Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Hello!

Everything looks correct on this very large Chinese jar/vase except a slight variation in the seal. I think the symbol "Nian" is different from the symbol usually found in the seal. Is this a normal seal variation, a fake or honorific mark? Any help would be appreciated!

With all do respect, everything does not look correct for this vase to be an authentic Qianlong vase.

The enamels are too muddy/dark, the dragon's hands are not in the 'pinwheel' form, and the dragon is poorly rendered.

As for the mark, when the Qianlong seal mark was used, it was was drawn within a square, just like a seal.

If the quality of the decoration was better, I might think this was an early 20th c vase, but given the muddy enamel color, I would say post 1950...maybe as late as 1980's.

Hello TimG!

I have to apologize for my camera...it doesn't take very good pictures. I will include a couple more but I don't think they're much better...they don't pick-up worn off gilt very well and that's what you're seeing as muddy. I'm really not looking for an opinion on the piece but on the seal, itself. I understood that the seal, different from the mark, could have variation. What I was asking is if the symbol "Zian", was just plain wrong however I have already found a similar style on another authentic piece.

Of course I cannot represent this as a period piece, I have no idea when it was actually made,(though I have a much better idea than you because all you can judge are tiny photos). By the way, many pieces of Ch'ien Lung porcelain are marked with a seal without a line around them...here's a quick example
http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2017/07/11/35467558.html

You just need to Google a whole bunch of period, and non-period, seals without "squares".

For clarification, this is what's known as a Dragon (or 9 Dragon) vase and it's pretty darned cool!

The photos are fine. However, to ask about the mark and to disregard the rendering of the vase is to not see the forest for the trees.

We collectors have all been guilty of this to some some degree, myself included, but it is a bad habit if you have serious intentions of understanding authenticity.

The mark must be copy, regardless of how it drawn, because everything else about the vase is inferior to the quality of the Qianlong. Furthermore, the other components of the vase speak volumes of the quality and age being of late 20th c.

On the other hand, a finely made vase with a poorly rendered mark may still have potential as being of the period, but never is the case in the reverse.

I'm not disparaging your vase...if you like it, good! I have numerous reproductions that I enjoy because the genuine pieces are valued well in the millions of USD.

However, to discuss only the merits of authenticity of the mark on your late 20th c. vase has no academic worth whatsoever. The mark, although extremely important to dating a piece of porcelain, is among the easiest aspects of a vase to be faked.

Dear Jay

I'm afraid this is modern, and you do not even have to go beyond the seal to see that: the seal is printed on. This is unheard of for underglaze marks in antique pieces.

When this is combined with the artificially dirtied footrim and crude paintwork, again, this is very modern.

Kind regards
JLim

By the way, you wrote - "many pieces of Ch'ien Lung porcelain are marked with a seal without a line around them...here's a quick example
http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2017/07/11/35467558.html "

Perhaps you did not look carefully at the very article you referenced, but the title reads "large yellow-ground bats and clouds porcelain bottle vase, underglaze blue Qianlong mark, Guangxu period"

So, to clarify, the Qianlong seal mark that is displayed in the article that does not have the square around it is of the Guangxu period 1875-1908), not Qianlong (1735-1796).

It is these small details that you seem to be overlooking that is hindering your ability to understand authenticity, or the lack there of.

Many moons ago a wise sage once said to me:

"Grasshopper, at the risk of exposing trade secrets, the reason I don't tell everything about those buzzwords found littering my responses is that I'm eternally hopeful I can spark interest enough that my intended beneficiary will take them directly to Google and make a few queries on their own." (Bill H.)

But since that doesn't always work,

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/2018/magnificent-imperial-ruyi-vase-pf1837.html

and:

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2014/fine-chinese-ceramics-works-art-l14211/lot.51A.html

and I think you can work it out from here.

Since then I've also been cautioned by another wise man never to bring a cat to a dogfight, if anyone thinks that fits the situation here. I've been pussyfooting around this fray, 'cause that vase already looks more dog-bit than when it first got here, and I'm afraid some of those hounds might still be hangin' around in the shadows for another meal. :o

Bill H.

I should have just ignored the demeaning remark, and just let you step in to settles things in the first place.

Sorry, Bill....didn't intend for you to get dragged into this pissing contest, but I couldn't just go belly up, either.

Yes, and in both the examples you provide the square of the seal mark is created by the turquoise glaze on the bottom of the vase.

Like I said, it is the small details that seem to elude you.

Regarding the use of Bill H's quote....

I know Bill H, he has a lifetime of experience, extensive knowledge, and a keen eye for detail that commands respect, so if he were to instruct me to do further research, it would not be taken as an offense as I have great appreciation for all of his contributions.

However, coming from you I find it insulting and quite laughable. You have not earned the right to equate yourself with Bill H. by using his quote. And, you obviously do not know my background and the extent of my experience with Asian antiques.

I have proudly been a student 'grasshopper' of the Asian arts for just 25 years,but that does not mean I don't know a thing or two that you might benefit from if you got off your high horse.

I am sorry, Tim, I was just baiting you and I've done so long enough. It would have taken less than 30 seconds to find the proper period seal for you but I figured you were trying to "prove" something...so I let you continue. It's clear you don't have a background in Asian art and are probably picking up what you know from this site. This is my last post here, since I had my answer shortly after I made the first post, (and you might have learned something if you'd actually followed the initial question). Alas, that's not to be.

Your best argument seems to be post an erroneous link, derogate my knowledge, then run for the hills.

Where to start....

Stop attacking my knowledge and start backing up your argument with some facts. I have plenty to learn, but I still have something to contribute from time to time, and in this case I know enough about your obviously modern copy of a vase as to not argue the merits (or lack there of) of the mark. But since you couldn't take some friendly criticism, allow me to be more to the point.

The article from Christie's is is one I've read before, and it does not address anything specific about the use of a square around 6 character Qianlong enamel marks.

Now, if you are trying to claim that because the article shows genuine 6 character Qianlong underglaze blue marks with no square, that this must mean there are genuine 6 character enamel Qianlong marks, then I believe you are drawing a false equivalency. Show me the proof! No? Thought so.

As for the 4 character enamel marks in the Christie's article, they appear to be on enamel, not porcelain. The photo does not specify, but you can search sold lots and all the 4 character enamel Qianlong marks have squares or double squares around them.

You seem to like comparing same period, but different style porcelains, as a means of proving your point - it unconvincing at the least, and possibly misleading at the worst.

So, to your initial question which you claim to have answered early on, which is it? A variation, a fake, or a horrific mark?

My money is split on fake and horrific mark.

https://www.christies.com/features/Reign-marks-on-Chinese-ceramics-An-expert-guide-8248-1.aspx

Forgot to send this along with last missive. Sorry...now we're done.

Dear JayC

I cannot overemphasise what I wrote before. The mark is PRINTED on. This is impossible for a Qianlong era underglazed mark. Impossible.

And this is without even looking at the artificially dirtied footrim and crude paintwork.

Kind regards
Jonathan Lim

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