Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Dear forum
I would be grate ful if you could tell me how old this vase is
It is 41cm high and 26cm wide decorated with flowers of four seasons
Many thanks in advance
toan

It looks like a kangxi export piece.

Hi Toan, This baluster jar is a late 19th century copy of a Kangxi piece. It has a foot rim that has been trimmed on the inside, with a ledge and on the outside. Such on blue and white and polychrome indicates late 19th century, early 20th century replica. On the Kangxi pieces the inside of the foot rim is concave with no trimming it appears to be shaped by the potter's finger. Anyway nice piece Toan.

Hi Toan take a better picture of the inside of the foot rim. To see if there is a ledge or is it smooth and concave? Also does this jar feel heavy or light? I can see some broken bubbles on the mouth rim of the vase that suggest it may be Kangxi. There is also quite a lot of ridging on the outside of the vase which also suggest Kangxi. Is there a lot of ridging on the inside? Is the wall of the vessel thin or thick. Take a good shot of the inside of the vase. KK and Bill H may be right.

Hi Toan, I took the following picture. 1) showing broken bubbles on foot rim with pearl like structure under the glaze, both commonly found on Kangxi blue and white 2) turning like ridging in the inside with broken bubbles. 3) broken bubbles on glaze on the base with untrimmed inner part of rim and slightly concave profile of inner rim

I am portuguese and I don´t know what foot-rim means please explain me thanks

Hello Toan,

The form, decoration and straw colored line where glaze and biscuit meet on the inner foot are in a league with late 17th century Qing dynasty Kangxi B&W wares found in the 'Vung Tau cargo' and other wrecks. For comparison I'm attaching images of my pair of smaller examples of the circa 1690 Vung Tau cargo vases that are in the 'sanded-down' condition expected of most shipwreck finds.

If yours isn't Kangxi-period, then it must be one of the high-quality reproductions from the Guangxu-era 'Kangxi Revival'. Perhaps we'll hear from Tony on this one.

Best regards,

Bill

Dear KK,LEE and BILL H
Many thanks for your replies
As always you have been very helpful
May I ask a silly question( please note I am not arguing for this piece to be KANGXI but merely trying to learn for the future):I read somewhere that the foot rim of later QING and REPUBLIC tend to have glaze turn back and this vase definitely has not had such treatment,is it just another variation?
Many thanks
toan

Dear LEE i will post the requested information as i can,my camera is not working at the moment
Best wishes
toan

Hi folks.
I am not intending to be argumentative but I just cannot agree with any of you. Did anybody look at the shape of the vase, which is overly bulbous and out of proportion? Not a feature of Kangxi period lidded vases, as Bill's examples show.

Lee's specimen in my opinion is not Kangxi, but probably much later (circa 1910). Dirty speckled grey glaze, poor quality underglaze blue, bubbled high points, badly levigated footrim; how many indicators of a non-Kangxi dating do you need?

Toan's vase has a finely levigated foot rim which, while somewhat unusual for the period, I believe is from the Daoguang reign, second quarter of the 19th century.

Now tell me I am wrong.
Cheers
Tony

Hi Toan I hope these photos will help. 1) base of a Kangxi blue and white Yen Yen vase. Notice the similar orange burn color where the glaze meets the biscuit and the concave inner foot rim. 2) the inside of it notice the similar burst bubbles. 3) a republic period blue and white foot rim. Notice how it tries to imitate the kangxi period base including the double blue rings. It is trimmed both inside and outside the foot rim. This forms a ledge both sides. There are plenty of Kangxi export pieces in Amsterdam and England, as they were exported there in the 17th amd 18th century. I use to buy a lot from there. New Zealand has very little good Chinese antiques, due to it's short history. Most of the stuff I have seen in antique shops there are recent fakes from China or republic pieces. The only good Chinese antiques I have seen there was at Canterbury museum, Christchurch.

I believe I heard someone say "New Zealand has very little good Chinese antiques, due to it's [sic] short history." Since length of national history has little to do with how much anyone knows about an unrelated subject, I'd tend to view that remark as ill-conceived.

I am moved to observe how most Kiwis I've met at least seem to know their history intimately in all of its political, social, cultural and religious flavors. Nobody in New Zealand has been shuttered from any part of their history, from which perspective I would hazard to guess they are better equipped than some to recognize an authentic antique when they see one. And to the betterment of those of us with open eyes and minds, New Zealand has been the source of some of the best information on Chinese antiquities disseminated in the last half-century, a time when China was hemorrhaging many of its worst fake antique porcelains, poorer by far for their lack of traditional cultural icons and meaning.

Heretofore the abyss between most of the world's Chinese and their history has not been of their personal making. Nowadays such increasingly isn't the case anymore. Being a student of History and of Chinese History in particular it bemuses me just how many Chinese dilettantes are to be found these days trying to present themselves as experts in Chinese art of all types with nothing more than a pocketful of pirated porcelain paperbacks and their chromosomes to serve as diploma.

I have been reassured by close acquaintances who are Chinese that my view is shared when I opine that being Chinese or any other nationality does not automatically grant genius in the area of Chinese antiques, a field wherein the only true experts I've encountered inevitably seem to be those who know when to stop running their mouths when all good ideas are exhausted.

And in emulation of that thought, a good night to all.

Bill H.

Hi all,

Well, I took some time to react on this one because I had/have many doubts about it. I don't have doubts about being Kangxi or not because I think it's not Kangxi. Lee perfectly showed us what we can expect from a Kangxi foot rim. The decoration is done in "Kangxi" style but the blue color looks (esp. on the first photo) a bit chemical/modern and doesn't have that different shades of blue that I would expect from Kangxi. I also have my doubts about the shape of the vase but that might be caused by photographing. Please compare with the ones posted by Bill (Bill H). So, as Lee, I'm thinking about a Kangxi revival piece but for a 19th. ct. footrim it looks a bit too clean/neat. Reason for me (also because of that blue) to even think about 20th. century. Just my thoughts ....Let's see if Tony comes along .....

Regards,

Arjan

Dear LEE and forum
Many thanks for your thoughts
The vase is 3.6kg,the glaze has a bluish tint with tiny fine bubbles
Here are the requested photos

Hi Toan, Yes there are ridging and broken bubbles on the inside . No trimming on the inner foot rim. Your new pictures review that the piece is late Kangxi- Qianlong pieces. I have a yen yen vase dating to this period. With similar foot. I will take some photos when I have time for you to compare.

Dear LEE
Thanks for posting the example and your advice
Best wishes
toan

Toan,
The new pictures did not change my mind.I think it is not difficult to find fairly similar paintings on kangxi vases on major auction sites. The paintings of 1900's copies are different. This style of foot trimming is obvious not 19thcentury or early republic period.

Many thanks
LEE
BILL H
KK and
TONY
Your wisdom are appreciated
Kind regards
toan

Hello my vietnamese friend!
Chào anh Toàn,
Thấy anh lên đây chơi vui quá, em cũng bắt chước!
Chỗ này có nhiều cao thủ, cách phân tích giám định rơ ràng tỉ mỉ, đáng học hỏi.
C̣n về cái chóe này, quan điểm em vẫn cho rằng đồ tk 19 (thuộc ḍng đồ xuất khẩu). Không thể đạt tới Khang Hy, v́ men cốt không già đến Khang Hy được.

Above are somes vietnamese words with my friend-Toan. I say that this is a good forum for us to study in antiquities. Your replies are very interested with many photos to compare...
Thank you LEE so much.
But finally, I think it's not a Kangxi vase neither Qianlong piece. Because the glaze and the foot rim show that it dated in 19th century.
Best Regards
Tindoco.

Dear TIN
Welcome to the forum
This forum to me is extremely helpful
The prticipants are knowledgeable and helpful
If i have any doubt about any piece at all i ask this forum
Kind regards
toan

hi, followed the discussion with interest ... as i have a vase! please see the pics and tell me if it is a genuine Kangxi.

does not seem that yellow on base just a bit grubby. design looks great... but i'm not an expert !

thanks

While a few four-character Kangxi marks in red are known, the four-character underglaze blue ones like this are all 19th century as far as I understand from reading.

Best regards,

Bill H.

Dear Suzuki

Four character Kangxi mark = 19th century replica, confirmed by "hollowlining" in the cobalt and the coarse footrim.

Rgds
JLim

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