Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

hi i have reasearched many many many times on the net and i can't seem to find more about this bowl. it's alsmost 17.5 cm " width on the top and 7.5" deep bowl.

i have again tried and tried to get more information about this bowl as i want to sell it. by your guidance may be i can contact christies or sotheby's regarding this matter, but before i do i just want to know in an average how much reserve price should i put on this xuande bowl which i recently bought for 850 dollars. ;) well i know that did shock you. but it's all because of hard work and going around garage sales and small auction houses in towns and villages. i have attached few pictures.



well i found that this type of xuande bowl is the first to use underglazed blue and white and then again use enamel for other colors. and also found that these are extremely rare as i haven't seen any of these type come up to any auctions yet. and as you can see the lanca script in the bowl the similar with stem cup was sold in sothebys and christies for a big money.



this bowl has the yellow orange color but there are some plate and dishes and porcelain made in xuande that was decorate in such a color instead of a white one. i nearly tried to clean it with a strong solvent but when i found that some xuande are made of this color as seen in yellow , dirty color i was lucky that i didn't tried to scrubbb it off with strong chemical.



can you please, let me know if this is rare ? and in an average how much reserve price i should put. am pretty sure it's 101% original. cheers. i would really really appreciate it. thanks.



i know there is one stem cup and one dish bowl in tibet and one broken example in a musuem in china but do you know if it's classified as extrememly rare, rare or general. thanks. i would appreciate your help on this matter and hope that you are also excited to see something truly in it's original form. cheers.

the item is listed in ebay and my if the bidding doesn't reach a million dollar mark not selling. any advice will be appreicated. cheers.


Australia

p.s. i guess the copper or bronze box as shown for storing the bowl must be made later. i have just been interested in chinese antiques since 3 months. so sorry if i have misunderstood anythiing here.





Link :Antique Chinese Porcelain Xuande Pre Qianlong Vase Bowl

hi, prabhu


before you listed in e-bay,
it must be good-herb.


dennis

What does that means good herb????

You already guarantee in sale that is genuine Xuande. Why asking forum before take to auction house?

Good luck,
Cal

You do know the requirements of big houses . And also there isn't big market for antiques insydney that's why Christies and Sotheby's closed their houses here. Common sense. Some things you know when you put in hands what they are and hiw old they are. Cheers

Oh... my... God! *Face Palm*

I'm going to bookmark the auction and see how much it sells for! Although the brass container looks nice and might actually have some age to it. Gives new meaning to the labels "For Decorative Use Only" as the most popular way to make an item to have this grubby look is to submerge the item in a nasty concoction of mud, old motor oil and human or animal sewage.

Wonder who the person from New Zealand is that wanted to travel all the way to Sydney to see the bowl. Tony! You have any idea?

Ha Ha Pyro,
I wouldn't cross the room to see this, but the last zero feedback buyer had 25 consecutive bids. This story reminds me of your friend in Bali, not to forget those jade sellers in Brisbane and Vancouver.

A little humour is good for the soul.

Cheers
Tony

What dies this means ? I don't have a friend in Bali? well you are right, you wouldntevencross tge roomy see it cause you can't afford to see it. Haha. And anywyas for you to rent and see it might eventake a fortune.

With all the relevance explanation I have given am surprised due to almost all items nowadays are fake even some in museums and when an average guy has a original bowl its a fake but a collector who has even a fake bowl is considered original. What a world haha

guesss what??? well no one has seen it yet! have you's? i mean in real in the exhibition. oh don't you wish to hold it in your hands guys come one positive attitude? i saw in the threads about oh fake? oh definitely something is wrong? do you guys ever wonder that this was the first innovation using this tenchinqeu of underglazed blue with overglazed enamel? and do you have any idea that in that time itself it cost a huge amount of money to make this type of porcelain? hello!!! and like i said, how can one be sure? look at the references i provided in the links. all of the designs are different. the designs on the sakya temple bowl is differnt than the design in the bowl? and design on the broken dish in musuems is different than the design on the large plate?? so every designs are different if you take a close look.

and, i guess you guys don't want to talk about that the colors of underglaze blue matches, the mark matches and yes it's hard to copy that too as you can see in the fake items. and remember this was one of the most important production and was for very rarely used.
1) expensive
2) used for prayers and were given gifts to monasteries and high lamas of tibet thats why they were found in sakya monastery in tibet and this came from kathok monastery which is under nyingme lineage of busshism. and kathok monastery was built 1000 years ago. so an excellent provenance.
3) and also there was an articel stating that this was also used on during some imperail deaths and only used in offering.
4) so that concludes the differnce in design. it was an innovatin and that they were produced few and that as a sensible human being deaths don't occur every day at imperial place and that big rituals and offering were not made every day. so when there was a gap on that a common sense tells you that was made may be few months or may be in few year gap times. so the design colors shades must have changed. and why do people forget that if it was meant to be a copy or a fake ?? why is there no clouds where the dragon is???? if you were to copy an art how could you miss the major factor ?? like and eye or a nose ?? haha funny ??
so have a close look up and tell me why is there no clouds. if they were to make this a copy looks like an expensive copy right ? are they stupiod not to even put a cloud on side above below of dragon??? HELLOO!!! EXPERTS!! and i don't think any one of you who's commenting here has even smelled or even felt the bowl !!! so .... and look at the other fake in ebay?? haha the colors will tel you what it is and the light will tell you what it is ?? HELLO!! you guys call yourself an expert but looks like it's all about passion and not years of experience that can see what it is...
and again dont'forget not selling it for less than 1 million dollars!! rather keep it for myself than selling this beautiful bowl to someone!!
p.s. please look at this picture which i have attached of the dragon. cheers.

There`s another one of these offered on ebay at the moment for a buy it now price of $169.00

Phil.

Looks like you have a little knowledge about this bowl. Just look at the difference between the enamel, the bubbles, the age and a tiny chip inside the bowl. Also please have a look at the base of the bowl. It shows extreme usage ofthis bowl.

The design in the inside of the bowl is very close copy of a Xuande mark/period bowl excavated from Jingdezhen, published 1999 in book on Yuan and Ming porcelains excavated there. But the original bowl has typical Xuande bluish green instead of the present bowl fade-blue. The phagspa script inside rim is also a copy of the inscription in the same bowl.

That gives a pretty good idea of about how recently made.

Good luck,
Cal

Hi there , it dissimilar but again keep in mind you haven't may be even seen one of then in real with close eyes or even forget about holding in your hands and examining it.
Second when they keep in musuem they clean with best available experts and repair it so obviously they are like new, but who in the whole world can keep a 700 years old in pristine condition without a proper clean and some repairs and touch. Also many pieces in museums my friend are fakes if they give you an opportunity to check it .

3rd these types of bowls, stem cups, dishes were just the beginning innovation and tests . So hiw inthe wholeworld can anyone make them the same color scripts or designs?
4th like I said these were produced few as they were only made during an important figure death, and in rituals and blessings. So when they were made in certain time and year difference obviously the colors and designs were different.

4th last but nit the least they were quite I mean very very expensive to make in those time itself.

And.... All these people who comment here are commenting on the bowl which they haven't seem even 2-4 pieces of these type of xuande mandarin duck bowl with underglaze with overglazed enamel bowl?? And if you look into all these well not many four of them
In existence they all are different. The ducks, the colors and even the designs.

Strange that people say it's original when it's in some rich people collection and in museums and fake in normal peoples collection.

I asked once to an expert inantiques and archeology, hiw can you tell the age abd why some are expensive he told me it's what you believe.

And lastly I said its 200% guaranteed to be if that age. Simple.

Cheers

You seem to believe you know a lot in 3 months' time interest in Chinese antiques.

In every field is common for beginner believe good story. With 20-year study may think know a lot less.

Good luck,
Cal

Hi am sorry but didn't mean to underestimate your knowledge on this field. But my big question is when you haven't had a close inspection of the artifact how can you be so sure. And there are some good points as well like tge shape and the marks abd tge execution. As stated earlier I haven't cleaned tge bowl but it can be cleaned and that part came Bice and shiny but don't want to damage. Also about the dragon there's a jar of dragon without the clouds but similar dots only and it us of xuande period. anywyas thanks for the comments. Looks like tgere us many things to be researched still on Chinese ceramics.

Also the guy whi offered me a deposit money of100000 $ and he usthesame guy from newzealand. He was also experienced inantiques of Chiba for more than20 years. Anywyas thanks for comment guys.

"expert inantiques and archeology, hiw can you tell the age abd why some are expensive he told me it's what you believe."

Yes, yet there is a slight difference between believe and reality.
Ernest

Believe and reality!! I do agree and truly appreciate everyone fortheit comments and discussions regarding this bowl.
My curiosity comes with following reasons.
1) read many articles regarding the authenticity of numerous artifacts and antiques in the musuem that it holds so many fakes and copies.
2) without a proper examination, closeups and some tests would absolutely disagree with many people here cause regarding this xuande mandarinduck bowl I have a very strong provenance as mentioned earlier. And did imentionthat am from Nepal, which is just next to Tibet. Been involved I. Tourismfirmore than a decade. Myself abd my dad purchased this for a hefty sum of 45000 aud. Taking it tosomeexperts has explained me it no less than 400 years old. Just I need to prove that utsxuande abd I dontwantto do tlc test as I don't wantto damage it. Though there isvery unnoticeable small chip inside the bowl abd around the base rim rest it's perfect. I willcleanthe bowl and try to postpictures later.

In my forum till now I haven't heard anyonesay, wellthis do match but..... I sense that, there has been a lots of negative comments but haven't seen a single positive comment about it. Like asking the experts, they doagree with it's age not less than 400 years old, also the marks are perfect, and aboutthe base someone stated that it's like a Ching dynasty, wellseems he doesn't realize that Ching dynasties copied their earlier ancestors designs.. hello!!! And there many similar bowls and artifacts similar to the base of this xuande period bowl!! Hello!! And like with designs ofdeagonwithou the clouds!!! Is because there is similar dragon without a cloud of xuande period in the Chinese musuem!! It's similar just its in underglaze blue but in a jar. And it's common sense when the dragon is made in upper part of flying mandarin duck it's sensible that it's in the sky.!! So onecanargue about anything in the end until you feel the bowl inyour hands no ones sure ?? Agree or still you say it's 101% fake ? Ifso then u r pretty stubborn. Remember that teacher is always a student. Cheers

A couple of (0) feedback bidders who are apparently quite savvy.

Typical mix and match fake you can get from street stalls in China. The patina is fake with the typical one color brown and is shallow. The bowl has a concoction of wanli features for the mandarin duck and the wucai color but has a Xuande mark and xuande scripts and dragons with the early sumi blue and white. The inside of the bowl has typical Yuan dynasty motif of water lilies and ducks. The foot has features of 1900 late ching dynasty porcelain with serrated lines. Such mix and match features from all periods is a sign of the fakers not knowing what he is doing and has no idea about antique porcelain features. He is better of copying a piece straight out from a museum or auction catalogue next time.

Hi Prabhu

There is no chance for your bowl to be authentic xuande mark and period. Although it looks worn, it is obviously a modern piece. Xuande porcelain glaze is bluish not yellowish like yours and the mouthrim covered with sweet white glaze, differ from glaze on the body. The depiction of dragon although in line with xuande style but not correct, stiff and uninspired. The paste more associated to modern piece. And the xuande cobalt is wrong. In your bowl, I do not know what type of Xuande porcelain that the maker want to copy. If the maker tried to copy Xuande underglaze blue and iron red enamel, why the red enamel decoration should be blue outlined like doucai. The red on your bowl also too even for Xuande red enamel. If the maker want to copy doucai, there are should be more other enamels color (not only red). If want to copy underglaze blue and copper red, of course absolutely wrong since the red on your bowl is not copper based derivated. Your bowl is lack of aesthetic beauty ming porcelain made during xuande period.

seeing your bowl everyone will easy to say every aspect of the bowl is incorrect.

prabhu

not everyone here disagree with u. and i
also think that i am a grandmaster in chinese antiques. but 'grasshopper' i think u should listen to forum experts.


dennis

thanks denis,
just a little bit disappointed. people seem to give only their opinion, but not listen ?? that's why you see me calling HELLO!! i do respect everyone here, but what i am simply telling is that why people say for 101% sure it's fake without even examining or lookint at it. thanks.

Alf, all,
Prahbu, even though only interested in Chinese porcelain for 3 months obviously knows this bowl is moody & is just trying to scam a few hundred, possible thousand dollars from some greedy fool. Nobody would sell a Xuande M&P bowl on ebay but would consign it to one of the major auction houses, even if that meant flying from Australia to Hong Kong, New York or London.
On his ebay listing he says if it doesn`t reach a million bucks he`ll withdraw the piece but I bet he`d do exactly the same as he did with the "Imperial" koi vase a while back, on that auction he said if it didn`t reach the several thousand dollars he`d supposedly paid he`d cancel the auction but when it sold for a bit less than $200 he happily put that in his pocket.

This is so obviously a piece of junk it`s almost funny & anyone so blinded by greed who bids on it probably gets what they deserve.

Phil.

prabhu,


first u mention that bowl was purchase for $850 dollars. then u mention that your dad bought the
bowl for $45,000 aud. also and man gave u a deposit of $100,000 dollars for your bowl. i
think that after all of that, check to see if
you got-up. aussie aussie aussie oi oi oi.

dennis

Here Another Fake.....The blue and heap and pile effect in this fake box are all wrong.

Blue and heap and pile effect on xuande porcelain are very difficult to be duplicated precisely and still unsuccessful in all modern reproductions.

First and foremost the mark itself is inconsistent. I doagree on this. The underglaze blue and in the shade design looks something wrong. Also cannot tell everything just looking by pictures. Either a detailclose up picture or handling the item can give me a clear idea. Cheers. Well guys this is just a practice.

"The seller ended the listing early and cancelled all bids."

I believe, both the seller and the bidders are of the same person. No one will bids for such obvious fake object. It seem funny to me....

To tell you frankly I have the offer of20000 aud by an expert chinese guy.
Also before commenting I guess everyonehere would appreciate if all ofyou guys could provide some credentials so people who response to novice knowwho is responding the question. Like ifyou have writtenarticles, written a book , archeologist or a musuem curator and have handled and known these type of objects. If not you guys might be same as me abd other novice here. Haha!! Funny!!

Well so if you are just anantique dealer , I wouldn't even bother listening to you guys. I do agree to certainextent if he is a true collector of rare artifacts. I guess mycuriosity isreasobable. Cheers.

How do you know the expert Chinese guy is an expert? Seems more like a fool to me. To be blunt because nothing short of a jack hammer seems to get through; you bowl is a low quality fake. It is known as a one glance fake by collectors. No need to pick up to have a closer look. One can debate if the item is a good fake. Can debate about profile, cobalt color, painting style, foot rim, paste density and all that. Not on your bowl. There is no debate necessary about your bowl. You talk about credentials. What about yours? You indicated that you only have just started learning about Chinese ceramics (3 months). That is nothing!! Most serious collectors over the years spend thousands on books. I myself have over 20 years experience and continued my fathers collection which was started in the 1960's. I don't even consider myself and expert. Just knowledgeable enough on the subject after 20 years of studying and handling various items. Others are much more knowledgeable then me and some have even wrote books on the subject as you have demanded to know if any of us have actually done so. Yet against all this, you act like you know more than everyone here.

You came here, posting your "Xuande" bowl and expected/wanted others here to confirm what YOU WANTED the item to be. You had already convinced yourself what it is and wanted reinforcement on the bowl authenticity. But you didn't get it. So that's why you're throwing a hissy fit. You have done the exact OPPOSITE of the proper way to authenticate an antique. Instead of looking at what is wrong with the item that would tell you what the item really is and not what it's trying to be, you focused on aspects of the item has to try to convince your self that it is indeed real. If a person is desperate enough and stares long enough, they can convince that the rotten orange they hold in their hand is actually made out of solid gold. That's what you are trying to do right now. How you look at this bowl:

It has Xuande mark (check)
It is dirty and thus must be old (check)
It has colors somewhat like those in museums (check)
It has a fanciful story behind it (check)

All this adds up (for you) is that the bowl must be genuine. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I RICH!!!!

But when a knowledgeable collector sees this bowl, for them, the things that are not right speak much louder. They see:

Painting done in sloppy manner (painting of dragon is messy and goes outside double line; ducks looks like painted by a child) Not done by a master craftsman like those expected at Imperial kilns. Conclusion: FAKE

Color of enamels are all wrong. Red looks more like purple. Yellowish orange? Pale turquoise? These bowls do not have turquoise in them. Comparing a real version of this bowl in my reference book the difference are glaring. The water weeds should be done in green enamel and not turquoise. In fact there is NO turquoise on the original. The Mandarin ducks in yellow with details in black; NOT AMBER color. The side of the bottom exterior base rim should decorated with waves painted in underglaze blue. Completely missing on this poor example. Dragon confidently painted and DOES NOT go outside double line border. Dragon is fierce looking and does not look like it had just stepped on a live electrical wire like on your bowl. Conclusion: FAKE

Whole bowl is too dirty. Footrim artificially aged in a very unconvincing manner. If bowl was so valuable and kept in storage box, how the heck did it become so dirty? I have older Song dynasty bowls recovered from a muddy river bank that is much cleaner! Why was the bowl not washed? If I own such a valuable piece, I would make sure it was clean as it would be the pride of my collection. But this bowl would not be the pride of my collection. Conclusion: FAKE

Still don't believe us? Take good pictures of your precious bowl and sent it to Sothebys or Christies. You can even do that over that net. Free of charge. If your bowl is real it would be worth many millions of dollars. Why would you want to sell it to the Chinese "expert" for $20,000? You always like selling thing vastly below their value? This whole charade it just daft. It's like someone putting a Ferrari sign on a 20 year old Hyundai and trying to convince everyone that the car is actually a Ferrari and selling it for $20,000. It's a good deal cause it's so cheap!

But basically it all comes down to this. It's your bowl. You can do whatever you want with it. You can go believe what ever you want about it. I don't care, it's not mine and most importantly it's no where near my collection. But don't you come here on the Forum and expect people to simply agree with what you want it to be. Everyone here has told you the bowl is a fake. Instead of using your noggin you say that everyone else is all wrong and only you are right and you even insinuate about the collectinve knowledge of the board members cause we refuse to dance to your tune. You and your 3 months of expertise. HEEEELOOOOO!!!!!




.......why did I waste half an hour writing this?

because intelligence is always insulted by stupidity.

prabhu,

i can agree with you, even tibet monks can have
a 'bad hair day'. ozzie ozzie ozzie usa


dennis

Dennis,

Am I asking for more? Just the credential of the forum experts who comment and answer on peoples questions. It's not a requirement but would obviously have a great impact on peoples trust.

It isupto you to trust what I said earlier. The reasons I trust the guy whowants To buy my bowl for aud 20000 is because he is an expert himself and discussed it with other five or sixcolleagues of his about the xuande bowl. They all guaranteed it to be either xuande period itself if not a Qing dynasty period copy of xuande for 102% sure.
Thus amvery disappointed tgat when the socalled experts abd professionals here would be a bit careful of what they say abd I would really be happy to see their credentials next time when they post on the forum for the better trust and understandings among this community. Cheers Dennis.

Prabhu,
You asked the forum for their opinion and every contributor had a negative opinion about it.
You could have checked yourself by obtaining a copy of Imperial Porcelain of the Yongle and Xuande Periods, excavated from the site of the Ming Imperial factory at Jingdezhen.

Your bowl is immediately identified as non-period by the inferiority of the glazing and the casual drawing of the dragons. In fact, the glaze is plain dirty while the painting of the dragons is cartoon-like.

Regards
Tony

prabhu,

sometimes i worry about you.


peggy

Prabu
There are many highly knowledgeable contributors in this forum. I can say Tony Allen, he is an author of several �best seller� books on Chinese porcelain. There are also many contributors who have spent several decades of his life in research and study on this subject. You deemed if they share negative opinions on your bowl, you said they don�t understand the piece.

Everybody here has said that your bowl is obvious fake and indeed, in my opinion the bowl is really a fake. Although you will find a �half-gods� expert on Chinese porcelains come down from the sky to the earth and you ask this �half-gods� expert concerning your bowl, I believe his opinion still the same to the opinion you got in this forum, a fake bowl made within 30 years ago. You are too easy to say your bowl is Xuande period (or if not Xuande you want to be Yongzheng), only based on your hope without a deep research and any confirmation from authorities.

Thanks for opening my eyes. I guess I must be wrong after all. But I contacted recently to a Chinese professor and ge and his five colleagues discussed about this bowl and am sorry to say this and am Not Lying Here. They came to conclusion looking at the close up pics it's a copy of xuande bowl BUT of Qing dynasty ;)
And let me remind that it was discussed with the Chinese musuem curators, professors and Chinese antiques collectors from mainland China.
Now what do I think of it ? Yes I believe that I cannot get the price I want but nevertheless these groups are willing to pay 20000$ for it.
You guys were right that's its not of xuande period but no one mentioned that there might be a possibility that might be of later period. Also I hadntcleaned the bowl so thetrue beauty and true colors couldn't be seen as well. I am being very honest here. Am happy that somany people contributed so many comments and I thanks everyone for it. On the other hand no one mentioned me that it might be of later period like of Qing period which those groups of Chinese professionals and experts came to conclusions. Please also look at my other statue and let me know what period and IOC you could give me the average estimates.

Thanks you all.
Prabhu
[email protected]

If anyone thought could be Qing Dynasty (say, Kangxi reign) reproduction would say so.

Lumpy enamel, clumsy dragons, other factors preclude that thought.

Even if what you say about thoughts of others is true, anyone can make mistake. Know of Chinese arts curator famous museum judge a piece of USA art pottery as Kangxi reign reproduction junyao. Was many year ago, few would make that mistake now but some not have experience not be influenced by story. Some museum just put label on as donor say, in order get other item from same donor. Is all degrees of knowledge and truth.

Good luck,
Cal

Thanks cal,
I appreciate your feed back and comment. Strange that when people has to say negative comments there are so many and when time to comment on something good !!!!! He told me it's Qing but I didn't knew kangxi. So must be kangxi then. Thanks heaps cal.

I will send you a Buddha statue too let me know what you think please.i bought itcause it was told to be minimum of four hundred years old of Buddha statue. Originating region from china, Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan or Burma. Thanks heaps

Hi Prabu,

What are the names of professor and curator museum who said your bowl as Qing copy ? I believe you can�t mention their names. There are two things that raise me for doubt, first when you bid your listed bowl on EXXX for 3 M USD and the second, concerning the professor and his five colleagues. I strongly believe there are no professor and his five colleagues in Mainland China who discussed your bowl and said it is a qing copy of xuande porcelain. There is also no curator museum who expressed similar statement. Most people will focus on the merit of the piece not to the story.

Why there�s no one here in this forum who say your bowl as a qing copy ? because it is absolutely not qing copy. Your bowl is a modern piece and has nothing to do with Xuande and Qing porcelain. I known there are Ming style porcelains with Xuande mark made during Yongzheng period (while Kangxi potters usually copied Chenghua mark), but totally different from your bowl. When you try to identify the bowl as qing copy, the problem is much bigger. The footring become wrong, the stroke of cobalt blue decoration is not powerful and the hue is wrong for qing, enamels color are wrong, heap and pile effect was not executed in qing style when they tried to copy ming style and many other aspects. �Qing copy ming� porcelain pieces only similar in style, but not in material. Your bowl was not designed to be �ming style of qing�, but really want to be xuande piece, but unfortunately every aspect of the bowl is incorrect, both for ming and qing porcelain.

It is not because your bowl is dirty that led me to say it is �lack of aesthetic beauty�, but because there are no spontaneous and powerful stroke on the decoration and the whole appearance of the bowl is not comfortable to the eyes. Cleaned or not, it�s the same. your bowl has no aesthetic beauty porcelain made during Ming and Qing dynasty, especially if you think from Yongzheng period when the best and the most beautiful qing porcelain pieces were made.

I give my comments on your bowl in this style because I known you are not a beginner with only three months of experience. From your words I believe you have read many books on this subject. It seems to me, from the beginning you�ve known your bowl is a fake and you just trying to dance in this forum and on Exxx site by bidding your listed item by your self at an unreasonable price. I think It is not a good idea. Concerning your bowl, I believe my opinion is correct and I hope you are not disappointed. Keep collecting, but doing some research before considering to buy or to sell.

Your habit in establishing authenticity of any piece is really on the contrary to a collector friend of mine. His family has an underglaze blue and copper red decorated jar with xuande six character mark. It has been about 100 years in his family collection. Although he has been doing some research but considering its great rarity, he still keep the jar under his research category, and probably continue under research until he finally find a similar example. Ming jar of similar form is found in some Chenghua period doucai. As we have known, many porcelain form in Chenghua pieces usually a continuation from Xuande period. I hope he will find a �half-gods� expert in the future.

I am interest to support his jar because in my eyes, it is very promising to be a Xuande mark and of the period. It really has all materials and aesthetic beauty underglaze blue and copper red decorated ware made during Xuande period. The cobalt blue (including heap and pile effect), copper red, body (paste), decoration and aesthetic beauty exactly match and consistent to xuande period. In addition, Xuande cobalt blue only available until early Chenghua period and not found in later period. If we compare to other periods, copper red in his jar is twice thicker than earlier pieces of yongle period and also thicker than later pieces of Yongzheng period. This characteristic match to the description mentioned in reference books. The copper red slightly running because copper oxide tend to be liquid when it fired at high temperature. The red decoration was not fully successful due to firing complexities (such as maintaining a reduction control during firing). Again this is consistent to several reference books that mentioned �underglaze copper red decorated ware is notoriously difficult to be fired successfully, especially when it was combined with cobalt blue decoration. Slightly different in formulation and reduction control during firing, will dramatically affect to the final products. As the result, many underglaze copper red decorations look odd in appearances�. This odd appearances of xuande copper red decorations can be seen in Dragon stemcup in PDF collection (illustrated in �Elegant forms and Harmonious Decorations � Four Dynasties Jingdezhen Porcelains�, Rosemary E. Scott, p.43, no.31. Another stemcup also with odd copper red decoration illustrated in �Chinese Appreciation and Collection�, published by Shanghai Science and Technology Press, p.166, no.145. It is required a very strict condition to get a better copper reduction firing in Xuande red ware and therefore modern reproduction underglaze red pieces usually were made from manganese oxide rather than copper. Manganese much more stable than copper but gives dry appearance to the decorations.

Going into the merits of the jar and considering it has been about 100 years in his family collection, it seems to me that his jar probably was made in the early years of Xuande reign, because in the later years of Xuande, the potters began to make underglaze copper red with minimal decorations (famous Xuande stemcup decorated with red fish sold at Sotheby�s Hong Kong is an example of this). It was said that not all potters who worked at official kilns during Xuande period have an ability to make copper red ware. Very few of them have authority to make these red pieces and therefore copper red pieces during Xuande period were made by different potters than regular artists who made underglaze cobalt blue.

Here images of his family jar in comparison to several authentic xuande pieces, just for sharing.

hi alf ,
thanks for sharing a wonderful insight and i do really see the difference. and no am not a fake or anything and its true i have been involved or started to get interested in chinese antiques since 3 months well now around 4 months. yes the guy name is mr. wong anywyas alf thanks. and i also stated to him was nit happy with the price so he offered me final price of 28000$ . anywyas when i finish business with him and sell him and then i will may be show all the correspondence between him and me.

cheers.

keep intouch and my emails is [email protected]

Just to let all the interested members know that this bowl was sold on eBay for $587.22, last Friday, way below the $28,000 offer from the "man in New Zealand". I can't help wonder why the owner didn't get a plane and fly to NZ and personally deliver the bowl himself, he would have made an extra $27,500. Or would he? I found everyone's comments really educational and have learnt a lot about Chinese pots. Thanks for the postings. Peter

Do not deal With Pradhu Kafle he is a Scammer,

I was doing a deal with him on some Australian Historic etchings,

He took items without paying,

When i followed him up on it he said he paid me

I am still waiting for the money,

If anyone knows his address so i may pass onto police please email me

Regards Robert

Robert - sorry to read you were scammed by Pradhu Kafle of Fairy Meadow NSW. Did you ever get him to stump up the money he owed you?

Years later, he has moved on, and his new expertise and scamming and huff and puff bluster field, is in old postage stamps.

He has about as much knowledge of stamps as he did on Asian ceramics it seems.

Buying stamps on ebay for silly sums he knew nothing about, and posting dozens of messages trying to browbeat real stamp experts, that his fake and repaired and defective grade 'bargain buys' were world rarities. Just as he did here with real experts in this area.

Prabhu Kafle was buying stamps at stupid dreamer prices on ebay from honest sellers, and then refusing to pay costing them, (and ebay) big losses.

Selling things this week on ebay that he totally misrepresents, and when challenged on this by experts, claims he sees no wrong in that.

Here, he was a 3 month expert in Asian Pottery antiques, selling on ebay a Rare Antique Xuande Mandarin Duck and Tibetan lanca script bowl, for "no less than Million dollars".

His first post here said he would take no less than a Million dollars for it. Then a NZ buyer allegedly offered him $100,000. Then a Chinese expert ("Mr Wong" I kid you not!) allegedly offered him $20,000.

He first mentioned he purchased the bowl for $850 then he also stated his dad bought the bowl for $A45,000 and further stated a man gave him a deposit of $100,000 dollars for the bowl. All these figures are total fiction I'd guess.

His first ebay listing where he "guaranteed" it as genuine, he ended early, after an apparent pattern of shill bidding, by zero feedback members was noticed by Forum members, and those thoughts were posted here.

Then someone pointed out that there was a similar modern repro for sale of the same bowl on ebay for $169.

After arguing with all the real world expert of this Forum that he knew more than them, he finally sold his modern fake on ebay for a few $100, proving all his stories of $100,000 and $20,000 offer were just that - pure stories.

This fellow Prabhu Kafle has now moved on a few years later to the postage stamp field. He has been buying at often idiot prices on ebay from honest sellers, and then refusing to pay when he discovers his amazing bargain he just paid 10 times normal retail for is a dud. After being told that by STAMP experts, akin to the experts here, that what he had was just a modern fake. He does not want to listen to expert views if they differ from his sales pitch of that moment.

And he has been selling things this week on ebay that he totally misrepresents and when challenged on this by stamp experts, comes up with a total smokescreen of nonsense and bluster about what he did that.

All that is outlined here in great detail - http://www.stampboards.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=61677

Prabhu Kafle from Fairy Meadow, ebay member "sharmapravu" used the user name there of "dazeyez" for his current nonsense.

Sorry to read here of Forum members being ripped off, and hope the matter got resolved in the end?

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