Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Hello-any thought on the age of this piece? Thank you!

Its going for the archaic/Han look... but before denouncing it as fake, certain features make me think 19th century ...You may have an actual antique here!!

Its material is so inferior, at best low quality Mt. Kulun nephrite jade or some soft stones, with so much impurities, rendering it a modern piece.

Thank you! I forgot to add-this was bought from the estate of a woman who passed away in the 1980s-her family just finally went through and sold things. So, its at least 30 yrs old ;)

Hi Gigi,

Did you personally know the woman, and see it in her possesion thirty years ago?

Companies which hold estate sales are well known for salting the possesions of the deceased with bogus items from their own inventories which are calculated to appear to be something they are not.
These items often entice buyers to spend their money on junk, while ignoring the actual estate items, which the Estate sale company will then offer to buy from the family for pennies on the dollar, and add to someone elses estate down the road.

It is up to the buyer to decide what an item is, and whether it is worth the price, because finding out about a piece later is closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out.

If this scenario doesn't fit your case, you can take what I wrote with a grain of salt.

Good luck
Gman

Saying its poor quality jade and saying it is modern for this reason is nonsense ---Poor quality jade was commonly used in the 19th century (It wasn't called the "century of humiliation" for nothing, all artwork suffered)

Adam:

I believe you are getting a bit confused yourself, did you not know that 19th century refers to the time period between
1/1/1800 to 1/1/1900
and is therefor considered Qing dynasty or more correctly late Qing dynasty? Why would they use such low quality Kulun jade when lesser material such as beautiful Siberian nephrite jade or jadeite were readily available?

while the "century of humiliation" usually refers to the period between 1839 (the first opium war) and 1940 (some said 1949),after 1/1/1900 it is no longer 19th century but the start of 20th century and I cannot say for sure there were no poor jade material were being used during the 40s.

I believe your statement "Poor quality jade was commonly used in the 19th century" was totally unfounded. First of all, what is your definition of poor quality jade? Are Chinese jade carvings that were made of Xiu Yang jade, Dushan jade be called "poor quality jade" even though both had been used in ancient China beside Hetian jade?

Do you know that jadeite was not even considered "jade" until the middle Qing dynasty? Therefore, was jadeite "poor quality jade"?

The most basic definition of jade is "a stone that is beautiful". Is the material used to make this jade carving here considered to be "beautiful" to you?

Do you not understand the labor cost in "making" a jade carving can be as costly if not more costly than its material? Do you know how much labor will be involved in creating a nice looking jade carving before electrical jade tools were being used by early 60s? Will anybody pay good money to own a piece like the one posted here? Will you? Did any of those jade carvings left by your ancestors made of poor jade material like this one?

Some time I am truly amazed by the wonderful jade collection you had inherited yet you made some of the most intriguing statements regarding jade material. Sorry if I may have offended you but you were the one who first made your statement here "Saying its poor quality jade and saying it is modern for this reason is nonsense".

I never claim that I know a lot about jade but yet you spoke like a real jade expert on everything regarding jade including jade material.....

Super

I can confirm many piece like this were produced between 1850 and 1900...
If you did not know that, then this is a gap in your knowledge,,,not mine

I probably should have stopped here and let you dig a deeper hole that you would never be able to climb out. You kind of reminding me of that famous OB doctor/jade expert/book author, the only difference is that all his "archaic" jades are phoney while you did inherit some pretty nice jades from your ancestors. Sadly, just because you are lucky enough to have inherited them does not necessarily qualify you as a jade "expert" especially not too long ago you absolutely had no knowledge of the different types of jade material in using to "make" authentic archaic Chinese jade carvings, such as Xiu Yan jade. Some of your comments were simply amazing.

You see, you totally contradicted yourself and have no idea in what you are talking about regarding jade or yu.

I read your comments on other messages whenever a poster posted their jade carvings, and your reply is either:
"It is jade" or "It is not jade".

What exactly did you mean?

Did you use the narrow definition used by most westerners in defining jade: either nephrite or jadeite?

Judging by your comments, I believe that was what you meant; anything that was not made of either jadeite or nephrite, to you, they are not made of jade. Am I correct.

Yet, you made the comment here "Was always considered YU as it fulfills all criteria to be considered as YU"

May I ask what exactly are YOUR criteria for a stone to be considered as JADE? Do you just make it up as you go? Like the other OB Doctor/Mr. Jade expert?

Do you use the more general definition of the Chinese that every stone that is beautiful is considered jade? or a step more advanced, that any beautiful stone that has the five virtues of a gentleman can be called jade? In that regard, the only jade material that has all five virtues is Hetian jade. Do you know that? Now what will you call other carvings that was not made of Hetian jade?

Without even understanding or agreeing on what exactly is jade? How in the world would you understand what "poor quality jade material" is?
Since both Xie Yan jade (or Xiu Yu) and Dushan jade (or Nanyan jade) were authentic jade materials used to make archaic Chinese jade. Are they jade to you? Are they poor jade material?

So if you see a carving posted in this forum that was made of either of these two material, will you say, "This is not jade"? Do tell.

Before the middle Qing dynasty, any carvings that was made of jadeite, would they be considered as made of JADE at that time? Like in the Ming dynasty, if one see a carving made of jadeite, would they call it "poor material" and not jade?

If we agree on the more generalized Chinese definition of jade, than the different material itself, whether it is jadeite, nephrite, serpentine, lapis, agate, crystal is only a jade material and among each there is good quality and poor quality. How do you distinguish good quality from bad quality Hetian nephrite jade? Do you do it by the amount of tremolite it contains (some said minimum 95%), do you go by its MOH hardness, its specific gravity or its color and eye appeal? So you do so objectively or subjectively? Do tell because I got a headache just trying to figure it out. There is no agreed upon criteria in grading Hetian jade yet. May be you can shed some light for us.

Therefore, next time when you see a piece that was made of xiu yan jade or Dushan jade, you best not in such a hurry to declare that it is not jade. Agree?

In the same token, just because a piece is made of nephrite, it does not necessarily mean it is antique because there are tons of them that were made of "poor quality" nephrite jade.

To call this piece to be made as early as 1850 is absolutely absurd. Of course, I agree that I can be wrong since like you said, I do have many gaps in my knowledge of jade, but in the same token, you also have many holes, like that of a sieve, in your understanding of what jade is and the different types of jade materials. May be instead of trying to humiliate each other, we should start learning from each other because after all very often what we used to criticize others is exactly what we thought of ourselves?

And to suggest that jadeite would ever be considered poor quality is nonsense... It was only starting to trickle into china in the 17th century and by Kangxis reign was considered jade and extremely valuable,Was always considered YU as it fulfills all criteria to be considered as YU.... This piece looks to be 1850 - 1900 in my opinion...Suggest you look at other 19th century pieces to see the quality of jade used at the lower end of the market!!!

Any idea of the value of the jade in focus as a late 19th century carving??

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