Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

We are going to put this bolw on Ebay.
Do you think it is from Jiaqing (1795-1820)
What is the resonable listing price?

sinoart- The nienhao (reign mark) is not a method by which to determine age, as other factors must be considered, rarely a marked porcelain would be of the period. Many porcelains advertised as imperial, mark and period are not. There is this notion by some dealers that if a porcelain is of the period and is marked as such, then it is imperial,nothing can be further from the truth.

According to my mainland contacts, and specialist here in the U.S. H.K. U.K. and abroad; we collectively agree that there were many Minyao (peoples ware) that were very well painted and bearing the nienhao. These were not intended for export, but rather were marketed to the wealthy mainland Chinese. When you think about the chances of actuallly owning a true imperial porcelain, mark and period, as used by
the imperial household; it would be like hitting the lottery and your chances would be the same.

Your cup is not mark or period, and was most likely produced after 1980. Here is a short summary and analysis.

1. The iron red nienhao made its appearance after the suggested period, and the mark should be in underglaze cobalt.
2. The very intense and bright cobalt, that is heaped up, indicates a much later production date.
3. The quality of the painting is very stiff and lacks realism. Compare known specimens from back issues of Orientations, Arts of Asia, Sothebys, Christies, etc.


Regards, Ed

If I may have friendly disagreement with Ed.
1. Iron red seal script marks were used on Imperial pieces in both the Jiaqing and earlier Qianlong reigns, and if necessary I can post a picture of a Jiaqing example.
2. The dark royal blue is not heaped up underglaze blue cobalt, but overglaze blue enamel.
3. The bright purple and red enamels in conjunction with this pale turquoise ground, and iron red Jiaqing mark, indicate a date of manufacture in the Republic period (1912 to 1949).

And before someone else mentions it, I know there is one U.S. dealer who has similarly marked pieces, decorated with brightly painted figures, listed on his web-site, catalogued as Jiaqing mark and period.

I discussed this very matter with the Deputy Director of the Jingdezhen Museum, a couple of years ago, and he confirmed my dating.

Regards
Tony

Hi Tony- Nice to hear from you. We both agree on a later production date, although I was not currently aware of the information that you graciously provided. I am a victim of old information, which I need to update my resources.
Is it true therefore, that with the use of such enamels, the nienhao would be apocryphal and not true to period?

Again thank you for your insight and the confirmation by the deputy director of Jingdezhen.

Regards, Ed

Ed and Tony:
Thank you very much for your comments.
I agree with you mostly.
In order to discuss further,I put some close look images on it.
The key of the judgement is enamel colors' quality.It is very important factor for judging a imperial piece.
Of couse, This bowl is not a imperial peace,but it's nice enamel colors can not be easy found in modern copy peace, I think.
Best regards
Sinoart

As luck would have it there is a Jiaqing mark and period piece with a red mark, on eBay at the moment. See the link below.

The pale turquoise enamel of sinoart's bowl was popularised by the Empress Dowager Cixi during and after the reign of Tongzhi (1861 to 1875). I believe your bowl is circa 1915 to 1925.

Still a nice and collectable piece, even with the wrong mark.
Regards
Tony

URL Title :Jiaqing Red Mark

Sorry, for some reason the link does not work.
The eBay listing number is 120001732188
Regards
Tony

I believe this is the piece on ebay Tony's referring to?
http://www.chait.com/auctions/071606/198.jpg

for mark see
http://www.chait.com/auctions/071606/198-3.jpg

Tony- Would you show the Jiaqing example, for my
personal enlightment and for my contacts. Please
share your opinion and point out crucial details so we can make comparisons. This will benefit all concerned. Thank you in advance for sharing.

Ed

Recently I had a conversation with my contacts in regards to this very interesting discussion, of which a number of them has veiwed this thread.

Comments varied, but the conlusion was the same. Iron red used in the caligraphy of the nienhao was in use well into the reign of Qianlong, but only in select porcelains; always with a gilt gold border and background highlighting the red caligraphy.

Porcelains produced in Jiaging reign bear the iron red caligraphy, but for a large part of the nineteenth century the Imperial factory employed specialist calligraphers, and as a result marks on imperial porcelain are extremely well written. In contrast the quality of the marks produced by the commercial factories, for private consumption, varied greatly.

My point is this, you can have mark and period porcelains, but often they are not imperial. Sinoart is correct, by saying you must look at the quality of the enamels, but not correct in using this as a basis for a specified period. There are other factors to consider, such as the quality of the paste, shape, execution of the design and painting style.

The caligraphy as done by the imperial staff can be attributed, as was mentioned before, they were hand selected. If you have a marked porcelain, but the caligraphy is not well executed, then it stands to reason that they were produced in private manufactories. You cannot say... Imperial mark and period, but rather, mark and period.

Sinoarts example clearly shows a well rendered nienhao, but it is not of the period. There were fabulous fakes produced from the 1980's and well into the 90's.

Allow me to clarify my point, you have painted iron red and stamped iron red. The stamped versions are of very little importance, and often they flooded the western market of the 19th century and until now. The painted versions were almost never designated for imperial use, with the exception of a very select few.

To say imperial, is to say that it was used in the imperial household. So if you do not have all the elements in one place; quality on all levels, then it is not imperial, but can be of mark and period.

IMChait has been known to unload so-called imperial porcelains on the market, but are nothing close to it. several other dealers come to mind as well. I have seen very well painted Kangxi wares with the nienhao, and were mark and period, but the Chinese will tell you that they are minyao, produced for the Chinese market. Very few mark and period porcelains were exported, more often they were always without marks, or had simple symbols to indicate that they were intended for export. Please understand, you cannot call a mark and period porcelain imperial; not unless you were fortunate enough to have made a loan to the Dowager Empress, and as collateral took in exchange massive amounts of imperial wares, such as Sir Percival David had done.

Ed

Hi Ed,
I am afraid some of the things you are stating as fact are not born out by the evidence. Here are two of your comments on this post:

"1. The iron red nienhao made its appearance after the suggested (Jiaqing) period, and the mark should be in underglaze cobalt".
2. " Iron red used in the caligraphy of the nienhao was in use well into the reign of Qianlong, but only in select porcelains; always with a gilt gold border and background highlighting the red caligraphy".

I have attached two pages of Imperial marks taken from Qian & Xue's excellent book, "An appreciation of Qing dynasty porcelain".
These readily disprove both comments. Now had you restricted your comments on underglaze blue marks to the Ming dynasty and the first three Qing dynasty reigns, I would have agreed with you. The only genuine Kangxi Imperial red mark I am aware of is a four character one used on exquisite bowls made soon after famille rose was introduced to China, circa 1710 to 1722.

Imperial reign marks were also incised, carved, incised into a tablet and for almost all presentation pieces, certainly of the late Qing dynasty, were painted in overglaze iron red. Yellow glazed pieces, in the vast majority of cases, had a brown or black color; probably because cobalt fired these colors under the yellow glaze. If you have a look at the Imperial production list for 1900 you will find the majority of marks, on pieces made in the Imperial factory, were not in underglaze blue. There were for a start over 6,000 yutangchun vases made with iron red marks for presentation to the top-achieving students in the civil examinations.

Your comments about Sir Percival David are also not correct. The Empress Dowager died in 1908 when he was just 16 years old. The loan you refer to had been made by a Chinese bank in 1901, and Sir Percival David acquired some 40 pieces, used as collateral by the bank, in 1927.

Ed, I am not looking for an argument. I just don't believe that some of your statements of fact can go without comment.
Regards
Tony

As they say in the auctions when a piece gets a high price, "Thank you both". I have found this discussion very interesting, and am delighted by the breadth of knowledge and curiosity and love of learning displayed by both of you, as well as the effort you've taken to upload supporting pics. I hope you will continue to have fruitful discussions on the Forum.

cheers

Ian, editor

PS the refer to an outside "Image URL" in postings is now working again.

This lime green tray was previously in my own collection. These Jiaqing marked (and period) tea services came in several colors, including underglaze blue. The underglaze blue examples have been copied in recent years.

Tony- I am neither looking for an argument, but I must admit that the evidence you submitted, is overwhelmingly correct. Although my focus was on iron red nienhao. I was aware of other methods on various porcelain and biscuit wares with imperial nienhao in different colors. Thank you for your thoughtful and enlightening comments.

Ed

How beautiful Tony! How often was the lime color used? I am sure you have owned some lovely examples.

I have only seen this particular lime green color used on these trays, and the bowls and tea pot that made up the set. There is a slightly different lime green enamel which was used in the late 18th and early 19th century, in conjunction with sgrafitto (floral or fern frond scrolls incised into the glaze).

Hi - Ed, Tony and Lan:
It is very interesting discuss on red seal mark of “Jiaqing” (1796-1820).
Do you know red seal mark is a very important in imperial porcelain during “Jiaqing” period.
We can find lots of porcelain information with “Jiaqing” red seal mark. Enclosed please find some images of the Jiaqing imperial pieces that sold in recent China’s antique auction with high price. ( ONLY in JUNE 2006, there are more and more…..)
(1) 6/26/06, a jar sold for USD 399,033 in Hanhai auction house, Beijing.
(2) 6/26/06, a vase sold for USD 123,701 in Hanhai auction house, Beijing.
(3) 6/26/06, a vase sold for USD 119,701 in Hanhai auction house, Beijing.
(4) 6/17/06, a vase sold for USD 79,807 in Liaoning auction house, shenyang.
(5) 6/15/06, a pair of dishes sold for USD 22,612 in Wuxi auction house, wuxi.
(6) 6/5/06, a vase sold for USD 121,040 in Chenxun auction house, Beijing.
Now you can know the high value of Jiaqing imperial porcelain with red seal mark.
Why?
In China’s history, Jiaqing imperial court is from 1796 to 1820 after Qianlong. But do you know Qianlong Emperor is still alive. On Feb.9 1796, Qianlong Emperor retired in favor of his son, the Jiaqing Emperor - a filial act in order not to reign longer than his grandfather, the illustrious Kangxi Emperor. Despite his retirement, however, he retained ultimate power until his death in 1799. So it was said during this special 4 years period, the most of imperial porcelain were with red seal mark.
This is a story. Is it true or not? I am not sure. Welcome to discuss and confirm.
By the way, We want to tell you the bowl is typical old one, is not modern copy. The key is that it is from Jiaqing, or late 19 century, or early 20 century. Welcome to discuss.
Best regards

Sinoart

continue......

Is this bowl, found at a Sacramento Goodwill, pertinent to your discussion?

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