may be interested to follow the dish and see how it finally performs. It has some time to go yet before it ends.

Best wishes,

Alan

I'm not so sure this is fake. This pattern was certainly popular during the Guangxu period, but the pieces often have apocryphal marks. I sold a pair of vases with very similar decoration at Bruun Rasmussen, that had apocryphal Qianlong marks. It is quite likely there are also earlier period pieces (Kangxi - Jiaqing) with this motive (I think I've seen such examples, but I'm not sure).  There was a sale here in Denmark of a vase with this pattern and apocryphal Kangxi mark, dated to the 20th ct. that sold for DKK 273,000 against an estimate at DKK 10,000:

http://hilleroed.lokalavisen.dk/nyheder/2014-12-10/-Orientalske-antikviteter-n%C3%A5ede-skyh%C3%B8je-priser-1489563.html

The buyer must have thought they were Kangxi period althought such things does relatively well these days. The vases I had sold for DKK 3000 against an estimate at  DKK 2000. They would probably have done better at eBay.

(link is a little slow)

We had seen this plate, but opted not to put it on the Weekly News Letter page for a few reasons.  We try to err on the side of caution for all of the obvious reasons.

First is the pattern as Alan pointed out, it's not typical of the Jiaqing period with this dragon. While it's always hard to say certain things NEVER were used, as it always seems that no sooner do you say it, when one does.  But this dragon gave me pause. Second is the glaze, Jiaqing glazes tended to be much like those of Qianlong, very smooth without much "texture" when reflected against light, this plate had quite a bit of it.  Third, the decoration itelf seemed to me, to lack the sharpness/crispness of Jiaqing worked M&P examples Forth, the seller for some reason didn't use very many pictures and none close to the mark, or a sharp look at the paste on the footrim, eBay gives you the option of loading twelve images. 

In any event without handling the piece, we felt it didn't add up. Based on what we can see. 

Best Peter

Dear Corey,

It's not simply a matter of finding similar motifs. Yes, of course it's perfectly possible to find the motif of a dragon chasing a flaming pearl amid fire scrolls on much earlier porcelains. For instance, Christies have a nice 'dragon' dish coming up for sale in London soon (lot 196 in the Fine Chinese Ceramics and Works of Art sale) dating to the Kangxi period and done in iron red. So yes, sure, you readily find similar motifs done much earlier, and much earlier than the Kangxi example I mention here, too. But that's not the issue. Look at how the fire scrolls, dragon, and pearl are done on the eBay example. They don't look to be in a style that I associate with Jiaqing at all. And this is not to mention as well a clatter of other points raised by Peter.

And if I understand your post correctly, are you are saying that the Guangxu examples of blue and white 'dragon' dishes are often found bearing apocryphal reign marks? Have I got that rightt? I'd love to see some examples of them, because I know of none such. I'm always willing to learn. Here's a batch of Guangxu mark and period blue and white 'dragon' dishes sold by Christies last year:

https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/lot/a-set-of-eight-blue-and-white-5992408-details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=5992408&sid=bb39a2c3-a574-4273-8a25-8c2051a9d854

None has an apocryphal reign mark, and that's the norm, as far as I know, for dishes of this precise sort made during Guangxu's reign.

Best wishes,

Alan

The dish sold for us$4600 it seems. That's a very good result in my opinion. I surely should have tried to sell my vases at eBay first. And yes, my thought was that it's a guangxu/early republic  product with apocryphal Jiaqing mark. But on my vases the dragon scales were painted with a criss-cross patern, if I remember correctly, and I have learned that this would indicate Guangxu period. On the eBay dish, the scales are painted with overlapping circles. Perhaps this would suggest an earlier dating - I don't know.  I must admit, that I don't remember having seen Guangxu/repuclic period DISHES with this pattern, but only vases and bowls like the  one in the where the dragon have no scales at all. I'm having problems with my log-in to Bruun Rasmussens site. Hopefully I can make it work later, to see if the pictures of my vases are still online. If that's the case I'll post them here.

All the best

A little late follow-up on this thread, but I found some time to research dishes of this kind online and came across a pair with Jiaqing seal marks at Skinner, but dated to the 20th. century:

https://www.skinnerinc.com/auctions/2632M/lots/122

It's definitely a possibility that they are actually Jiaqing period, but misrepresented as 20th. century . There are plenty of similar blue and white dishes online described as Guangxu mark and period though. For example this one from Christtie's:

https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/a-chinese-blue-and-white-dragon-dish-5348591-details.aspx

But I also found examples described as Qianlong mark and period like these two also from Christie's:

http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2016/12/16/34696417.html

And even an example from the Daoguang period at Bonham's:

http://www.artvalue.fr/auctionresult--daoguang-period-1820-1850-chin-a-blue-and-white-dragon-dish-4512258.htm

Dear Corey,

Skinners certainly let things slip through their fingers in my experience, but on this occasion, I think they're right to say their dishes were 20th century.

As just one quick point of comparative reference, look at the way the fire scrolls are done on the earliest example you've turned up, Qianlong, and compare them with the dish we began by discussing. See the difference? It's very noticeable. The Bonhams dish is certainly closer, Daoguang, but even this one doesn't correspond satisfactorily in every respect.

I'm still inclined to believe that the eBay dish was a later version with an early mark, like the Skinner dishes.

Best wishes,

Alan

Yes, I know what you mean and you're probably right in that assumption, which is also more consistent with the considerations specified in Peter's post. I was just wondering why the eBay dish sold for the price of a mark and period piece, but perhaps it's the 2oth century (Guangxu/republic period?) manufacture combined with a rare apocryphal Jiaqing seal mark and the very fine sapphire blue color, that makes this dish partcularly interesting to certain specialized Chinese collectors or dealers?

In my online research I also discovered that the '20th century' Kangxi marked jar that sold at Bruun Rasmussen here in Denmark for 27 times the estimate is actually an Kangxi mark and period example. The same jar was offered at Christie's  in 2016 with an estimate at hk$500,000 - hk$700,000, but apparently unsold:

http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2016/05/27/33872818.html

It seems to happen relatively often these days that pieces that have been described as later copies by the auctioneer  turns out to be period pieces. 

I have fixed my log-in to Bruun rasmussen's site by the way , but will have to wait with  the posting of the vases I had in mind. Hopefully i'll get it done later. It was an interesting sale because they were likely of the Guangxu period, but Bruun Rasmussen only agreed to list them as 20th century.

Dear Corey,

Thank you for your interesting and informative post.

Best wishes,

Alan

Great result for the seller exceeding US4600. Not-so-good for the poor bugger who won the auction, assuming of course they paid!

Buyer should have subscribed to this site. Would have avoided the terrible loss that they have incurred.

Mark

Dear Mark,

Is that what it sold for? I didn't follow it through to its conclusion. Oh dear. Though I don't imagine ecliptic_art will be regretting the outcome of her auction unless, as you say, the winner finally doesn't pay her.

Alan

Hello,

First of all I think that plate is a fake, it's not even a Guangxu in my opinion, but a later copy.

Then the result... Take a look at the bidding history: nicks are dotted but still one can see they are a bit odd with numbers, and that jump from 300 to 4,567 just before the end. That can't be real. It was all staged.

Kind regards,

Adrian

Hi Alan,

According to Ebay yes. I concur with Adrians comments on the so-called bid history. It appears on the surface to be a bit dodgy to say the least unless the extra ordinary happened which I doubt.

I have this seller (aka crook) in my watch list and shall over the course of the next month monitor what they put up for auction and if same or similar pops up I shall post same to the forum.

Best regards to both you and Adrian,

Mark