Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

I may have blown it with this purchase.

Here is a Chinese sculpture of a horse (about 4 hands high :-) 18 inches high by about 23 inches long weighing about 54 pounds) that I thought was stone when I bought it. Where it is chipped on the base it appears to be a black fine grained stone. Normally, I would guess basalt. However, when held up and lightly struck with my class ring, it 'rings' like porcelain. Not a characteristic I would associate with stone (except slate).

When discussing it with someone, they said that fakes are created by compacting crushed ceramics.

When purchased, I was told it is 200-300 years old.

Any information or thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Stan

brand new

hoss, I don't want to question your bona fides (after all, a hoss ought to know one ;-) but could you elaborate a little? Why do you say so? What do you believe the horse's composition to be?

I will return this to the dealer, express my dissatifaction, attribute it to an unspecfied "error", ask him to take it back, and apply the money as a down payment on another object. We've bought several objects from him and would like to buy more. He does have some nice items (and some crap). I want to establish a relationship of mutual respect and can use the ammunition.

At this juncture, I must confess one of my ulterior motives here. I am using the expertise of this group to verify the veracity of this dealer. While I always felt he was honest, I had no way of telling. The "Foo Dog Bowl" was purchased from the same dealer and he seems to have been truthful there. With this questionable sale, I am going to put a couple more items purchased from him online for inspection.

Can anyone else weigh in and help me out here?

Thanks,
Stan

I think this horse is probably made of pottery. Of course, it is just my guess as I cannot examine the piece in my hand. But sad to say, it can hardly be an old piece. The style does not fit to any dynasty at all, though it may look something like Tang, but Tang dynasty pottery horses are much more elaborate, and the lines are more forceful.

Alex,

Thanks for the information. I suspect you are right and I plan to talk to the dealer. Since we've bought quite a few articles from him (and would like to buy more), we may be able to come to an understanding.

Regards,
Stan

Your dealer is careful. When we think of a pottery horse, Tang and then Han and then Ming come to mind. These are respectively (roughly mid-point) 1600, 1900 and 500 years ago. He said 2-300 years which is Qing, not particularly notable for pottery or horses. May be difficult to dispute.

Check on eBay for horses and see if there is any repro which looks like yours. I believe they mostly copy the Tang and the Han. This one is roughly half way between the sturdy Han and the graceful Tang.

If the price is not too bad, may just be useful tuition.

Your dealer is careful. When we think of a pottery horse, Tang and then Han and then Ming come to mind. These are respectively (roughly mid-point) 1600, 1900 and 500 years ago. He said 2-300 years which is Qing, not particularly notable for pottery or horses. May be difficult to dispute.

Check on eBay for horses and see if there is any repro which looks like yours. I believe they mostly copy the Tang and the Han. This one is roughly half way between the sturdy Han and the graceful Tang.

If the price is not too bad, may just be useful tuition.

Thanks for the input. So, I think what you are telling me is that it could be of the age given when I bought it. Interesting.

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