|
Subject:What exactly is jade to you?
Posted By: Super Fri, Mar 28, 2014
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?
|