Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Was wondering about this plate. I picked it up at an estate auction in Western Mass. Always love reading the forum. Thanks guys.

Japanese imari, 18th century.

Ed

Wow Ed, that's very exciting! What are the indications of that? Thanks again

Hi Ishmael,
One of the things that will be quickly learnt on internet sites is treating with some scepticism the posts of others.

I am not a specialist dealer in Japanese, and may well be wrong, but to my eyes this dish is circa 1900, and the other one, which Ed says is 19th or 20th century, I believe is probably early 18th, maybe even 17th century.

Ed and I constantly disagree on dating. I still like like to use the words "in my opinion".

Lets hear from you Japanese ceramic experts.

Regards
Tony

Ishmael,

I have a buying agent in Japan that sources out for me rare Japanese porcelain. I should have explained myself and position better.

IMHO (In my humble opinion) you have an Japanese Arita imari plate. With enamels of green, aubergine, iron red, and gold. If my perception is correct, it should measure about 8 inches, + or - 1/4 inch. I believe that is pretty close, would you verify the size for confirmation.

The mark is the apocryphal translation, "great ming Chenghua period made." A common mark found on Japanese porcelains of the 18th and 19th centuries.

The yet un-refined cobalt would naturally point to an early date, as well as the painting style of the flanged border rim, which is an Arita feature. The later examples tend to have a rich and refined blue that is typical for the mid 19th and early 20th centuries.

I have uploaded a photo of a early 19th century Arita imari bowl for comparison, as well as the backside of a Ko-imari plate dated to the 18th centuries.

These foliate shaped imari plates began to appear around the late 17th century, were copied in the 18th and throughout the 19th and early 20th.

I highly respect Mr. Allen, but all information should be investigated as to the verity of the information given, regardless whom is giving it.

Photos: Hiromitsu of Japan.

Regards, Edward E. Shumaker

Hi everyone,

I have no problem with Ishmael's dish being 18th century & without researching it would estimate it to be from around 1750 or slightly earlier. There are several similar examples in the Shibata collection that date to this period. I do believe the plate Edward posted is probably from the 20th century though, but better pictures would be needed to tell. I agree that the other dish Tony referenced is older than this one, probably first quarter of the 18th century. Dating Japanese Imari is an incredibly hard field and takes years of experience, I am but a novice at it thus far, so everything I say is just my opinion.

Best regards,
Keith

Another interesting debate.

I largely based my opinion on the following:
1. The poor quality of the cobalt used.
2. The badly written Chenghua mark, which is off center.
3. Primarily on the excessive gilding on the rim.

Keith, can you illustrate an 18th century Imari piece with this thickly layed on gilding? If so, I stand corrected.
I do agree with Keith about Ed's bowl.

Regards
Tony

I would add that the use of gold to outline the blue elements also suggests early 20th C. There is a well known catagory of ko-Imari that used red enamel in conbination with gilding, but not the blue and gold combination seen on this piece. Also, the pale color of the purple enamel (seen in the reserves on the rim) is chacteristic of post-Edo Imari wares. As for the poor quality of the cobalt, it is not inconsistant with pieces made around 1900 to 1930. In ko-Imari pieces a very strong blue-black (in emameled pieces) or a fine cobalt blue (in sometsuke) was used.

The plate is appx 8 1/4 in diameter. What exactly do you mean by unrefined cobalt? Are there any good books or other sources I could study from? I thank you all again for your time

Ishmael,Tony,Keith,

Thank you for your comments and concerns. I will attempt to explain by my opinion the reasons for my observations; nothing is inscribed in stone, but is just an opinion.

1. Q. "What exactly do you mean by unrefined cobalt?

A. The content of impurities, such as the presence of iron and magnesium in the cobalt, which will render a blu/blk color. Other factors such as underfiring can produce this effect, but usually is more blk/grey in appearance.

These effects were produced in the late 19th and 20th centuries to create the antique style of the earlier periods, but usually you can make out the difference, keeping these points in mind.

Tonys comment: "I largely based my opinion on the following:
1. The poor quality of the cobalt used.
2. The badly written Chenghua mark, which is off center.
3. Primarily on the excessive gilding on the rim."

A. (1) Answered in the afore mentioned comments.
(2) There were many unskilled caligraphers that copied the old Ming marks, both Chinese and Japanese caligraphers. In this case, you had hundreds of Japanese artisans in the 17th,18th C.
that did not focus on the quality of the nien hao, as you would have in many cases relative to the Chinese workshops of the day.

(3) The gilding is stenciled in, perhaps not as excessive in appearance under normal viewing circumstances. These are close-up shots, so we will need to keep that in mind.

We can not say that a certain quality would need to be constant, to be 18th C. or another of the 19th. Because you have levels of quality even in Japanese porcelain throughout the late 17th-20th centuries.

It must be remebered that the Japanese were exporting porcelain to the West, just after the fall of the Ming. From 1650-1900, you have many examples of low, mid, and high quality Japanese porcelain.

These are just some thoughts to consider, and IMHO.

Regards, Edward E. Shumaker

Gentlemen,

I am glad that Anthony Allen pointed to the gilding on this piece as an issue.

In Ayers, et al. _Porcelain for Palaces_ (London, UK: Oriental Ceramic Society, 1990) quite a few pieces, especially some attributed as Imari export wares from the first quarter of the 18th century, are illustrated having considerable gilding.

The photographs are not large enough or close enough to see gilding details, but the gilding in them (as with most other gilt applications on Japanese or Chinese wares of the type) appears to form petals, border ornaments, feathers, tree trunks and other design elements of varying shapes and flat profile.

Can Ishmael tell us if the gold-like material is perhaps a powder suspended in either a clear or yellow enamel? In his piece the gold-like application appears exclusively to be lines and circles applied as slip of uniform diameter. This is completely different from the manner in which the rest of the dish is decorated.

Or could it be thin golden wire covered in transparent enamel or another material? Is the surface of this gold-like material even glassy--can it be penetrated by pressure from the sharp end of a needle? Under a magnifying glass, does there appear to be cement holding the gold-like pieces?

The appearance of the gold-like material is so different from that of the rest of the decoration that it could have been added after firing the rest of the piece was complete--perhaps much later by decades or more.

Best regards,
Judy

I pointed out a very important feature which has been overlooked by everyone, the size.

Judging by the size of Ishmaels hand in relation to the plate being held, I was able to determine the exact size. Why is this so crucial?

Because it was the standard size that was commonly used in the 18th century. The later wares were of a more uniformed standard size of 9 inches.

The stenciled and outlined gilding is also typical for the period.

I have taken the liberty to share with the list three examples of late 17th to mid 18th century Arita wares.


1. The Hizen ware dish which is similar in shape to Ishmaels plate was produced in Arita Japan, dated 1688-1704. This plate has a fair amount of gold gilt, and was a joy to see in person.

2. Arita ware dish dated to the mid 18th century, notice the color of the cobalt.

3. Arita ware jar dated 1680-1700, notice the sprig flora on the shoulder area that is similar to the dish in question; also notice the use of enamels.

I have no problem with Ishmaels dish dating to the mid 18th century. These photos are sourced from the Sackler Freer Museum.

Regards

Would Anthony and Keith please see my comments in the entry for Japanese charger or plate, next one to Ishmael's. Thank you Maurice

Hi Tony,

I am not exactly sure what you mean by excessive gilding on the rim. I briefly went through a couple of the Shibata books and picked out a few examples. The first one(1700-1740) is from the Shibata collection with extensive use of gold, including the rim. Irene finch wrote a marvelous article in the July,1996 issue of Arts of Asia. She describes the use of gold on 17th & 18th century Imari. As far as the use of gold over underglaze blue Finch says "During the second half of the 17th century the Japanese used gold mainly over dark blue glaze or large dark blue underglaze areas....also had gold outlines and veins....later, outlines were also used on pale blue". The gold used during the 17th century was indeed grainy, it appears they did not have the capability to grind it up really fine, I am unsure when they actually were able to though. See the second photo(1750-1780) for an 18th century dish with gold outlines on underglaze blue, which is also from the Shibata collection. The third photo(1720-1760) also shows use of gold outlining and also has a similar scrolling design in the reserves. When I get the time to go through my resoures, I will try and find a similar dish to Ishmael's.

Best regards,
Keith

This is a very interesting debate, lets turn up the heat a little (for fun).

Richard stated, " the pale color of the purple enamel (seen in the reserves on the rim) is chacteristic of post-Edo Imari wares.

To a large extent I have found this to be true, however, it should be noted that you have cases that the purple enamel (aubergine) was misfired and thinly applied that produced the muddy brown and pale purple effect that can be found on the 17th and 18th century examples as well.

All elements of design, shape, technique, etc, as well as other factors, must be taken into account; there is always exceptions to the rule.

I am going to throw a hard ball... I have uploaded for your pleasure a kutani style bowl, but is indeed Arita ware. Notice the enamels, especially the aubergine (purple), it dates to 1660, and is from the Sackler Freer exhibit.

And after you have viewed the bowl, ask yourself if the lop-sided bowl is low quality. Do you understand the Japanese concept of imperfection?

This bowl is done to the standards of the Japanese, whose concept of art places emphasis on human imperfection, that strangely reflects their philosophy of nature. If perfect, then it lacks the warmth and beauty that is common to the spirit and natural forces of nature.

If a plate or bowl is perfect in every way, then you can rest assure yourself, that it was made for export to the West... There is few exceptions though.

Regards, Edward Shumaker

As far as the question about the pale purple or aubergine, here are a few pictures of a pair of mid-18th century tokuri that exhibit the pale enamel.

Best regards,
Keith

Ishmael:
Your plate brings us a very interesting topic --- golden color on porcelain.
Golden color is one of the important factors to judge the porcelain ages both in Chinese and Japanese collection field.
Edward uploaded some very nice pieces that absolutely come from 17 and 18 century because all golden color on them was painted by “ gold powder method”.
For your plate:
If its golden color painted by “ gold powder method”, it is 18 century piece or before mid 19 century.
If its golden color painted by “ gold water method”, it is absolutely after mid 19 century or early 20 century.
Please pay more attention to yesterday Judy’s post. It gave me an inspiration. It seems that Judy has more experience on it and will give you an answer.
The above opinion is for your reference.
Regards

Sinoart

Keith,

Would you say that in any of the plates you illustrate (or have seen) the gold application looks like golden wires or trailed slip, as in Ishmael's example?

Best regards,
Judy

Here is a detailed closeup shot of a Qianlong export imari plate circa 1760. Notice the gold work.

If forced, I'll show the foot rim, but hope that you take my word for it. The purpose of showing this Chinese imari example, was to illustrate that both China and Japan were using this type application of gold as outlined in the design shown on Ishmael's plate.

Regards, Edward Shumaker

It is interesting to see how differently each of us view things.

I cannot see any relationship between Ishmael's dish and the others posted, other than with Ed's first piece which I believe is contemporary with it and circa 1900. True, they are Japanese, but that is where the similarities end, because neither piece is in the class of the others.

Nor could I find anything similar in any of the texts in my library, nor does it appear can anybody else??

I am sorry but I remain unconvinced that these first two are 18th century.

Regards
Tony

I am ebullient in my quest to bring about an understanding and conclusion to the topics of our discussion.

We seek to endeavour the evidence by certain facts that is custom tailored to our perceptions, which can lead to misguided notions of prejudice, conformed to our own idealism.

Yet in the vivid light of museum and private collections, we have the evidence of certain manufacturing techniques of application and details of which to draw certain conclusions.

Being self taught and having handling experience, can have its advantages and disadvantages, as well as the academic approach.
But when brought together, it will provide certain conclusions that can not be ignored.

I would like to put into perspective, an outline of what was thus far discussed; both for clarity and closure.

But before doing so, I would like to make a correction of a typo error that I have made in my post dated Oct.4,2006 The imari plate shown is the property of gotheborg. com and has been given the tenative date of 1820-1850. The backside of the Ko-imari plate is properly attributed to Hiromitsu of Japan. To those who may argue with the dating of the plate in question, will need to do so with George Bolvier.

OUTLINE


1a Ed. "Japanese imari, 18th century."
b Keith. "I have no problem with Ishmael's dish being 18th century & without researching it would estimate it to be from around 1750 or slightly earlier."

2a Tony. " but to my eyes this dish is circa 1900."
b Robert. "I would add that the use of gold to outline the blue elements also suggests early 20th C. There is a well known catagory of ko-Imari that used red enamel in conbination with gilding, but not the blue and gold combination seen on this piece."

c. Sinoart. "If its golden color painted by “ gold powder method”, it is 18 century piece or before mid 19 century.
If its golden color painted by “ gold water method”, it is absolutely after mid 19 century or early 20 century."

The problem here is relative to the date and techniques of manufacture, but do indulge me these several underlying facts of opinion and the evidence that presents itself by the display of museum artifacts that both exhibit and declare the truth; or else you should find yourself with odds against the judgement of the Smithsonian institute of the Sackler and Freer exhibits, and the overwhelming evidence provided by the Shibata collection.

You said in giving an adversed opinion, " largely based my opinion on the following:
1. The poor quality of the cobalt used." yet you were shown a so-called poor quality cobalt specimen by the sackler Freer exhibit dated to the mid 18th C.
2. "The badly written Chenghua mark, which is off center." Yet I effectively have proven by history, that you had hundreds of Japanese artisans in the 17th,18th c. that did not focus on the quality of the nien hao, as you would have in many cases relative to the Chinese workshops of the day. But may I further add that you would agree that there were Chinese caligraphers that painted off centered nien hao's of which some characters were poorly rendered to the point that no one can read them; but would that make the artifact less genuine and of the period?

3. You had a problem with excessive gold gilding, as to suggest a late date, to quote: "Primarily on the excessive gilding on the rim." Yet you were given excellent examples from Keith showcasing the Shibata collection; the third plate showing an identical design feature in the reserves as was displayed on Ishmael's plate. You further stated, "Keith, can you illustrate an 18th century Imari piece with this thickly layed on gilding? If so, I stand corrected." But you yet remain unconvinced. If you had therefore stated that you were not a specialist dealer of Japanese porcelain, then how can you take such adverse opinion, not knowing the difference? I have given an example of a Qianlong imari plate with the same treatment of gold gilding as you will find on the Japanese specimens from the same period.

True, There were many forms, shapes, periods represented here, but each pointed out the techniques that were in use relative to the specified time period between both cultures.

Robert wrote, "I would add that the use of gold to outline the blue elements also suggests early 20th C. There is a well known catagory of ko-Imari that used red enamel in conbination with gilding, but not the blue and gold combination seen on this piece. Also, the pale color of the purple enamel (seen in the reserves on the rim) is chacteristic of post-Edo Imari wares. As for the poor quality of the cobalt, it is not inconsistant with pieces made around 1900 to 1930."

Yet in minute detail and the overwhelming evidence would be consistant with the museum examples showing the pale purple (Aburgine) enamel, poor quality cobalt, outlined gold gilt details, Japanese and Chinese examples alike. How can you miss it?

As far as gold gilt of porcelain is concerned, there was a combination of methods used, such as gold dust method, water method, etc. and during the 18th century a combination of both methods were used during the same period, as is evidenced by the Qianlong example.

Unless you, Robert, Judy and others, can demonstrate with supportive evidence of your argument, you are merely expressing an opinion without much merit, without the evidence to support your view. Keith and I backed up our argument, now I ask you and the others to do the same.

Regards, Edward Earl Shumaker

Here for your consideration are examples of what look to my eye like gilt-work in low relief. Even given photography difficulties, the examples presented by Keith and Ed do not appear to me to have the above-surface characteristics of Ishmael's plate.

The first photo below is a bowl, height 7.3 cm and diameter 18 cm, in the Musée Guimet, Paris. The brightwork just above the foot strikingly resembles a bit of silver-gilt around the neck of a bottle vase, also in a European collection, whose photo I can't lay my hands on right now.

The second is part of a tea set. This example is a bit more questionable, since the seeming shadows just might be outlining to create the illusion of depth. This is in Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, Bruxelles. The cup is 4 cm high.

Both are Chinese. The bowl is attributed just to Qing Dynasty, the tea wares to ca. 1740.

In the tea set, the border around the reserve sections bears strong similarity to designs seen in European silver-gilt fittings applied to porcelains and other show-pieces.

My tentative conclusion is that the Chinese decorators here were attempting to imitate the fittings, of which they must have had some examples on the models they were given to replicate.

Even with the appearance of being noticeably in relief, the gilding in these pieces still does not share the uniform-diameter characteristic of the gilt-work on Ishmael's bowl.

We would benefit by more detailed information from Ishmael about the characteristics of this material, as suggested above.

Best regards,
Judy

Ishmael,

Would you take another series of photos in natural sunlight, with the photo flash feature turned off.

If my theory is correct, the gold enamel will not show a high reflection of the gold outlines.

Also could you inform us that when handling the bowl/plate, shifting it in your hands, that the gold will reflect more light in some spots, and in other places will take more of a light brown/gold appearance.

This is very important!

Regards, Edward Shumaker

In support of Ed's position regarding enamels and various cobalt quality, this jar is from Burghley collection, England.

Caption attributes to late 17th to early 18th century as in standard "Ko Imari" style; underglaze blue, overglaze enamels of red, yellow, aubergine and black plus gilding. The pale aubergine can be seen in some of the small flowers.

Best regards,
Judy

I finally rediscovered the silver-gilt mounts referred to in the above post regarding gilding on the bowl and tea set.

Formerly in Burghley collection, sold in 1888, now in Metropolitan Museum. Metal fittings attributed to ca. 1585.

Best regards,
Judy

Ishmeal:
Keith posted photos of three plates and one tokuri. Those are very fine 17-18 century Japanese porcelain examples. It is wonderful.
Please close look at the golden color of Keith’s, then make compare with Ishmael’s.
In the porcelain history, there are three main methods for painting golden color (represent three different ages): “gold foil method”, “gold powder method” and “gold water method”.
In my opinion, Keith’s was painted by “gold powder method”, and Ishmael’s was painted by “gold water method”.
“gold water method” was invented by Garman in early 19 century and widely used in Chinese and Japanese porcelain field after mid 19 century due to it’s uses-simply, consumes-less-gold, cost-inexpensive and nice-appearance…
So, I think, Ishmael’s plate is from after mid 19 century.
This conclusion is only from by looking above uploaded photos.
Regards
Sinoart

While I agree that it’s important to consider technical details for determining attribution and dating, aren’t we missing something here? I might have a “dead eye” but the decoration of this piece seems to me, for the most part, lacking in artistic merit. It’s basically composed of blobby, nondescript floral forms. The four reserves on the rim are symmetrically disposed and all identical in design, so that the Japanese ideal of asymmetry is missing. Compositionally, it just looks weak and altogether uninspiring, like one would expect for a mass-produced late 19th or 20th century object.

Robert,

Here is a plate with blobby florals and symmetrically-disposed reserves.

Diameter 42.5 cm. Idemitsu Museum of Arts.

Dated by Impey-san to 1640s-1650s. Mass production was well under way in the 1660s. Numbers exported in the previous two decades are less certain than what can be discerned from documentary evidence such as the VOC's more complete records.

Best regards,
Judy

Historical records show that there was fierce competition between the Chinese and Japanese during the 17th and 18th centuries.

I have stated previously that Japan began to export on a large scale after the fall of the Ming dynasty; and may I further add that the Japanese borrowed and robbed the Chinese technology of producing the various colored enamels, as well as potting techniques and the making of porcelain.

Numerous historical references mention the Japanese raids of Korea and China, often kidnapping their victims and employing their skills in the Japanese mainland. The imari design was an invention of the Japanese. The Chinese made a version of their own brand of imari in response to the popularity of these wares, and to gain a competitive edge in the market.

I doubt that anyone would question the Chinese imari plate being 18th century, yet the same features of the outlining of gold work within the blue cobalt can be found.

It is error to think and surmise, that the lack of Japanese asymmetry would terminate the notion of an 18th century dating on Ishmaels plate. Many of the early Japanese wares lacked asymmetry.

To comment on the quality or lack thereof on any porcelain, of which to base a date... clearly shows a lack of understanding.

Anthony and Robert both contended that the bowl/plate as shared by Maurice is late 17th century. I will now make comparisons between all three plates. You have two Japanese specimens and one Chinese; dating from the late 17th to mid 18th.

I do this to prove a point, that if you have a Qianlong example with gold outlines and details within the blue cobalt and it dates to the mid 18th; then what is the problem with the other two?

I ask the readers to look at these plates when put together. Would you agree that the Qianlong example is not far removed from the quality displayed by the Japanese examples?

Which one is dated late 18th, and late 17th?

Edward

Hello all, sorry but this is the best I could come up with, Hope it helps. In respsonse to Ed's question, when the light does not fully hit it, the gold shows as a tannish color, don't know if this helps. Great job guys, Thanks again

Ishmael,

Is the gold lying flat on the surface or is it in low relief?

Is there brown outlining to either side of the gold?

Does it look like wires or like painting?

Best regards,
Judy

Hi All,

I believe we really need much better quality photos from Ishmael, the current ones are not really good enough.

Best regards,
Keith

Hi Ishmael,

Your pictures are still to blurry, can you try again and post a complete photo of the back.

Best regards,
Keith

Judy,

The Idemitsu dish is a well-known masterpiece of ko-Kutani. I’m sorry but I don’t see any stylistic comparison with Ishmael’s plate.

Robert

Here is a similar decoration around the well of the dish, dated to 1750-1780.

Regards,
Keith

Robert,

The "blobbiness" and symmetry can be compared, though I agree that the Idemitsu dish is better done. Engish words sometimes are not enough to describe details of quality or what one considers to be better or poorer. Some museum items have a gloss in considered 'quality' (in the view of some) from ownership history that others might not agree with. Much of my grandmother's generation in the USA believed the highly gilded wares of the 1920s were glorious high-style items, but tastes change. Similarly, is there a mid-20th-century manner of Japanese connoisseurship concerning wares, such as mass-produced wares for European markets, whose history was not well known at the time? So much has been factually documented concerning the export wares of 1620s to 1720s, due to methodical study in the past 30 years, that terminology and classifications from before that have had to be changed.

Wide varities in quality were made simultaneously, depending on which operations could obtain what materials for paste, decoration and glaze; haste; skill of thrower and painter; and how the firing was done, as well as other factors.

Best regards,
Judy

I will note again, if it helps, the gold seems when moved around so light hits it at different angles, turns brown (Ed asked about this) the gold itself doesn't seem particulary raised off the surface, although it seems to have been applied later in the firing process maybe (?) Hope this helps.

Robert,

You should not make comparisons in exacting details, as in a perfect match; but rather compare the stylistic painting style of the period.

Indeed all other points to consider as well before making an attribution.

Edward

I have a somewhat similar Imari plate to that of Ishmael and would be grateful for your opinion on approximate date of manufacture.

Hello Marie,

The mark on your dish is a known mark on Hizen ware and used before Meiji period.

Regards,

Arjan

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