Subject:Re: Which one of these is worth bringing for TL test?
Posted By: JLim Sat, Nov 25, 2017
Dear Mr Shariff
That's quite a lot of porcelain!
I understand that TL testing, because of its expense, is most useful for ceramics that are extremely hard to date by eye or feel - let's say blanc de chine from Fujian, or ancient tomb terracottas.
Blue and white porcelains like these are some of the easiest of all ceramics to date by eye (to put it another way, they are very hard to fake); you should also consider the damage potentially done to porcelains by TL testers, regardless of what they claim to be able to do.
There is also the fact that TL testing would actually give a less useful result than evaluation by eye; the only advantage would be the false security of having an "objective" scientific result over a "subjective" expert. (Admittedly there might also be financial reasons why a TL test paper might be a desirable thing to have should you sell the piece on).
It reminds me of my old archaeology class in university, where I was told that TL testing on Athenian vases (c. 500 BC) is actually *less* useful than a visual examination, since the physical appearance of the vases changed rapidly enough that you can date to within a couple of years, unlike the TL result. It is similar for blue and white export ware.
I would therefore recommend you simply get a visual evaluation from an expert on blue and white porcelain on all your objects.
If you still insist on TL testing, Anthony Allen strongly recommends Oxford Authentication as being trustworthy, thorough and not prone to being tricked by modern dodgy techniques (like using bits of genuine ancient ceramics within a modern fake...)
I would still strongly recommend a visual examination by an expert.