Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Hi Everyone,

I inherited this charger from my grandfather many years ago. He was a man witha good eye for antiquities and I have always been told this piece was the business but nver really told why. In recent years my interest in old porcelain has increased and from what I have learned, this charger does seem old but then I am aware the likelihood it is a copy of some sort. May not even be japanese. The plate is in excellent condition inclduing the gilding. There is no outlining and the design and painting seems to have been done in a loose and free style which points towards old. The blue is suitably faded and the glaze has a soft sheen. Size is 14.5 inches (just under 37 cms) in diameter; just under 2 inches (about 4.5 cms) tall.

Any additional information would be most welcome

Sincerely

Gerry

Gerry,

A picture is worth a thousand words...

I am trying to attach images

regards,

Gerry

Hi Gerry,

You are correct. It is a Japanese Imari porcelain charger. The "Ko" in Ko-Imari just means "old" Imari. Imari was made in and around Arita, Japan, and exported, mainly to Europe by the Dutch from the port of Imari.

The cobalt blue underglaze stylized floral form in the center of your dish, perhaps trying to copy a Japanese Mon or family insignia/crest, looks to be transfer printed or stenciled. Actually a form of tranfer printing was used in Japan as early as the latter half of the 18th century as shown by some early examples in the Shibata collection. So, it's presence doesn't always indicate a late piece. The marks on the base of your dish are called spur marks or spur scars which result from the metal or ceramic supports used to hold the large dishes during firing to prevent the base from sagging or warping in the kiln. Generally, these spur marks, anywhere from one to four or more, are found on the bases of Japanese but not on Chinese porcelain dishes. Your charger I think dates to the latter half of the 19th century, around 1870, as shown by the way it is decorated and by the color and consistancy of the red enamel. It is a nice example of later Imari production.

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your valuable insight and the interesting information you have provided. I'm not too sure about the centre design being transferred/stenciled. I have checked the whole plate and all the painting and design seems to be free hand. One bit of information I did find was the centre design on my plate seems to be similar to a device Japanese call "gobenka". When this device was prolifically used I am not certain. Your aging of the piece is probably correct though I was thinking it might be a century older because of the amount of spur marks present. I've read that spur marks generally became less in number as firing techniques and porcelain wares were made lighter. Would this be true of 19th century pieces?

Thanks Gerry

Hi Gerry,

I still think the charger dates to the early Meiji period rather that the late 18th c. This opinion is based on the colors and decoration in the well. You are correct that the verso has some indicators of greater age, e.g., the more numerous, scattered spur marks, and the four floral forms. It's hard to tell from your pics but please look closely at the red enamel where it's applied thickly. If it is a fairly clear red and has a shine or gloss, that would confirm that it's Meiji period Imari. However, if it is matte and a little muddy rather than clear, that would indicate that the dish could be older than I indicated.

Hi Robert,

Great feedback and your extra information is where I fall down. I am just not educated enough to judge by colour or decorative technique. I have seen and handled some later Imari pieces and the glaze does seem thick and high gloss. The charger I have posted is quite different as the colour and glazing as you said though smooth seems to be quite dull and matte. The application of the colour and glazing is done quite thinly. I suppose this is the problem when trying to assess an object from a photograph (and I'm no David Bailey. If you think it worthwhile I will try and capture some clearer images and post them in a reply?

Regards,

Gerry

Hi Gerry.
I agree with Robert that this is a late 19th century piece, and the centre is definitely stencilled. As regards the faded blue. It is not faded. The cobalt blue is exactly as it was as the day that it was made. The painting is called under-glaze (for obvious reasons!) and will not change over time.
Regards
David

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