Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

RARE EASTERN HAN DYNASTY SOLID NEPHRITE JADE BEAR
This Magnificent solid Nephrite Jade Bear is the Largest Jade sculpture known of its time. Dating back from the Warring State to Eastern Han Dynasty (475 B.C-220 A.D), it was made for a significant figure/ruler of whom it was buried with. The monumental figure shows extensive calcification due to centuries of extended burial. The cup shaped opening on the top of the head, leads to the conclusion that it was made for a stand or base for a significant object such as a flag pole, table or Bell Stand. High relief designs include �S�, cornered �L� and �Z� shapes. The bear currently is the national symbol for the Federal Republic of Russia. Includes Analytical report concluding that the artifact is original, as well of Certificate of Authenticity from the Beijing Wenzhenyuan Relic Identification Consulting Company. Measures 14" height x 7 1/2" width (35.5cm x 19cm). Weighs approx. 40.25 lbs / 18.26 kg. Provenance: Purchased by a private New York estate in 1998.

Pre-Sale estimate $10000000-$20000000.

This is the Elite Decorative Arts(eliteauction.com) catalog description from the December 2011 sale that reportedly fetched 8 million. Strangely there seem to be no scholarly articles from the academic/museum establishment on such an important piece, only blurbs on antique trade sites.

The description if full of typographical errors, note the atrocious first sentence with all of the improperly capitalized words. Also: Warring State(sic) and in the last sentence before the measurements: "as well of(sic)" with certificate of authenticity improperly capitalized.

Why mention that the bear is a Russian symbol? If anything you should mention it's relevance as a Chinese motif or symbol-very awkward. There's a press section on the Elite site that has an article about the bear and a local news video segment where an Elite rep says the bear was sold to a Russian. Strange how there's a line about the Russian bear symbolism in the catalog and just like magic a Russian buys the piece.

The presumption that it is a base or a stand is ok but is a table really a "significant" object? and from an aesthetic view the piece would look pretty silly with a flag pole on its head, it could just as well be a free-standing sculpture.

The Beijing appraisal lab has no traces on the web.

Finally, with no provenance, wouldn't the piece be subject to UNESCO laws? Wouldn't China demand its return if they find out about it? It's been two months since this sale, I find it odd that there have been no comments aside from the trade blurbs. I wonder if anyone watches the net for these things in the museums or college art departments.

I have a typo too: if for is, but this isn't a catalog description for a 10-20 million dollar item, anyway, here's the catalog link.

URL Title :Elite Catalog for Han Bear

Here is the report for the JADE BEAR:

I would dearly like to check that one.. I noticed that on the paw to the left is a quite sad face...
Ernest

I saw some comment about it but can't remember where; the comment seemed to suggest that your suspicions are justified. personally I agree.

100% fake. The type of stone the acid eroded surface and the decoration all points to late 20th century workmanship and chemistry. Such an object is carved from poor quality jade and than dipped into boiling acid for a few days and than stain with a concoction of urine, feaces and soil. You can never sell such an item at a reputable auction house under a chinese art sale unless it is a interior decorative sale in which case it will have a estimate of $10-$50.

'Dating back from the Warring State to Eastern Han Dynasty (475 B.C-220 A.D), it was made for a significant figure/ruler of whom it was buried with.'

oh, man. grammar or syntax, anyone? what legitimate catalogue would publish THAT description?! dead giveaway of fakeness even before seeing the 'piece'. p.o.s., that is..

Its being discussed on the Chinese websites as well. It seems most of the comments fall into these categories:

- (If its real) then this shouldn't be in an American auction and instead should be returned to China.
- Elite is a famous auction house (what they mean is there is lots of publicity and that it comes up on the web, not that its a trusted auction house)
- Its real
- Its a fake so let the Americans buy it...

Best comment so far:

"Money laundering..!"

The supposed Russian buyer would have to have been extremely confident the bear was authentic since they could have laundered their money paying cash for obscenely overpriced real estate as they and others are doing.

The bad grammar, spelling and description in the Elite Auctions catalog are troubling but not indicative of deliberate deception. The other Chinese stone and porcelain pieces there are mostly dubious to me and that doesn't bode well either for their in-house appraisal talent.

It's possible the sale was a publicity stunt to attract better art consignments and wealthier buyers since sellers are always looking for rich buyers. News of a big sale would create a sensation that some big spenders were shopping and the Miami location helps. I don't know if there's any way of determining whether the piece was paid for.

If it was paid for, then there had to have been several bidders who had time to study the piece. If they were prepared to bid anywhere near the pre-sale estimate then I would presume they would be consulting experts other than the Orenda and Beijing appraisals from Elite. So there could be top experts out there who authenticated the piece.

Without scientific tests for stone, these things go largely by opinion and it seems that collectors who lack personal confidence in their own appraisals and knowledge rely on people with degrees and diplomas and good jobs in the art field. The recent scandal with the jade burial suit that implicated Yang Boda, curator of the Palace Museum in Beijing and several other top Chinese experts proves that even a lifetime in the field with the highest honors is not enough to provide a definite appraisal-there can always be room for doubt. (The Boda article is available in this post) We can presume that many fakes authenticated by supposed top experts have been sold at top galleries for many years, whether the appraisal was purposely corrupt or done out of ignorance. There is great confusion over authentic and artificial weathered surfaces as well as previously unseen motifs and subjects. I feel the bear is authentic Shang-Western Han,leaning towards the earlier.

That said, it is the way galleries and auction houses including the major ones do business. So if the bear was paid for, someone had to assure a buyer to pay 7 million dollars for it! And there had to have been several bidders similarly convinced. The trade blurbs all claim the item "disappointed" at 7 million, implying the buyer got a bargain, further implying they could see the 10 or 20 million in a future re-sale, giving the piece its investment value that many collectors buy for.

If the sale actually happened, and I have no reason to doubt that it did, the seller would have to provide a document from China for legal export right? Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, something about the piece having been here prior to 2000? The piece has no provenance: a "New York estate" is not provenance. If none of this was provided then that is grounds for deception on the galleries' part and could cause big problems for all involved down the line.

People are talking about this bear online, and antiques dealers know about the sale from the trade sites' articles; dealers must talk to curators and even professors so I wonder why the sale isn't attracting more attention from the museum/academic establishment? Any piece of this importance from another culture would be. I think this is indicative of the confusion around weathered jade.It's also possible they don't know about it and that would be proof that collectors seem to have more interest and passion about what's going on with archaic jade.

I think the bear deserves some serious study and could lead to great insights about what uncleaned archaic burial jade really looks like.

URL Title :Yang Boda Burial Suit Scandal

"If the sale actually happened, and I have no reason to doubt that it did, the seller would have to provide a document from China for legal export right?"

Auction house give no provenance. Could verbally claim was outside China many decades. Could refer to 1880s-1920s expeditions raiding archaeological/cultural sites (viz., Aurel Stein). Could make up any document buyer want, just as current vendors invent nonsense 'certificates authenticity'.

Is no evidence was ever in China.

Good luck,
Cal

Serious study of weathering and mineralogy on archaic jade needs geologists. I think the surfaces can vary from near pristine to surfaces showing fissures, erosion, color change etc. that probably depend on burial condition and the internal structure of the stone and possibly time in some aspects of weathering. This bear shows certain types of changes but it doesn't mean that all burial jades must look like this.

I should clarify that obviously any weathering involving alteration to the jade takes time but the degree of alteration isn't necessarily related to the age of the carving; it could be related to the stone's internal structure and the burial conditions, but these are topics best left to geologists to explain.

image

Stoetzer, Inc.

Fine Art Services

P.O. Box 560340 Miami, FL 33256



ph.305-251-3913 fax 305-235-6267

[email protected]

www.stoetzerinc.com

Click here to view Exhibits





Examination Report #EDA 033112.1

This is to certify that we, Nicholas Stoetzer, Director, Stoetzer, Inc. and Robert Stoetzer, President of Stoetzer, Inc., at the request of Mr. Chris Hayes, CEO / President, Elite Decorative Arts, have personally examined this purported Warring States – Han Dynasty period seated bear of carved nephrite (as indicated in exhibit 1 & 2). Our examination has been conducted for the purposes of establishing our opinion regarding the authenticity of this object and was performed on March 19, 2012.




Methods and Procedures:




The fundamentals of examination of art items of purported antiquity begins with a knowledge and understanding of the various materials from which objects are manufactured. All of the materials employed in the manufacture of ancient works of art have different physical properties which dictate, to a large degree, how they were formed and worked by ancient people.




Raw materials used in the production of stone items by ancient man were harvested, gathered and quarried from the earth. They were then processed, shaped, formed, worked, carved, molded, hammered, and through craftsmanship, transformed into works of art.




Throughout the geographic areas, which encompass most Dynastic Chinese Cultures of antiquity, there were four primary methods of shaping and manipulating raw materials in the production of stone works. These methods include cutting, drilling, abrasion and percussion or pecking (each with a variety of methods or sub-categories). It is critical to keep in mind the limitations and capabilities of these techniques while evaluating the form and surface of an item.




The identification of observable characteristics of both ancient and modern techniques, procedures and specific tooling signatures becomes somewhat less complicated when we look at items in terms of features which are present and those which are not present. The absence of certain signs of production can be just as important as the presence of others.




The interpretation of observable surface features on objects, however, is much more than a matter of simple identification. It is the collation of many signs, including aspects of

patination, surface weathering and wear. Considerations of each of these areas include much information and interpretation requires the ability to put this information together into useful terms by looking at each factor independently and dependently with all other factors.






We have used the following analytical methods in our examination of this object: the naked eye, a 2X to 10X magnification loop, a 10 – 100 X high resolution digital microscope with the capability of a high level of image enlargement, ultraviolet light and use of a concentrated high intensity raking light. Our conclusions are derived from the comprehensive comparative analysis of the information we gather in our procedures to many other known and widely accepted items of antiquity.




Findings:




The findings of our examination reveal strong presumptive signs which indicate this item was fabricated in antiquity. This conclusion is based on observable details on the surface of the item and to a lesser extent the stylistic features of the object overall. We find many of the features that we would expect to see on ancient stone works of this nature both in terms of the physical features present on the surface of the object as a result of age, burial conditions, and the methods of construction employed. These features include surface patination, deposits and accretions, weathering, wear, surface abrasions, and evidence of ancient methods of production and tooling signatures.




For the sake of this report, we have chosen only a small selection of photographic exhibits that illustrate several of the very clear, noteworthy features in support of our opinion that this object is authentic and of ancient origin.




Discussion of specific features:




Patination generally refers to the layers of products observed as surface build up on ancient objects of various materials. It can result from a number of factors, including effects from exposure to a variety of environmental conditions, prolonged burial and exposure to various soil conditions, galvanic action and a range of other factors. Forgers often artificially induce surface patination through chemical and other means. However, artificially induced patination is characterized by a number of identifiable physical characteristics and chemical traits that can be detected. Through the use of limited chemical testing and physical examination under magnification up to 100 X, patination can be evaluated and conclusions drawn with a great degree of certainty.




There are extensive layers of surface patination which illustrate many of the features that one expects to see on an object of this presumed period of manufacture and of the respective mediums and materials present. The layers / levels of patination include but are not limited to calcified deposits, dendritic outcroppings, mineral accretions and mineral formations. With all levels of the patination we identify, we find a well defined crystalline and spherical formation, structure and level of tenacity which is consistent with natural formation. Examples of such extensive and well defined surface patination are one of a number of signs from which we are able to draw conclusions regarding this item (see exhibits 3-8, 12). The patination and surface accretions present are consistent with those that commonly form naturally in long term burial settings. Further, it is

important to note that we find no signs which would indicate any false application of any of the elements of patination which are present overall.






Signs of weathering generally result from environmental conditions and the particular burial settings in which items are entombed. Wear can also occur as a result of burial conditions and / or be associated with the original function and use of the object. The abrasion associated with use of an item and the wearing away of the surface of an item due to specific burial conditions generally produce a distinct overall appearance. As a result of many years of direct hands on experience in the examination of materials we have developed an understanding of those characteristics and the ability to recognize them when examining an object. When these features are artificially induced via modern polishing, sanding, sand blasting, etching, and other means, they show characteristic signatures that correspond to these techniques. These features can similarly be recognized as attempts of forgery.




Regarding the weathering and wear on this item we find many clear characteristics that we generally expect to see on ancient works of this nature and purported period of manufacture. We find a fine overall sense of weathering which is associated with the natural percolation of water and movement of materials which is typical of burial conditions. There is a clear visible sense of wearing away to the surface of the stone form of the object. There are numerous areas of damage in the stonework. These incidental damages are random and irregular in nature and contribute to our conclusion that the overall wear on this object is natural and not contrived. Many of the tooling signatures and markings which we identify as being from ancient methods of manufacture on the stone work are similarly worn. All of the features of weathering and wear we find are characteristic of what we would expect to see associated with the effects of mild long term environmental actions and the incidental damages which commonly occur in a burial settings (see exhibits 2-4, 7-8, 11-12). Again, we find no signs which would indicate that the weathering or wear on this item has been falsely induced as an attempt to obscure or disguise any modern surface features.




It is important to note that features of modern manufacture and tooling are distinctly different than those produced in ancient times. In almost all cases, modern features of tooling are readily visible under magnification up to 100X and cannot be concealed. There is visible evidence on this object of hand forming methods which are consistent with ancient production.




We find signs of workmanship present on the stone surfaces overall which correspond to primitive methods of production including drilling, abrasive methods and percussion. These processes were used in conjunction with one another to form the rough overall shape of the object and to refine the surface in preparation for the fine carving of surface and to produce the positive surface design pattern. The use of drilling and percussion generally precede the use of abrasive techniques which are performed with progressively finer materials thus refining the surface to a smooth workable condition with an aesthetically pleasing appearance. Signatures from the percussion and drilling are often virtually lost to the very fine finishing of stone works and to subsequent weathering and wear. However, in the case of this item there is an abundance of specific features of tooling due to the fact that the surface designs are in the positive and it was necessary to remove all of the ‘background’ material in relationship to those designs. In particular,



the use of percussion to form features on stone works results in micro fractures in the surface of the stone which can be clearly identified. Through experience we find that the carving by impact or percussion weakens underlying areas of the stone and thus naturally weathers in a particular and specific manner. This feature is significant in establishing our opinion because it suggests both primitive tooling and subsequent long term natural surface degradation. Additionally, the coarse signatures that correspond to abrasion necessary to form areas in and around the form of the item are clearly visible. We find clear signs which suggest ancient methods of production and the long term natural surface degradation thereof with no signs of any modern tooling or signs which correspond to any attempts of forgery (see exhibits 9-12)




Conclusion:




Our evaluation and interpretation of this information is based on almost sixty years of combined direct hands-on experience in the conservation, restoration, examination, and scientific analysis of antiquities and ancient art objects. Further, after having examined many other Chinese antiquities and stone works of great importance it is our opinion that this seated bear of mottled nephrite is a fine example of ancient craftsmanship.




Conditions:




The opinion stated herein pursuant to the item stipulated herein is made in good faith and to the best of the knowledge and experience of Robert Stoetzer, President, Stoetzer, Inc. and Nicholas Stoetzer, Director, Stoetzer, Inc. Stoetzer, Inc., Robert Stoetzer, and /or Nicholas Stoetzer make no warranties concerning this item(s) by any opinion(s) which are rendered, shall bear no responsibility of any sort to any party or parties regarding these opinions, and shall be held harmless legally and /or financially in any proceedings which may ever arise regarding this item. This examination report is confidential and may contain information that is proprietary and / or protected and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and is non transferrable. Receipt of payment for this Examination Report (per Stoetzer, Inc. invoice) shall constitute acceptance and agreement of any and all conditions set forth herein.




Electronic copy / see signed and sealed original.


Robert Stoetzer


Date
03-31-12

President, Stoetzer, Inc.



Electronic copy / see signed and sealed original.


03-31-12

Nicholas Stoetzer Director, Stoetzer, Inc.
Date







URL Title :Full report comes back real

Chris E Hayes shared a link.
22 hours ago

Jade Bear being offered for sale after two years buyer could not complete the payment obligation, Contact [email protected] only serious buyers please

http://www.eliteauction.com/stoetzer/

VIEW PHOTO"S http://www.eliteauction.com/stoetzer/index2.html

Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries |