To me it is not clear what is going on here.

Corey said that he would send the pictures of his vase to Christies (which is useless because it is an obvious copy but Corey is not accepting that, despite he knows that he bought it as a copy, and from a seller who only sells copy, or fake, call it as you like).

Then for what I understand Huey Doan found it on ebay, correct?

And if that is correct Corey is angry because Huey posted it here?

Which is the story? If the above is true, it is a non sense.

Giovanni

Posted by: clayandbrush

To me it is not clear what is going on here.

Corey said that he would send the pictures of his vase to Christies (which is useless because it is an obvious copy but Corey is not accepting that, despite he knows that he bought it as a copy, and from a seller who only sells copy, or fake, call it as you like).

Then for what I understand Huey Doan found it on ebay, correct?

And if that is correct Corey is angry because Huey posted it here?

Which is the story? If the above is true, it is a non sense.

Giovanni

You are correct 100% Giovanni.

I found the pics on the old record sale on enay, which is 100% public so I shared it. 

Ok now i dont understand, what is not clear?

I think there is a case for requesting of the moderators that the photos and follow up posting be taken off since that is what Corey expressly wrote, twice. The second time it seems in pretty strong terms.

Personally i think the two semi-arguments advanced against authenticity are kind of weak and not even worth posting anyway without any actual real info. Just not as interesting as a proper research.

Do feel free to comment on my xuande link i find it relevant to the original fake-item post.

And now i must go and put together some scary ghost-zombie outfit and go trick or treating.

Bye.

Nx

Dear Nixe,

“Personally i think the two semi-arguments advanced against authenticity are kind of weak and not even worth posting anyway without any actual real info. Just not as interesting as a proper research.”

Well the only two opinions expressed against this vase are those made by Riebnn and myself; then since you are clearly referring to my opinion too, I have something to ask.

Don’t you suspect that may be who is saying that that vase is a fake can say that because they “did a proper research”?

Or that they could know a bit more than who say that “two semi-arguments advanced against authenticity are kind of weak and not even worth posting”?

Do you think that it is not possible that someone knows a bit more than what you think?

A suggestion: wait the answer from Christies (Note 1) before to judge if who see this as a clear fake is not competent.

Giovanni

(Note 1) If Corey will ever submit it to Christies. He already said that for other things too, but never did.

It takes just one minute to send pictures, it is not a hard job.

This thread was taken in a new direction by Corey , who wanted to talk about his Ming vase, (fair enough , this happens on other threads as the conversation widens) but when people expressed an interest and give the opinion on his vase, things became awkward.

This is probably why more people haven't given their opinion on his vase , because these threads can become personal . The forum will only work well if people feel confident about giving an honest opinion, without being attacked.

If you make large claims about preserving 'cultural relics' from an ebay seller in Japan, you must expect reasonable people to question that: and when the evidence (of the photos) points to a clear fake , with a vase that is wrong or off in pretty much every respect , then surely it's time to accept you may have been wrong.  

There is no shame in this , being wrong is the only way to learn, and although it may hurt a little in your pride, and pocket , you will have gained something. 

Being one of these that asked for the pictures I‘d like to venture forward with my opinion. I’m no expert, so you might not think much of it. It’s rather soft skills than hard facts.

The Ming painter did nothing but scrolls or leaf decorations for weeks and months. Another did nothing but dragons. The faker copies a few whole vases.  So there’s a visible difference in the execution. 

On the last picture of Corey‘s vase the scrolls and leaves don’t look effortless but a bit clumsy. Someone tried hard to copy them but lacked the experience. 

I have bought fakes for far more than 600$ when I started collecting. It’s a tuition fee I guess we all paid, some more (like me), some less. There’s nothing to be ashamed about.

Hi Nixe,

There is no moderator other than Peter and he has been very clear on the rules of the forum - we are to be respectful.  Clearly, one might argue that it is disrespectful to go against Corey's wishes and post the photos however, these are still in a public domain and easily accessible. These photos are of a bowl; they are not intimate personal photos. 

Ok, Huey Doan could simply have pointed out that they were still available, but as people are interested I really do not see what the problem is with posting the photos on the site.  Corey may not like it, but not posting them would not stop a discussion.  I agree, doing so facilitates one, but that is what the forum is about, discussing Asian Art.   Any discussion we may have about the item should benefit us all, whether Cory joins in or not. So as long as the discussion is about the bowl rather than Corey's reluctance to engage with the possibility that it is a fake, I don't see a problem.

Sure it is kind of humiliating when we buy something that others disagree about, but I guess we have all been there to some degree of $ or other.  Also, whilst the discussion will not change the bowl itself, I appreciate that it may affect the resale opportunities.  In which case, the moral question is, do we try to protect Corey's investment or do we try to educate people through discussion so that we all make fewer similar mistakes?

 As long as it is done respectfully, I think, given the photos are not sensitive or private, that the latter is more important.

For what it is worth, I also think it is stiffly executed, this is not drawn instinctively but constrained by copying someone else's work.  I would also steer well clear given the lack of interest on ebay.  There are so many potential buyers viewing these items, that if this were genuine, it would have sold quickly and for more.  The fact it didn't, doesn't mean anymore than people doubted its authenticity, but that would be enough for me, unless I genuinely wanted this item for no other reason than I liked it.

We have to be open to having made mistakes, and willing to learn from them and from other people, otherwise there is little point being on this forum.

Hope you had a good evening. ? 

Julia

Yeah, this is what I was afraid of. The thread had already gone dead when Shinigami and Malka Art requested the photos and also some of the photos were still available in the original listing but Shinigami and Malka Art never replied anyway. I don't think the artwork is too stiff but it's a long time since I researched it. I don't belive it's modern though. I never thought of the leaves decoration being too clumpsy and I actually didn't know that different painters did the scrolls and the dragon etc. I said from the beginning that the jar MIGHT be authentic but that I might also get severely dissapointed and if the jar is fake then it's fake. I actually find these discussions a bit fruitless because even if I could convince the people here it won't convince Sotheby's. I know that fully well. 

@clayandbrush .

No, i did not refer to your comments,

But to the comments advanced after photos were reposted against the owners request, which i find are invalid for that reason. As well as weak in their own right.

They were : "Because of a guy called richard". "Because the price was low". "Because Stiff". No i don't think that took much research, nor are the valid as they refer to photos that were posted against the owners requests. 

NX 

1. Corey and NX I suspect are the same person, for obvious reasons.

2. You don’t own anything: the pictures, the discussion, the topic, nothing (aside from the vase.)

3. There is no reason to object to the pictures being being posted or discussed....other than an intention to try to pass the piece off as original in the future, for profit. 

Peter does not take kindly to fraud when it is being perpetrated elsewhere. How do you think he is going to feel about someone trying to use his own forum to perpetrate their fraud?

Hi Nixe,

What I was trying to say, clearly rather badly, was that you made good points and this, as far as I could see it, was the counter position.  I hope that in attempting to show that I had thought about the issue, which I did, that I wasn't being dismissive of Corey's views.  That was not my intention.

I was reviewing the matter logically, not personally.  This is a public forum, even non-members can read and learn from what is said here. 

I am not a bully - I try to treat people with kindness and respect.  My comments were meant to be fair and balanced.  I am very sorry if the conclusions I came to upset you or anyone else.  I understand your point of view; emotionally, I agree with some of the things you said, but only Peter has the power to remove posts or pictures and I was attempting to explain why it was unlikely that would happen and why, at an impersonal level, I go along with that.   After all, it is a jar, not Corey, that is being discussed, it was Corey that raised the jar for discussion and the photos are not his.

My intention in the post was honourable, I wanted to prevent upset not cause it.  I will try to keep quiet in future. ? 

Have a lovely day,

Julia

Surely Corey might ask Peter to delete the whole thread. It wasn't that helpful anyway.