Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Hi all, here another piece in my collections. Since I appreciate so much your knowledge and opinion, I try to sellect some better pieces of mine to share you for opinion.

Here one of them :
�A small Qingbai jar finely and thinly potted in the shape of globular body as typical of Yuan Dynasty guan jar form, decorated superbly with a carved of phoenix on one side and large peony on the other side, accentuated by comb design on the leaves, all covered with a beautiful translucent ice-bluish white glaze (qingbai) entire the body, except base and footring that remain unglazed revealing fine white body�. 10.5 cm high. Natural wear at mouth rim and in places on glaze surface

What do you think about this Qingbai Jar ? have the shape also appeared during Song period ? Saveral pictures, including some close up are uploaded for your inspection. For your attention and opinion, I wish to thank in advance,

Kind Regards,
Soehandi.

I only have one ref of a qingbai jar in this shape, although there are a few other examples with one in the Shanghai museum & one in San Francisco, (asian art museum) the decor is slightly different but still, like this one, reminiscent of the style of decor found on Yaozhou wares.
Your jar is smaller than these examples but I believe that if genuine your jar would still be a fairly rare piece & for the points I mentioned before I still have a nagging doubt about it.
The base also gives me reson for doubt as quite often Yuan pieces, especially of higher quality, (as I think this should be) have a glazed base, though of course not all, looking at references of Sung & Yuan pieces the foot itself could also be incorrect.
Not much help I`m afraid & I still think when you can handle it you are in the best position to judge, is it possible that you know a bit more about it that may help?
Actually I have a qingbai ewer that although very convincing still gives me similar doubts, I have camera probs at the moment, (due to accidental soaking with bottle of beer) but once I get a new one I`ll post that as I`m very interested in other opinions.
For the moment all I can say for your jar is I hope it`s OK but have reservations.

Phil.

Hi,
the shape I think would place this in the Yuan period & the glaze looks OK to me. (In fact very nice especially where it pools.)
The decor I would like to come back to after I`ve looked at more references, (at the moment I`m not at home.)
The trouble I find with qingbai is that it`s one of those types of ware which really need to be handled, pics can only take you so far. The paste, which I think should feel sugary to the touch, (maybe fine sandpaper is a better description.) is also quite a stark white which is alright but I`d expect the unglazed paste to show more of a buff colour due to iron impurities.
As this most likely would have been excavated perhaps the crazing should also be more stained as a result of this burial.
I`m also slightly perturbed by evidence of the firing supports which look a bit strange to me. I`m more used to seeing where fairly large clay parcels were used & something strikes me as wrong with these three triangular shaped marks.
These are only small points, the colour of the unglazed paste & the firing supports but enough to give a nagging doubt, as I said I`d like to handle such a piece before reaching a verdict, this could well be a very nice piece but I also think there`s a slight chance it could be a clever fake, in that case it most certainly would have been made to deceive.
I think the best judge of this would be the person who has it in hand.

Phil.

The Shape is like the early Kuan type jars of the early Ming, I think a Late Yuan date is most likely.

Regards, Edward

The glaze look convincing including the color and the wear. I am rather uncomfortable with the foot rim. The color of the paste on the face of it looks incorrect. The spurious clay spur marks look like they are painted. The foot rim looks very perfect and clean cut.

Maybe the provenance of the jar would be important to the authencity of this jar.

Regards

Ambrose

Dear Phil, Edward and all

Thank you very much for your reply and opinions.
If you dont mind, I am happy and would be highly appreciated if you can post the pictures of similar shape from your reference material for comparison, please. Also, Phil, please post picture of your similar item for our comparison here.
Other comment are pleased welcome.

Kind regards,
Soehandi.

I pretty much feel the same way as ambrose, although I seem to have a more long winded way of saying it.
Interesting reference is in the Hangzhou city cultural relics bureau collection & is illustrated in the book "Qingbai ware: Chinese porcelain of the Sung & Yuan dynasties" & published by the Percival David foundation.(#94, page 176)
As I said my camera is buggered at the moment so pics will have to wait, hopefully not too long.
Any provenence, as Ambrose mentioned, could be most helpful.

Phil.

Soehandi,

For your reference, here is two examples of early Ming Kuan type jars, with an inside luting welt located at the shoulder area.

Ambrose is mistaken in his observation, "The color of the paste on the face of it looks incorrect. The spurious clay spur marks look like they are painted. The foot rim looks very perfect and clean cut."

The color of the paste can be buff and creme colored for the period. There is a wide variety of finished cuts from the period, some better quality, others less so.

The burnt organge need not to be present to be genuine and of the period. This notion that a period piece must be a little crude, or not crude enough, or yet too perfect, is false. It simply depends on the quality of workmanship; you have many examples from the period (published) that show varying qualities.

Regards, Edward Shumaker

I think Ambrose is commenting on qingbai wares & their usual characteristics, we should not compare to Ming blue & white even though the shape is similar to those posted by Ed.

Phil.

I think we need to examine potting techniques of the period, as well as the various paste, type cut, etc.

It is clear that the qingbai glazes of the Yuan were of a darker blue/green tint than that of the earlier Song period.

Though I've shown a blu/wht Ming Kuan type jar, yet is is relative to the styles of the mid 14th.

It is more than just speculation, that you have the luted joint at the same juncture, as well as the same shape, and about the same size as the example shown on Soehandi's jar.

To prove this point, the Ming Kuan type jar is 12.5 cm H vs the qingbai jar at only 10.5 cm H,
the difference is one inch.

Your focus is only on the glaze, which other factors need to be taken into consideration as well, ie, shape, size, potting technique, paste,
natural mature grazing, vs chemical induced aging etc.

by all accounts, Soehandi's jar is not chemically aged, but has un-even grazing that is too difficult to reproduce. The fact that it is a very small jar, would make no sense to fake it.

I used the Ming blu/wht to illustrate the shape and potting technique. You just can't single out one point to build your argument, as you seemigly have done.

Regards, Edward

Dear Edward,
I`m not sure if your last post is adressed to me, if it is it seems you haven`t read correctly the points I previously made.
This jar may well be genuine but some points, as anyone who is a fan, & has experience of qingbai wares will tell you give cause for concern.
Also IMO, as a jar like this would be a great addition to any collection of qingbai there is every reason to fake it.
Lets hope thats not the case.

Regards,
Phil.

Phil,

I understand your points, but I don't think that the triangular shaped marks are evidence of supports.

Maybe its a glue residue? Perhaps Soehandi would like to give it a brisk scrub and find out.

I think the paste is alright, as there was good quality paste being used that would render an almost white appearance. From what I gather from the photo, it appears that there is some iron impurity, and it looks as though it had (un-glazed paste) a good cleaning.

Soehandi, try taking the edge of a knife and scrape off if you can, what looks like the support area. I think there may have been felt pads on it at sometime in its history, hence the dark residue of glue.

Edward

if we are analysing potting then I would bring up some interesting points. Most of the qingbai jarlets or small jars occured during the late Song and Yuan period. All the qingbai jarlets I have seen have the similar style luting whilst some had luting in the middle section.

One major difference I find is that all the qingbai small jars I have seen had a flat concave base and none had a foot rim. This makes me uncomfortable together with the nature of the paste

Regards

Ambrose

Ambrose,

For your reference a small qingbai jarlet.

Regards, Ed

There are 38 known kiln sites or more that produced qingbai wares; due the enormous popularity of the wares the majority of these were produced in the Yuan dynasty.

Of the many references that I researched, I find no evidence of a Kuan shaped jar before the Yuan.

What I find interesting in the potting techniques of the period, is the continuation of some Southern Song styles, including footrims.

Just because one dynasty ends, does not mean that certain techniques and styles ended. Some remote areas were still producing the Southern Song style, including the footrims.

IMO, there was a contiuation of one dynasty unique style, until the following dynasty adopted their own unique style at an later date, but still having some elements of the former dynasty.

I think this is what Soehandi's Kuan jar is trying to tell us. We must remember of the great
wide distances of these various kilns and their traditional methods of manufacture, in order to understand the slow process of information that naturally occured.

There was no immediate change from one dynasty to the next, it just did'nt happen that way.

Regards, Edward Shumaker

Dear Phil, Edward, Ambrose and All

Yes, sometimes for certain kind of wares, it is difficult to judge a piece from photos alone. But this is our condition. In this forum we work only by pictures. If I have a chance to visit you sometime later, I am happy to show you the piece in person.

The jar acquired by my grandfather in 1940 (I am afraid there is someone who will say, this claim is only a story rather than history).
The piece has been cleaned. As far as I concern to the piece, everything is natural and no artificial treatment to make the piece look old. In my opinion, I have not problem at all with the footring and unglazed paste. I found similar footring and spurmark on sherd of genuine Qingbai ware (pictures uploaded).

My opinion about this jar are (just my opinion and subject to correction by other members).

- Shape : as you and Edward have said, indeed from Yuan period. This form very common in Yuan Blue and white pieces, and also as in your previous response, the shape also exist in Qingbai ware. But I still wonder, when this kind of form begin to appear, during song period or absolutely Yuan origin ?
- Decoration : Phoenix and peony were carved in Song and Yuan manner. Technique of carving also consistent to the period, carved at an angle similar to Yaozhou wares as you have mentioned. For this technique, a bambo knife is a right tool used during the period.
- Glaze : Right as Phil mentioned.
- Paste : fine white, sugary to the touch similar with your description of fine sandpaper.
- Wear : As far as I concern, look very natural with russet stain crackle here and there.
- Footring : I found a similar one (photo uploaded)
- Brown spurmark : I found a sherd of qingbai base with brown spurmark (photo uploaded).

Other comments are please welcome.

Kind regards
Soehandi

Dear Soehandi and all

Thank you for giving more information. I think you understand that handling would be the best way and I look forward maybe one day to handle this jar.

Ed, thank you for the detailed research and information and most definetly this helps to understand the origins and history. You do make life easier for me that I do not have to look at so many books but merely absorb the facts of your posting. Great job. Still one very important fact remains in that all these book information at the end of the the day merely gives more clues to the authencity of a ware but not conclusive. Information from books and comparison to pictures and museum exhibits are excellent but the physical handling of the ware and comarison to an identical peice identified to a period and kiln is closer to a conclusive result. I always remember that a doctor just studying books can never be a proper doctor unless he actually has practised what he has learnt.Hence I try to handle as many peices as I can ,when ever I can.

For me this jar is very beautiful and as Phil said a very rare peice and I have never seen one like this including the decoration. Many of these rather special peices tend to be found in South East Asia especially Indonesia and baffels the purist in other parts of the world. I would not be surprised if this was located in Indonesia. The negative element is that this part of the world also does some quite good qingbai reproductions with very convincing glaze and foot rims.

I personally have examined a very large number of qingbai ware and whilst I do not profess to be an expert , I have not seen a foot rim like this on a genuine example. The example shown by Soehandi I still believe is not the same in paste as the jar paste. Hence I feel uncomfortable but anyway I have not seen an example like this so I could be surprised. I would very much like to handle this jar physically to really come to some conclusion.

The shape I beleive has only been recorded as from the Yuan period.There is a similar shapped jar but 11 cm and no decorations that is in one of my Chinese books and recorded as Yuan.

I must also congratulate Soehandi for some great pictures as qingbai color is difficult to be captured on photos

I await any more information

Regards

Ambrose

Hi all,
first I`ll add my congrats for a great thread, I`m not sure we can take it much further due to the limitations of the media but just discussing this jar must increase our knowledge, (we`d hope!) of one of my favourite types of ware.
Soehandi summarised very well the features of this jar, shape, glaze, paste colour & texture, (the decor I`ve omitted, not because it isn`t found in Yuan, it is but I`ve been unable to find a good match on qingbai pieces where even the Guan shape seems quite rare, as mentioned more commonly found in blue & white) which would probably lead me to at least consider buying it were I to see it in a shop.
I keep coming back to the foot which is where my doubts still lie I`m afraid. The strange marks, which look like some type of firing support probably puzzle me the most but I`m also uneasy about the flat shape of the foot rim. In the pic posted by Ed the foot looks more as I would expect, (if there were a foot at all & the base were not flat.)
I`m limited without a camera as I only have whats on my hard drive but below I`ll post the foot of a northern Sung jar, admittedly larger but most typical.
Conclusions? I dunno! Whilst most is very convincing there remains nagging doubts, whilst this was bought in the 1940`s, when pics of bases were I think less commonly shown in publications, it still could be a very clever copy.
On the other hand it could be a rare Yuan piece.
In my experience, (& I`ve had a few pieces for several years before I`ve managed to come to a conclusion) the only problems are likely to arise if Soehandi wants to sell this piece sometime & as it`s been in the family for 70yrs that doesn`t seem likely. By continuing to handle this jar as well as studying other pieces I`m sure that in the end Soehandi will know were it belongs, eventually all pieces like this give up their secrets, sometimes it just takes a bit longer.
Below is the foot of a northern Sung qingbai jar.
Thanks again for an informative & somewhat civilised thread.

Regards,
Phil.

Ambrose, Phil, Soehandi,

Everyone has made some very valid observations, its true that handling experience is a powerful teacher, but I think there needs to be an equal balance between research and handling. Both have strong points, but you can not have the one without the other.

I have only a dozen qingbai examples, and I make regular trips to Virginia and N.Y. and handle as many of this ware that I can. But this does not make me an expert, don't believe in the term myself, there is only specialist.

I will say that I am learning, and learning fast. It is my feeling that with books and information and the many notes left to me, along with your extensive handling experience, that we can we reach some conclusions.

Regards, Edward Shumaker

Dear Soehandi & Edward,
I hadn`t seen Ambroses latest post when I made mine this morning.
I`d like to echo his sentiments regarding Ed`s research & Soehandi`s excellent photography but his caution regarding some of the very high quality fakes produced in S.E.Asia, especially it seems Indonesia does seem justified.
On a recent trip to Bali I found the quality of some copies of various early wares to be quite scary.
I don`t know if this level of expertise existed when Soehandis grandfather aquired this jar but if we consider the high quality of some pieces made in China during the early 20thC perhaps it`s also a possibility?
Like Ambrose I`d also like to handle this jar in person, let me know if you ever make it to Hong Kong Soehandi & we could discuss it over some refreshment perhaps!

All the best,
Phil.

Dear Phil,

would like to see the profile of your last jar you posted.

Regards

Ambrose

Dear Phil, Edward, Ambrose and All.

I am really happy in this thread since I can learn so much from you all. I also wish to thank you for your participation and opinion.

Qingbai is a type of popular ware during Song to Yuan Dynasty, made in varying quality from less quality for ordinary people to high quality desinated to highly rank people. The latest, I also heard that Qingbai ware with very high quality especially to those with bluish white glaze also used in the song court. Althaough, originally this kind of wares were made in Jingdezhen, but due to their popularity, these wares were copied at many kilns during the period. This is proved exactly by map shown by Edward in his previous post.

From the discussion, I can draw on a conclusion, The jar may well be a genuine Yuan piece but also still have a change to be a good clever reproduction (say fake, but I try to avoid using the term of fake) due to its clay and footring. I am happy with this conclusion, but I still have a little question. If the jar is a reproduction piece due to its wrong shape footring, why the technical potting (how the jar was luted as seen in inner side) is right. I imagine, for reproducer, probably it is more difficult to get picture of inner side of the jar compared with picture of foot. To my understanding, If the footring is wrong due to limited picture, the technical luting also must be wrong, because more difficult to get picture of inner side than the footring.

Because of the wares were manucfactured in many kiln, probably comparison must be done to those pieces from same kiln and period. Since the spread of kilns location quite wider from Edward�s map, probably different kiln will have different a clay and footring (this is only my thought and I hope so :). From the beginning we have not talking about the kiln where the jar was probably made. Are all qingbai wares made in various quite distant kiln also will have exactly the same clay and footring ?

But, first of all, again thank you very much for your very friendly response and informative opinion. I learn so much from you all. I hope one day I will have a chance to show you the piece for your first hand inspection.

For Phil, Ambrose and Edward, would you like please to kindly post any picture of qingbai ware with similar shape from your reference book for my further study ?


Kind Regards,
Soehandi.

Soehandi,

One can only reason, of the wide expanse of area, that clay (paste) would have differences it its molecular consistency. Some clays having a higher content of iron than others, yet still others having a better plasticity and purity, with very little iron.

I believe with the higher content of kaolin, it may point to Jingdezhen or the next province near by. Perhaps Phil or Ambrose may want to comment on this.

Regards, Edward E. Shumaker

Dear Soehandi, Ed, Ambrose & others,
firstly with regards to Soehandi`s question regarding luting, if this piece is a repro it would be a high quality one, as mentioned before if that is the case my opinion would be it has been created to deceive & whilst there are many different styles of foot rims luting appears fairly straight forward, the only possible difference being in the position of the seam. I don`t think this would cause any difficulty to the maker.

True that qingbai type wares have been found at many different sites, according to my references 44 counties in 9 different provinces both north & south of the Yangtze river but I want to stress that the finest quality pieces, (I think this jar should fall into that category if genuine) as well as the largest number were produced at the 140+ kilns located in the Jingdezhen area.

Especially the important kilns such as Hutian are justifiably famous due to the high quality porcelain, stark white in colour & we must remember that qingbai refers not only to the glaze but to the porcelain body too & as far as I know it seems that the Jingdezhen area is perfectly suited for the creation of qingbai due the availability of the raw materials necessary, (china stone & china clay) as well as water supply & abundant wood for the kilns.

I have read that one reason for the possible concentration of kilns in Jiangxi making fine white porcelains such as qingbai was the discovery of a china stone, (Nangang stone) close to Jingdezhen, apparently due to the large alumina content of this stone kaolin, (china clay) was not necessary.

Anyhow I`m afraid I`m not too well versed in the technicalities of porcelain production & would prefer to leave this aspect to others but it is a fact that the best & most amount of qingbai wares were produced in Jingdezhen.

Soehandi, I`m afraid that until I get a new camera I`m unable to post pics of the references previously mentioned but I would reccomend the book, (again I think I mentioned this in a previous post.) "Qingbai ware, porcelain of the Sung & Yuan dynasties" ISBN: 0 7286 0339 X, published by the Percival David foundation & with commentaries by Rosemary Scott, Amy Barnes & others.

Ambrose, as I have the pics on my hard drive I`m in a position to post more of the qingbai jar that you requested. It`s a granary jar of not uncommon type, height is just under 8" or 20cm. I think this is a fairly good & typical example of a type of ware produced in large numbers. The colour is not as fine as that shown on Soehandi`s jar being of a slight greyish blue cast but the foot appears a dead match to that posted by Ed as an example, (according to Hazel, my wife, the description in chinese of the features of this foot & the slight "pot bellied" base is very good, if it`s not too much bother I`d like to ask Ed for the source of the pic.) The paste of this jar exhibits the sugary texture we expect & is a bit loose as can be seen in these pics. Although very bright white as expected the unglazed portion has turned to the buff colour that again we like to see.

Kind regards,
Phil.

Here is a yuan reference which is almost identical shape and size.

Regards

Ambrose

as a constant reader and sometimes poster, threads like these are what keep me reading this forum. Fascinating

Dear Phil, Ambrose, Edward and All

I would like to express my appreciation to all of you.

Phill : Thank you for your interesting reference source for this jar, I will try to get one of this book. I agree with you, if genuine (I hope so), this jar may well be manucfactured in Jingdezhen and its vicinity due to shape and quality of the piece. Same like you, I also have no experience at all in practical potting. Also thank you for your patient in helping me in this thread.

Ambrose : Thank you for sharing your excellent knowledge on qingbai ware. Your knowledge is really a good asset to the forum. Also, I wish to thank very much for your post of similar shape qingbai picture.

Edward : Your scholarly based responses support with your first hand experience are excellent. Yes, I agree with you. Since numerous Qingbai kilns spread in very wides location, the clay of qingbai ware may vary in quality and gradient. Some have more iron impurities and some other have almost pure white. I uploaded picture of qingbai wares with almost pure white paste and trying to compare with my piece. Unfortunately, I have no image of base, so I can only make comparison from side view.

Inga : I also only can posting and posting. Many well qualified contibutors in this forum who can help us identified our pieces or at least give us any guideline for further research, but we must provide the information honestly.

Kind regards
Soehandi.

Thanks for the kind words Soehandi, I enjoyed participating in this thread & do hope that it may help you, even if only to a small degree.

Phil.

I dare to pose a question about the almost invisible marks on the base of Shoehandi's posted pot above. These slight impressions are something i have found on countless Asian objects wood stone .sporcelain and metal. Sometimes they are extremely elaborate and (sorry finding it impossible to post pics or edit text here but if you look clisely at the base if the carved celadon you will see these shadowy images there)always carefully conceiled almost invisible combinations of characters and forms almost impossible to photograph they are so subtle. Does anyone know what thesecare about? I will try to upload some images but dont have much lyck withcthat due to poor internet connections . I can find nothing about these pervase shadows which i find on almost every piececwhrnci look

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