Subject:Re: Chinese vase
Posted By: JLim Sat, Dec 02, 2017
Thank you for providing a brain buster here. I will defer once more to more knowledgeable people here especially on the motifs of the design, but here are my comments as a beginner.
First, the design on the vase contains a great deal of clumsy stippling or dotting to simulate the heaped-and-piled effect of Ming porcelains. I have definitely seen this style somewhere before, but I cannot tell where. I suspect this stippling may be diagnostic of something or other.
Second, the mark in the base is quite a well-pencilled underglaze blue Daoguang reign mark. Daoguang reigned 1821-1850. This mark strongly resembles genuine Daoguang marks of the era. For example, both "legs" of the word "Guang" are formed in two parts, just like in the originals,
But this is not a genuine Daoguang mark of the era. Anthony Allen says that underglaze blue Daoguang marks are practically unknown from Daoguang's reign except in Imperial porcelains. Unless this is an Imperial porcelain, the mark must be apocryphal.
Third, apocryphal reign marks of Daoguang do not come into usage until the very end of the Qing Dynasty - let us say the year 1900. (In his first book, Allen says that apocryphal Daoguang marks did not exist before c.1970, but he seems to have changed this view). Therefore this vase dates to c.1900 or later.
Fourth, the nature of the porcelain does not resemble Daoguang pieces. I do not see the typical greyness of the white glaze, nor the slightly orangey footrim of the era.
Fifth, the blue cobalt on this vase resembles the "pale blue" imported cobalt that was introduced into China c.1910.
I would conclude that this vase could be as old as the early Republic. However, it could be a lot newer; I note the great shininess of the porcelain and the awkward paintwork as possibly indicating a more modern dating?