Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

I just bought this bowl today at a local antique market here in upstate, NY for about 45 dollars. The diameter is approximately 12cm and 7.5 cm high. I can see some gold flecks in parts of the glaze. I'll be posting a second round of pictures because one side of the bowl seems to have some problems. Is this bowl authentic or just another repro? I know that these are evidently faked a lot and therefore are often avoided by collectors. Either way, I like it and it wasn't expensive, but would like to know the forum's assessment.
Thanks..

As usual, I'm probably wrong but it looks good to me! I'd certainly by it for that price!

Robert,

Thanks for your opinions as well. Although probably a repro, it certainly is an attractive piece. Don't the authentic pieces date from the Song dynasty?

Another question..I read on the gotheborg site that another "test" of authenticity was the sound the bowl makes when tapped. A high pitched ring is supposed to be indicative of a reproduction. For someone like me who knows nothing about ceramics, I think this is fairly subjective. Is this really accurate?

Thanks again, gentlemen!

The shape is correct for sung period, the paste color and foot trim look good to me, glaze is nice and thick on the outside as I expected, but one problem: I don’t see any wear in the cavetto or on the foot rim. It is hard to be 100% certain on your photos alone.
Most of the new repo is badly potted and easy to spot; your bowl is very well done! Black iron glaze are all high fired reduction. I know ceramic firing well and I don’t see how someone can tell new from the old one by tapping alone.
Very nice bowl! I will buy it new or old for $45!

Good points. However, condition is not a reliable indicator of a period piece or age in general. The other indicators you mentioned, like form, are better. There was a recent exhibition at the Freer Gallery of Art in Washington DC that had several 'Temmoku' teabowls, and most were in perfect condition - not even any scratches in the well. The same can be said for published examples from Japanese collections, like the famous 'yohen' (kiln-transformed glaze) example. Too bad this beautiful bowl is without provenance.

One more note: Sung period Jian teabowls often, but not always, have a metal (copper or darkened silver) band covering the rim. This is because glaze running off the rim resulted in some rim roughness.

KK,

Thanks. I am enjoying learning here and looking up all of the terms being used so I can apply them to this bowl. What sort of wear are we talking about? Glaze flaking, chips?

Thanks

It is probably a Ming Qing copy of a Song piece as shown by its greyish clay. I think I have one piece like that somewhere in the house. I bought that as a specimen in 1982.

Colors obtained with a digital camera then put over the internet are difficult to get right. Even so, the clay looks purplish (as it should for Jian bowl) not grey.

I am not taking about chips or glaze flaking. I am taking about tiny glaze scratches from everyday usage and smooth surface on the base. If it is a burial piece, and then you can’t find any sign of wear but some signs of burial, like the Jianware“kiln wasters” in the recent year market. Please remember this just one of the indications to look for beside style, glaze, paste, form, foot trim. So far those do look ok on your photos.

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