Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Some years ago I bought these bowl in the island of Java. I have no idea if they are new or old, I just like them. Would anybody write some word about them?
Thank you very much.

There are 8 bowls down her.

Bowl Number 2

Bowl number 3

Bowl number 4

Bowl number 5

Bowl number 6

Bowl number 7

Bowl number 8

Thank you all!

The 'Xi' (happiness) characters and other decorative elements are roughly drawn. While these bowls could have been exported by a 'minyao' (popular wares) kiln, perhaps in Fujian province, my impression is that Chinese export wares usually were decorated better and had more precise calligraphy. As such, I think it would be wise to maintain some suspicion as to the possibility of these bowls having been produced by a kiln somewhere in Southeast Asia, maybe in Annam (old name for Vietnam). Similar wares were made in China from Ming to modern times.


You also might keep in mind that in recent years Indonesia has been identified as the location of cottage and better-organized industries devoted to producing imitation shipwreck ceramics and in some cases high-quality reproductions of antique porcelains in Canton famille rose patterns.

Best regards,

Bill H.

FYI, I showed up before Richard had finished downloading all images. My preceding comment only pertained to bowl 1.
Bill H.

Further to my earlier comments, I'd opine that bowl 3 has decoration and glazing comparable to what I've seen and handled in the way of authenticated transitional and early Qing blue & white export wares.

The closest I've come to the decoration on the bowls with the happiness character is shown in an image herewith of a circa third quarter 20th century bowl that was available then on the shelves of some Asian import stores in the USA and still pops up on eBay from time to time labeled erroneously as antique.

Best regards,

Bill H.

These appear to be typical Indonesian replicas of Chinese "shipwreck" bowls.Similar pottery is available in the many stalls along Jalan Surabaya in Jakarta. Although it is possible to find some genuine antiques in the five or six block market, some of the higher priced items are very well made replicas. I have a home in Bekasi,near Jakarta, and make it a point to visit the market on Jalan Surabaya several times each year.

Hi all,

I think, and from what I understand Bill feels the same, Nr. 3 is Chinese. Bowls with simular (outside) decoration were found at the "Desaru" shipwrack (Daoguang period). But the total appearance is different.
I don' really understand those shopmarks but from what I know there is a difference in those marks from Ming and Qing peiod. The shopmarks on those found on the Deasaru are typical for the Qing periode. The mark on Richards' bowl looks typical for the Ming period. Those seems to be called " Lattice shop marks". Also the color differs and seems more bluish, the rim seems thinner and fragile like late Ming/early Kangxi pieces.

All in one; I think nr.3 is Chinese and I have the feeling it might be of late Ming period.

Regards,

Arjan

I hardly breathe when I see email notifying new reply in this forum. Your knowledge is great.

Thank you for all your answers. Some bowls are from Jakartas Jalan Surabaya, some are from Yogyakarta.

So far I understand bowl N.3 might be from 16th century, others are probably indonesian copies, am I right?

I am going to visit Beijing soon, is there any shop with some old stuff hopefully no copies? For reasonable price?

Thank you again!!

Most of your bowls, thats the ones with the double happiness character on them were produced in Fujian province during the latter part of the 19thC, (roughly 1860-1910, could be a bit later) They were very common export items mainly to South East Asia, although similar pieces have also been excavated in Chinese settlements, (such as railroad & mining sites) in the U.S. Due to their use by manual labourers in both SEA & the US these bowls are commonly referred to as "Tin Miners bowls" Due to the huge numbers these bowls were made in they often bear an inscribed or "tattooed" owners mark, usually referred to erroneously by hopeful ebay sellers as an "artists signature."

Of the others, the bowl with the stylised Qing reign mark has been identified by comparison with those salvaged from the Desaru wreck whilst the two with the "Varja" in the cavetto look to be Ming dynaasty "minyao" pieces, it shouldn`t prove too hard to figure out when during the Ming they were made so I`ll leave you to it.

Reading others comments I see some doubt the authenticity of some of these pieces, I`ll reiterate I think all are OK & of the periods stated in my last post. To date the two Ming bowls, (bowls #4 & 6) accurately I`d suggest looking at the website of N.H. Koh, (Kohs antiques)

Phil.

p.s. The bowl shown in Bills 3rd post is a modern version of the old "Lingzi & Tea flower" motif which dates to the Ming dynasty but has been produced continually since then, with only a progressive deterioation in the quality of the decor. Here`s an early Qing, (Kangxi / Yongzheng) version of the same motif.

" am going to visit Beijing soon, is there any shop with some old stuff hopefully no copies? For reasonable price?"

IMO you`re better off hunting in Indonesia, you just need to learn a little more as fakes abound but there are also many, many good pieces for the discerning buyer & the prices can be quite low.

Hi Richard,

Just speaking for myself; I picked out nr. 3 because I was sure it was Chinese and thought to have a clue for a dating. For me it's to hard to date such minyao pieces but I don't think they are Indonesian fakes. In the mean time there is also a post of Phil about the others. For me there is no reason to think he is far of.

Regards,

Arjan

Arjan, I'm much obliged for your comment mentioning Daoguang. I thought at the outset I'd seen the bowl 3 pattern described as Qing but when I went looking for examples in my archives, the best I found initially was an unmarked transitional bowl with Indian lotus motif and less profuse scroll.

I realize now I should have been searching my disorganized files for dishes besides bowls. Downloaded herewith are additional images of a small Daoguang-marked dish with the lotus motif I'd hoped to find originally.

These lotus patterns were so pervasive, there almost had to be something similar made during the Ming period. The Gerald Davison handbook uses the term "Factory Mark" to refer to lattice and other unintelligible marks. I've run across them on later Qing ware and found them just as unfathomable as those on Ming examples.

I think I'd better get out of here before I sow any more confusion.

Best regards,

Bill H.

Hi Bill and all,

I think your dish comes from the Desaru as well. Simular dishes belonged to the cargo.
I did my former posts at "work" and there it isn't possible to include pictures. So to illustrade what I wrote I post them now.
First 2 pictures of Desaru flowerbowls with a simular outsoude decoration. Inside is different and shopmark differs.
The third picture shows examples of that so called lattice marks wich seems rather characteristic for the Ming period. I thought/think the mark on bowl nr. 3 looks like such a lattice mark.

Regards,

Arjan

Thanks much for the additional information. It may be that the scrawled look of that Daoguang export mark, as well as similar ones on some Qianlong and Jiaqing wares, took inspiration from the Ming lattice marks, Either that or a lot of Ming and Qing minyao kilns just couldn't afford professional calligraphers.

I almost hate to mention this, but when I was digging through my archive I came across photos formerly posted on the web of one of Hong Kong's better known porcelain painting factories. In a couple of images, a copy of a "Desaru" type lotus dish was prominently displayed in the background.

Cheers,

Bill H.

Hello,
Bowl number 3 is most likely Kangxi period. I've seen these type of lattice style marks inside double rings on many noted Kangxi pieces. Also, I'm attaching a couple of pages from my reference book too.
Sincerely,
Steve

I will not claim that I am an expert, but I collect (lots) Blue and White Ming, some Ching and two Yuen Porcelain since 1976. Was Gothenburg forum member. I am Chinese Fukienese born in Middle Java, Indonesia. 1971 live in Germany and since 1986 live in California. Master of Applied Engineering (Architect) and Furniture Designer. I studied Chinese furniture joinery. I know quite a bit about Blue and White. I will not touch any, except #3 Crack, Common, #4 Kiln crack (ok),Edge Chip, Swatow (sand) and #6 Edge Chip, Crack, Common. They all Ming, but I don't think any of it is Kangxi (the peak). Don't ever buy in Jalan Surabaya, Jakarta.
Due to my work, I went through small places in islands, mostly deal with Chinese owners direct in early 1980s. May I ask how much you paid?

Thanks for your replies after some time since I have posted it.
I really dont remember how much I paid. It was in 1996 or 97 so pretty long time ago. I had no idea about chinese bowls, but I bargained very, very hard, even walked away and seller had to run to catch me. I just liked them. But I would like to know, if they have any history. I dont want to sell them, so price is not important. Only story behind them (if from some sunk ship or newly created).
Thanks again.

I am amused to see the "Double Happiness" chops on Indonesian fakes above that are not written by Chinese. Their strokes are totally wrong you could spot it right away. Those "Double Happiness" is the most used by us in every wedding invitation, for sure Indonesian saw them over and over.
You have to understand at Ming and Ching Dynasties Chinese culture is at the peak and porcelain was one of their priced merchandise. Therefore, craftsmen put their utmost effort to decorate them especially on calligraphy. Even though their technology still not as high as now, besides, they are export goods intended to be used daily by commoner.

Hi all

Just to chip in - I recognised the Desaru bowl as well - as for poor calligraphy a great deal of genuine Chinese porcelain has shoddy calligraphy, with the possibility of illiterate artists sometimes.

The mere fact of shoddiness does not mean the object was made by nonChinese speakers, especially for peasant ware like this.

Rgds
JL:im

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