Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Dear List:
I have a pair of dishes, five bats decoration, and I think Daoguang Period. What do you think about them? Do you think that they are fine?
Thank you

More pics

Sorry The diameter is 15 cm, and the detail mark (Pic 6) is slight diferent that you can observe in the pic 4 ( I have two dishes, so I chosse the best Photos that I had)

Hi Fuente, The mark on your dishes translate "Hall for the cultivation of virtue", which if my memory serves me correctly was a room at the imperial summer palace. The summer palace was looted & burned around 1860 by the British. The quality of your dishes does not appear to be of the quality of imperial wares and I believe they are possibly Republic period or even latter, post 1960. Maybe more knowledgiable members can help more accurately date the dishes. keith

Greetings,

The enamels are opaque and lack the translucent qualities of the period suggested. The dating is, as Keith suggested... Mid 20th to 1970's

Sorry my friend.

Regards, Lloyd

Thank you Keith and Lloyd, I post it as I had doubts about it, so I know now what I have, I thought that they were old but cheap one, so... not upset at all about it, Thanks again about your great work, Fuente

Jose,
Don't be in too big a hurry to discard these.

The shendetang mark was supposedly popularised in the Daoguang reign (1821 to 1850), but it was also used again in the late Qing and early Republic periods. The traditional interpretation of "Hall for the cultivation of Virtue" is apparently more correctly "Hall of Discrete Virtues". Perhaps Mr Lee could clarify this?

I know you bought them on eBay for $515.00, because my father had an inadequate e-snipe bid on them. These were sold by one of eBay's most reliable sellers of Chinese porcelain, (also a contributor here) and while I don't believe they are as early as Daoguang, my father has no doubt that they are late Qing dynasty.

Lloyd, again I seem to be at odds with you. By making these sort of ridiculous unresearched assertions you are denigrating the reputation of an honest man. I have attached a photo of a Xuantong (1909 to 1912) Imperial saucer dish for comparison.

Greetings,

My dear friend Kelly, I hope for Fuente's sake that you are are correct. But you cannot compare imperial wares with that of the more common types, its like comparing apples with oranges.

For you to assert that I do not research, is most unfair. I will not be drawn into a debate with you, due the fact that I have too much loving respect for a person of your caliber.

To malign a man, is not apart of my daily regime. Sweetie can't we just play nice in the sand box and build this sand castle together?

Regards, Lloyd

Lloyd,
I don't think you appreciate the distress and irritation that you cause when you pretend to be an expert and post assertive comments as you have done, confusing the newcomers, and upsetting the several experienced contributors, which I know are prepared to put their collective experience here to give a more enlightened forum.

Approximately 50% of your posts I agree with; the other 50% are "in my opinion" (and I wish you would use that expression instead of a statement of fact) at best unsubstantiated opinion or outright nonsense.

Just go back over the past month and have a look at some of your more extreme posts, which I have taken the opportunity of copying here.

................................................
The wide shape with slightly everted rim, with a medium high foot, would suggest a 20th C. date.

You have a real treasure, as your specimen is quite genuine, well within the specs and ratios, type paste and treatment of the base, glaze effects, minor surface wear, etc. Thank you Lin Weiyi for sharing this with the list, and giving me the opportunity to validate your specimen.

"First of all, there is the absence of any surface scratches and this heap and pile effect of the cobalt has been copied from the middle Ming through the Qing, and up to the present day; in addition, there is a brand new Chinese export sticker attached to the inside mouth rim, along with a wax seal, that indicates that the item was cleared for export, being less than 100 years old."

The loose radiating lines suggest a foot or hand powered potters wheel; if it were electric, then this feature would exhibit a much tighter formation and would suggest a later date.

The Kangxi period enamel aubergine would have this color consistency, whereas it would be a much lighter shade in the Guangxu reign.

Also it must be taken into consideration, such kiln defects that were commonplace during the Kangxi reign, such as, chatter marks, palm eyes (pin holes), glaze skips, bubble bursts, etc.

I am very sorry to make this observation on your specimen, the brush strokes on the cobalt are brushed side to side; this is a feature of the Guangxu reign, also of historical interest, is the Emperess Dowager Cixi, was enamored by the subject of multiple boys, sometimes called the one hundred boys pattern found on Kangxi reproductions of the late 19th century.

The wide Bi' shaped foot rim was a feature on some of the early Qing dynasty bowls, and made well into the mid Qing period (1750-1820). At first I thought that the motifs were transfer printed, but in fact they are painted. If I were to give a conservative date, I would choose a mid Qing dating of C. 1800. + or - 10 years. It is difficult with these types to be more certain. I base my judgement on the slight raised ridge on the Bi' shaped rim. On the early examples it would be without this feature.

It has all the features of a late Yuan celadon small dish. The ring of oxidized (Burnt Red) iron, from impurities within the paste,the effect caused through a reduction atmosphere, is a known mark of authentication, as well as the overall shape and design. I would declare it a genuine example, and a good one.

The enamels appear sharp and protruded; if you run the tip of your fingers accross the enamels lightly, you should feel rough edges. On older enamels, it should feel smooth as silk. Usually on newly painted enamels, your fingertips will catch the high points; whereas on the older enamels, your fingers will glide.

By the shape of the backside, and footrim, it is a Japanese copy of the 20th C.

I am given to understand that the Samson marks of the late 19th Century were of blue underglazed crossed swords.

So whats up with the iron red enamel mark that seems to be stylized character.

.............................................
Don't you think that referring to my daughter as "sweetie" is patronising at best? If anyone here believes they can categorically ascribe as genuine, all Jin, Song or Yuan dynasty monochrome dishes or jars from a j-peg, in my opinion needs help. I personally buy and sell maybe 150 of these a year, and there are few visible distinguishing features between the best fake and genuine, other than wear. This is a feature of these ceramics that I cover in depth in my forthcoming book on authenticating ancient Chinese ceramics.

Lloyd, and others, please use the expression "in my opinion" and give your reasons for your conclusion. We may not all agree with them, but we respect the fact that you have ventured an opinion. Guesswork is unhelpful.

And just in case anyone thinks that dealers never make mistakes, let me inform you that in the past four months I have had three allegedly Han to Ming ceramics fail T.L. tests by Oxford Authentication Ltd in England. Fortunately, I had these T.L. tested before I had paid for or sold them. I also had to cancel the sale of one Five dynasties jar that proved to be a fake. So none of us are perfect, but selling 2,000 to 2,500 Chinese antique items on the internet does give us I hope some advantage.

I do however commend Lloyd on his efforts to rid eBay of the sellers of fakes, an action which I think is to be commended.

I trust my intrusion will be forgiven.

Regards
Tony

Dear Mr. Allen,

I have given due consideration to your comments. To take excerpts from context without due explanation, is not very professional, this is by no means intended nor meant to insult you.

I have noted that you are a loving father, for if memory serves me correct, you have retired a few years ago, leaving your daughter Kelly to operate the business. You have conducted special sales from your personal stock in the advent of your daughter expecting twins. I have respect for a woman who is trying to operate her fathers business and raise two children. Indeed, you and your loving daughter are the traditional well knit family. You take your grandchildren to heart and shower them with gifts... typical grandfather! :)

I meant every word in reference to your daughter Kelly... she is indeed a sweetie! I really don't think you would argue that point.

Mr. Allen, I have not been guilty of proclaiming myself an expert, nor have I ever said so on this forum. I have advocated that I was a very serious student and that I am always happy to learn something new.

As you have said, you make mistakes, indeed every professional has, whether they are a scientist, curator, or specialist in any given field of expertise.

I really think that I have been entreated unfairly, as I have been subjected to harmful and degrading insults from others. One particular incident, even attacked my mother and used such profanity as could not be mentioned.

Whenever Mr. Lee has corrected me in the past, I always thank him and follow it up by saying: " I learn something new."

In my defence, I will say that I devote many hours to study, I have a collection of shards as well as an extensive collection of early Chinese porcelains; many of which I have posted from my personal collection.

I believe if you have truly read my posts, then you would know that I am just a kind man trying to help good and honest folks. It is never my intent nor purpose to distress anyone.... all I can say, is that I do my best.

As mentioned above, I really don't think that it was very professional of you to take excerpts from context, without giving me a chance to explain myself. If you and your daughter see's something that I write, then ask me for a explanation as to why I made such a statement, then if I am wrong... point it out and explain why. So far, I have not seen much by way of corrective action on your part nor Kelly's. Instead you have blasted me on a very open forum.

My dear friend, this is a DISCUSSION FORUM where opinions are made right or wrong. Instead of everyone getting so upset at a opinion, try asking a few questions why I made an observation to one effect or another.

Mr. Allen you have made a habit in the past of debunking such well known experts such as Jan-Erik Nilsson, Mike Vermeer and others. You have even went under assumed names and have attacked these good and outstanding men of learning. Yes its all true! Mike Vermeer wrote me to that very effect not more than a year ago. Yes! Mike has written me to the effect that you have viciously attacked a honorable man and made havoc on the Gotheborg list.

I would have not believed this, if it were not the fact that you have openly shamed me on a very open forum. Yes you have given me some credit, but you have made me to appear as a fool and discredited me by using selected quotes from my postings.... THIS IS NOT AT ALL FAIR NOR PROPER.

You are an author of several best selling books, but if we are to be fair, then you need to include in the introduction to your books, that you are not a certified expert, and that you have no professional training, as you do not have a degree in oriental art, nor are you suited to make a professional certified appraisal. That my dear sir is a very valid truth. So before you discredit or malign a man... think and be honest with yourself....

This was not intended to malign you... But there is many professionals who know you and very strongly disagree with many of your attributions.... Sothebys, Christies, etc. Yes I know more about you than you think.

Now for my honest opinion... You are a very loving and dedicated man to the arts... But dear sir, like myself, you are just a student with no creditials by certified institutions of learning. You have one thing to your favor... You're a reputable dealer and sucessful salesman who has experience in handling artifacts and the gift to write.

These are the words that I live by.... "The true student of Oriental art is a humble scholar in the search for truth: in the words of the Song dynasty philosopher, Chu Hsi (Wade Giles), 1130-1200 A.D., "In every human mind there is the knowing faculty; and, in everthing, there is its reason. The incompleteness of our knowledge is due to our insufficiency in investigating into the reason of things. The student must go to all things under Heaven, begining with the known principles and seeking to reach the utmost. After sufficient labor has been devoted to it, the day will come when all things will suddenly become clear and intelligible."

I strive to do my best to live by these words, I am yet learning and will do everything within my power, to understand this vast area of the art you and I have come to love.


Regards, Lloyd

Thank you again Kelly and Tony. Yes I have bought this dishes in ebay (bid bigger than Tony?), and it is the cause why I posted the dishes in the Forum, as I did not Know really the reputation of the seller ( that to me looks pretty well, but...), and looking for more information, so I wanted to be sure that I had, and now I have more information than before. Happy to hear that you think they are late Qing, as I have bought yet. Best Regards

I seemed to remembered a piece in my collection with this same mark and had mistakenly remembered it as being later than it turned out to be. In retrospection, I am going to have to agree with Kelly & Allen, late Qing - early Republic. I am posting some pictures of the bowl in my collection which probably dates to the same period as Fuente's dishes. keith

Lloyd,
You have the advantage over me, as I have never heard of you, nor do I know or care what credentials you have to continue to make these assertions.

But I do take issue with some comments you have made and posted.

I have had no correspondence with Mike Vermeer for several years, nor to my knowledge has my daughter, nor have I posted derogatory comments about him on the Gotheborg site. The fact I have not agreed with a minority of date attributions on his collection, some of which have since been removed, appears to have upset him.

Jan-Erik Nilsson's Gotheborg site is run like a concentration camp. Dealers like myself are not permitted even to read the posts, let alone have the opportunity to reply to any vindictive or untrue comments made by other contributors. Dissenting views seem to be discouraged.

I could go into greater depth on some of your other comments, but I will mention just one. You seem to share a resentment to self-trained experts, common to a good number of academics, who think a PhD in the arts is essential. There would be few people in the Western world who get to see, handle and sell as many Chinese antiques as I do in the course of a year.

I continue to learn, and I will continue to write and pass on that learning to another generation, for as long as I am able.

Regards
Tony

Anthony J. Allen, Your statement in your last post,
"Jan-Erik Nilsson's Gotheborg site is run like a concentration camp. Dealers like myself are not permitted even to read the posts, let alone have the opportunity to reply to any vindictive or untrue comments made by other contributors. Dissenting views seem to be discouraged."
is completely absurd to the point of being laughable, there are many members who are dealers and any member can respond to any statement. If you are or were not allowed on the Gotheborg.com forum, there must be a very good reason. JE & his Dragons are very tolerant and helpful people, interested in the education & advancement of Asian ceramics. The only instances I can remember someone getting kicked off the site was because they were unscrupulous dealers trying to sell items that were misrepresented. So, I take offence at your accusations and can only surmise the reason you are no longer a member of the Gotheborg forum is a good one. I also find your comparison of Jan Erik Nilsson to a concentration camp commander offensive. Please keep these rude and slanderous statements to yourself. keith

Keith,
I could easily take offence at your suggestion that I was kicked off Gotheborg because I was an unscrupulous dealer selling items that were misrepresented. This is exactly the sort of response that I expected. You don't like the message so you defame the messenger, exactly as Lloyd has done by posting his scurrilous comments which provoked this reply.

About 14 months ago I was told by a customer of some defamatory comments being posted there, and when I went to read them myself, found I was denied access. Even after I wrote privately in protest to Nilsson he still denied access. If you don't believe me, I don't care anyway, as I still retain the email evidence. I know who is correct.

Tony

Tony, Be offended, it's OK - I found your remarks offensive and inappropriate. keith

Now for the moment of truth..., "You seem to share a resentment to self-trained experts."

Anthony J.Allen

Whilst I have no problem with a self trained professional, I do however have a problem with a self trained expert projecting and emulating himself as an established expert to the world community at large. From your own admission, you have vindicated my notions that you are not a trained professional; you propagate this notion and lead people to believe that you are an authority on a variety of subjects. My purpose is not only exposing unscrupulous dealers on e-bay, but to create a public awareness that anyone can write a book on any given subject. For you to come on a public forum and defame a honest and well intentioned man, testifies to the tenor of your attitude and spirit.

I have fully admitted my mistakes; but for you or your daughter to viciously use misleading and derogatory statements to elevate your sense of superiority, is nothing less than deplorable.

You sir, are a proponent of the hollow-line theory; such theory that has been largely and scientifically disproven, yet you continue to advocate your views which have no bearing on the truth.

You have accurately read my postings, then you would have known that I was making reference to Jan Erik more specifically, and that my reference to Mike Vermeer was the messenger that advised of the maligned insults and attacks on his honor.

So you wonder why I mentioned GOTHEBORG to begin with? It was largely done to expose the temperament of the very nature of your vicious and maligning nature. Anyone that differs contrary to your point of view, is met with the most severe and dire of consequences; to the point that you would skillfully defame their reputation.

No sir! I refuse to stand by and allow this kind of misleading and blatant misdirection of the facts.

It is a fact, that you are a retired chartered accountant, that took an interest in the arts of Asia proper.

It is a fact, that you have grossly lied about Gotheborg; and by your own admission, have stated this quote: "Jan-Erik Nilsson's Gotheborg site is run like a concentration camp. Dealers like myself are not permitted even to read the posts, let alone have the opportunity to reply to any vindictive or untrue comments made by other contributors. Dissenting views seem to be discouraged."

If anyone is barred from Gotheborg, it is due to the disruptive nature of an individual's attempt to confuse newcomers and in conjunction with personal and vindictive insults. These records are also on file and can be proven, if the moderator Jan Erik would choose to do so, as well as Mike Vermeer, who is an outstanding asset to the forum.

From my personal quote: "The enamels appear sharp and protruded; if you run the tip of your fingers accross the enamels lightly, you should feel rough edges. On older enamels, it should feel smooth as silk. Usually on newly painted enamels, your fingertips will catch the high points; whereas on the older enamels, your fingers will glide".

This observation is valid, due the fact, that through handling the outer edges of the emamels will smooth over in time. I have handled many newly made enamel wares that exhibit a rough edge that almost resembles a sand paper. You can make a clear distinction between a newly made specimen, verses a specimen that has age. You continue to make your quest to debunk me, by using insulting references to my statements and intents.

Anthony Lee, openly admitted to the forum at large, that he does not consider himself an expert; this is factual, as he can be quoted to the accuracy of this statement. Yet he humbles himself in the light of his vast knowledge, and offers his kind assistance whenever he can. Anthony Lee is often not aknowledged for his outstanding contributions, as we seem to have some that are ungrateful. I for one am grateful, even when he disagreed with me, he used the greatest tact and kindness; something that you as an individual have yet to learn. I suggest that you stop this insolence and unbecoming behavior, because it reveals the very nature of your intent and purposes, due the overwhelming pride that stiffles and clouds your better judgement.


Regards, Lloyd

Lloyd,
Earlier today you sent me an email which started "I am writing you to show my respect. I am not interested in a war of words, nor in bashing the reputation of a good man".

I did not reply to it, so there has been no provocation to launch this latest offensive, and I can only assume that you have a severe mental problem.

I wonder why I bother trying to correct wrong opinions expressed on Chinese porcelain, only to be met by a barrage of abuse as you and Keith have done.

Would you like me to print your email in its entirety, so everyone can see the sort of things you are saying?

Tony

Dear Mr. Allen,

The e-mail I sent was done as a last-ditch effort to restore the peace. At the time, I was not aware of the last group of comments by yourself regarding me. When I responded above, it was in the belief that you had chosen to reject the hand of peace, and continue your barage.

Given your comments in the most recent posting above, I suspect that perhaps you, also, were unaware of my e-mail at the time you wrote the previous post.

While I truly do not appreciate the implication of mental illness, which is blatantly untrue, I am willing to overlook it in the interest of restoring decorum to the list, so that we may move on to the real purpose of the forum: Asian arts. Shall we agree to disagree, and move on?

Please think well before responding

Regards, Lloyd

"If anyone is barred from Gotheborg, it is due to the disruptive nature of an individual's attempt to confuse newcomers and in conjunction with personal and vindictive insults."

Lloyd,are you SERIOUSLY making this statement on this open forum knowing what we both know? Unbelievable!

By the way, in my experience, the self-taught experts I know well in Asia are far superior to the university taught ones I've encountered. There are things you'll never learn in a classroom environment, only through continuous hands on study in the field, and the field of a serious dealer is by the far one of the best educations one can receive. Or as Mark Twain said, " I never let schooling get in the way of my education."

I`m not really sure that I should get involved in this thread but I would like to make a couple of comments if you don`t mind.
I am a member of both this forum & the gotheborg list & have received much appreciated help from both.
I have not read any of Mr Allens books but I have unsuccesfully bid on a few items in the past & although I am no expert I believe his attributions to be generally accurate.
With regards to these bat plates I have bought from this seller before who in my opinion is not only a gentleman & very knowledgable about porcelain.
As far as I know both of these gentlemen I have just mentioned are self taught & I see no problem with that.
Sometimes not even the most highly qualified experts can agree on a piece, take for example my Zhengde jar, (although now opinion is tilting more to its favour & it will probably take a TL test to put the matter to rest) but when we do disagree let us do it courteously, there is already too much rudeness in the modern world which is probably why we find so much beauty in these relics of the past.

Kind regards,
Phil.

Dear all,

I think this should be stopped before it degenerate into something even nastier as it involves a few other parties whose name were mentioned here.

I suggest Anthony to delete this thread and leave only the question on antique.We are all here to discuss about antiques and hopefully everybody works towards this.

Daryl

Dear Mr Lee,
I very much appreciate the opportunity to reply to some of these insults, something I am not permitted to do on the other forum.

Lloyd has made several incorrect comments as statements of fact:

Firstly, above he states "Yes! Mike has written me to the effect that you have viciously attacked a honorable man and made havoc on the Gotheborg list".

I defy Lloyd or anyone else to find even one posting by me on the Gotheborg forum. To suggest I caused havoc is a blatant lie.

Secondly, he states above "It is a fact, that you have grossly lied about Gotheborg; and by your own admission, have stated this quote: "Jan-Erik Nilsson's Gotheborg site is run like a concentration camp. Dealers like myself are not permitted even to read the posts, let alone have the opportunity to reply to any vindictive or untrue comments made by other contributors. Dissenting views seem to be discouraged."

Yet yesterday he sent me an email which stated "I was once a member of Gotheborg.com; to a degree, I fully agree with your assessment, that the gotheborg site can be restrictive and prejudiced against dealers".

Now I see another dealer has taken issue with Lloyd over his comments.

Lloyd, this thread started because of a query by Jose, which two of you incorrectly declared to be modern. You then stated "The enamels are opaque and lack the translucent qualities of the period suggested. The dating is, as Keith suggested... Mid 20th to 1970's".

This, like your painting from side to side comment, is in my opinion an absurd reason for saying porcelain is modern, and does not stand scrutiny. While the enamels of the Kangxi period are generally more translucent than those on later copies, I have seen and have illustrated Daoguang mark and period porcelain with opaque enamels.

If you think writing a book is so easy, then why haven't you or those you refer to done so? However, if you do attempt it, please get your facts right first.

If you or anyone else wants an amicable debate on the "hollow line" theory, then please open another thread.

Tony

Just to clarify my position on Fuente's dish. I initially said "The quality of your dishes does not appear to be of the quality of imperial wares and I believe they are possibly Republic period or even latter, post 1960. Maybe more knowledgiable members can help more accurately date the dishes"
Then in a slightly later post before all the mud-slinging started I said " In retrospection, I am going to have to agree with Kelly & Allen, late Qing - early Republic. I am posting some pictures of the bowl in my collection which probably dates to the same period as Fuente's dishes"
I have a bowl with similar marks that I posted above. After closely scrutinizing the pictures of Fuente's dish, and in my ever so humble opinion, I believe Fuente's dish is a Republic piece and not a late Guangxu. The enamels do not have the impurities common during the Guangxu period, especially the yellow. keith

Well am I glad I looked in today!...it's been a long time since I viewed this forum but I felt that I must correct a few seeming errors by previous posters!

Firstly my credentials!...I have been a collector for the past five years or so and have a fair knowledge on the subject, my specialty is in Chinese 18th-20th Century blue & white ceramics. I have and extensive library and also have personal contact with a couple of top UK collectors.

Now!,you might like to know I was also removed from the Gotheborg list because of my outspoken views on the Hollow Line therory last year. It's true that people cannot defend themselves there as my posts were also deleted and my IP banned indefinitely!!

I find it very sad that certain people are not prepared to consider the views of others and let everyone decide for themselves what is true or false!...It might not be camp tactics Mr Allen but Big Brother is certainly watching and how!!!

I would humbly ask everyone here to avoid personal attacks now matter how tempting they may be, it serves no real purpose only to alienate would be collectors who may feel intimidated by all the snipping.

Finally, just for subscribers to the hollow line theory...After a year now of long study and research, handling hundreds of pieces from several local museums and collections, I can positively state that there IS something to this train of thought!..but please fellow collectors DO NOT confuse hollow line with the fading in & out effect which you can get on some 18th Century blue & white pieces, this is a totally different thing in my opionion, I prefer to refer to it as "Split Line " which is by far a better and more accurate description of this late 19th Century phenomena.


Regards to all...Gary.

My apologies to the regulars here for any intrusion. My unannounced visits to this forum in the past were too infrequent to appreciate how invigorating its "repartee" can be.

I learned Chinese language while living in a Chinese environment at a time when I already was a collector of Chinese antique ceramics. Hopefully, my agreement with those who believe the dishes in question are late Qing or early Republic products will be taken as informed positive input. I didn't see the original auction listings, so apoligize for any redundancy when adding the observation that their nicely rendered decoration features a central stylized "Shou" (Longevity) medallion circled by the "Wu Fu" five bat rebus (for the "Five Blessings" of wealth, health, virtue, a long life and a full life) and a four-seasons floral border. The floral scroll under their rims is in keeping with a style already popular before the Qing dynasty ended. Their markings seem a bit too uneven calligraphically to be Daoguang-era. Shendetang was this Emperor's favorite devotional hall; the place where he lay in state when he died at the Summer Palace in 1850. Apocryphal marks of all kinds began proliferating around 1875, but before this hall was looted by the British in 1860 (and probably never rebuilt according to what I've read), available information would seem to suggest that most porcelains marked "Shendetang" probably would have been made at the request of the palace or at least decorated to imperial standards if donated by courtiers. The enamels on these dishes are of a muted famille verte palette seen on other porcelains of the period. The colors are more subdued than famille rose; otherwise, they look normal to me. Empirically, I believe another good clue for dating them is the style of bat depicted; i.e. with narrow snout. It seems to have been a fairly common decorative element on 18th century Chinese porcelain, was displaced by a more bulbous-nosed version during much of the 19th century (possibly a casualty of disruptions by the Taiping Rebellion and Opium Wars) and finally found itself in vogue again circa 1900. I am unfamiliar with the mechanics of this website but will try if possible to upload views of a Daoguang era imperial quality Shendetang bowl with its more evenly written mark. Everything about this bowl except the "San Duo" decoration and mark is identical to a Qianlong imperial prototype.

Some "been there done that" comments germane to another point of contention in this thread: There may be enough of us around who've been summarily "erased" from the gotheborg "list" to warrant annual reunions. Further, the concentration camp metaphor is not entirely unwarranted with respect the dictatorial mentality evident in management of the site. The excuse cited for my ejection was that I'd offended unnamed Chinese members with a discourse regarding censer use, wherein I tried to explain the metaphysical aspects of incense-burning in Buddhist and Daoist temples. Never mind that I'd stated this in English in much the same terms as taught me in native tongues by my own Buddhist and Daoist mentors during a career that kept me immersed in Asian cultures and languages for half of my adult life. The implicit reason for sudden ejection was my failure as just a simple collector to kowtow to the superior wisdom of the Camp Gotheborg Kommandant and a few of his dealer cum moderator aides-de-camp.

I inferred from the experience that the Kommandant and his small- and like-minded subordinates may share conflicts of interest in the form of inventories of porcelain for sale that bias them to perpetuate apocrypha-ridden attribution and dating methodologies. Their egos will not easily permit them to accept new research findings or ideas that contradict what has served them well and profitably with clients in the past. As such they deny the expertise of some of the worlds leading porcelain authorities, including Professor Liu Liang-yu, whose associations with the Chinese Cultural University and National Palace Museum in Taipei have permitted him to handle and study as much imperial and other authenticated ancient Chinese porcelain as anyone alive. Ironically, they also have sought to discredit Tony Allen as a commercial opportunist, who turned author only to promote eBay sales (they are oblivious to the fact that his first book was written and printed before he abandoned his initial fling at retirement and expanded his new business to the internet). Allen, who doesn't purport to be perfect and has little to apologize for in his books, gets slammed repeatedly around gotheborg with the red herring called "Hollow Line Theory" despite having alerted readers in that section of the book to the controversy surrounding the hypothesis. Fact is, well-informed authors such as Liu and Allen are anathema to those who guard Camp Gotheborg, because such writings provide a plausible foundation for clients of gotheborg dealers-in-residence (and Allen's own customers for that fact) to pose honest and well-grounded questions concerning what they buy.

On a more insidious level, when I was dismissed from the forum allegedly for offending Chinese members, rather than hear sighs of relief from that quarter, I received mail expressing disbelief at the development, including some from Chinese with whom I'd expressed disagreement in debate of porcelain issues. Thus it would seem that if the Kommandant indeed felt moved to protect Chinese sensibilities, he was acting out of that same discredited belief in "Noblesse Oblige" or noble obligation on which Aryan and other self-proclaimed "superior" cultures have rationalized their "civilizing" enslavement and subjugation of other peoples for centuries. "Heute gotheborg, morgen die veldt!"? I think Chinese and other Asian members I met on the gotheborg "list" are quite able, even anxious to fend for themselves.

The gotheborg experience was nonetheless a valuable lesson in the futility of trying to be reasonable with those for whom reasonableness is elusive within their limited capacity to accept and learn new ideas. Now I'll do my own reasonable if unsoldierly thing and just fade away.

Best regards,

Bill Hardy

Dear Mr. Hardy,

The power of your prose merits respect. I can't remember enjoying myself so much with the colorful use of metaphors that have been so illustrated in the written word.

With the sudden intoxidation of this idealistic carcinoid; I shall refrain from further comment.

But I do indeed look forward to your contributions, if not for the sallied wit and humor that you provide.

With gracious respect,


Lloyd

I am sorry to have been away from the forum for the last week - doing some work in Paris. I fear entering this melee, but will not ask the webmaster to delete any of the thread here as I think we are all adults and can take a certain amount of criticism. I would ask that we try not to make attacks on people's credentials or tear personal shreds out of anyone who ventures an opinion, as this forum format was made for discussion and I would like to hear from just about anyone and feel their opinion is as valid as the next person's if well thought through. Opinion is just that, and I want to think that anyone interested and courageous enough to venture one should be able to do so.

The thing that aften stries me about the opinions offered is that often the basics of pieces - what is simply in front of us - are often overlooked in discussion. There is a jump to patination, to glaze consistency, footring chatter marks, etc., without viewing or even discussing the more basic elements of the piece and the stylistic, archaistic, symbolism, precedent, output of kilns, etc. Statements are made such that Kangxi colours are this way, or painted this way, etc., but we are dealing with a period of production which represents 1 million to 1.6 million artisans involved in ceramic production over a period of 60 years. I am sure someone has done the real research scholarship of production, which I assume must be in the millions of pieces per annum. For anyone to say that they know Kangxi or any Chinese porcelain inside and out is to my mind rather ludicrous. I was just at the Guimet in Paris reviewing their collections and must have found (in the cases, not the stockrooms) at least 15 Kangxi blue and whites in which I cannot remember having seen the form or design previously (and I spend almost every day with my face in catalogues).

Just take a look at these two plates - which I too considered going after in the sale and which I considered fine for what they are. They are not impossible rarities, but rather high class table ware, of a kind that would have been popular in the mid to second half of the 19th century. These are of a kind often included with Dowries and largely unused, but rather hidden away fro special occasions and thus they last, not imperial pieces kept in cases in palaces. Take a look at the proiblems and unique characteristics of them - the flowers are not random, but rather have an up and down aspect, the two of the sides of the Shou design of the cavetto reverse those above and below. The bats are all different and look back over shoulders or under bellies seemingly viewing the same point. The hand of the mark is different one angular in an artistic form, the second fat and clerical, and the iron red is not even the same. To me automatically, there is a lot more thought in the design and execution of these plates than in a modern reproduction. Dating a Shen De Tang mark - my mind throws this in two possibilities when first evaluated - early period pre 1855 (+/-) and later post 1860 or thereabouts. Does it really matter to the value, no. Does it really affect desireability, no. So that is something I would worry about after (perhaps after winning the pieces, or after losing them dismissing them in my mind as probably being later to soften the loss).

Expert or PhD or years with one auction house or years of selling a product, none of these produce a standard level of knowledge in the field. I know auction house specialists who barely know the difference between porcelain and earthenware, but are great at making sales and pulling in estates. I know dealers who could talk you into buying anything and make you happy with it, and experts who can talk circles around you, dropping technical terms and not really say anything. In any of these, I would only believe the one who makes good observations, the one who is willing to explain and the one who is not afraid of a discussion. If the dealer were to tell me it is ----- and I believe it is not, why do I have to set him right? I know what I know and I do not really care what you know unless you are willing to share it with me.

I have read Anthony Allen's books and I do not agree with every detail of what he has written, but he has put his opinion out there and I do not doubt his sincerity in his business or in what he writes and I very much appreciate that he and Kelly participate in the forum as much as they do. As do I appreciate that Lloyd Smith offers his opinions. In the end everyone who reads or participates or offers images of their pieces must decide what is there own opinion - what information will they accept or not accept and form their own judgment from that. This is free cyber-space forum, not a formal appraisal, and in the spirit of a forum, I think the notions of TRUTH must be left up to the individual. Placing the same set of facts in front of any two people even if both will concede the veracity of those facts will still probably produce two different opinions.

To any collectors out there (and to dealers) I would say - buy and learn (as Anthony Allen does and as I think Lloyd does and as Fuente most obviously does) and as you own you learn. Is it what you first thought it was, is another person's opinion correct or are there holes in the logic or missing pieces of information, and at some point you can resonably say, I have done my homework on this and I think it is ------ and I reserve the right to change my mind about it as I own it and enjoy it. Dearlers area a little different I think as the ownership period is limited (or they want it to be off thie shelves in good time) and there is a certain amount of reputation and CR on the line in getting the identification correct. Yet most dealers I know in the business will still hold on to pieces that they are not sure about and may later find to be on one side of correct or the other.

I am still jet-lagged, but Jose Fuente had asked me to comment on this subject directly by e-mail, so I thought I should interject. I do hope the forum will continue to be open to all participants, but would ask all to keep things as courteous as possible.

Anthony M. Lee
Asian Art Research

As ever, Thank you Mr Lee. Of course, I bought them, because they looks nice to me, and have a very good display with a very fine another bat design dishes , guanxu blue mark (same dimensions design with only bats) that I have. This dishes present signs of wear ( not so much , but they have).I am ever learning a bit. Best regards. Fuente

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