|
Subject:Re: qianlong mark.. imitation?
Posted By: rat Fri, Oct 17, 2014
Hi Mike,
I am no porcelain expert so I can't speak to specifics about the foot, though you are correct to focus there as its paste, color, and shape often give clues to how consistent an object is with genuine examples. My thing is painting rather than ceramics, so when I look at this vase I am struck by a couple of things that are too crude to be Qianlong work: the sameness of the dense pattern of tendrils, the lack of refinement in the contour lines of those tendrils, the fact that the contour lines cross over each other, the uniformity of the infilled blue, the uniform thick lines and even coloring of the mark shows that it was not applied with a brush, that rigid band around the neck, etc etc etc. Other factors I know less about but which you should be attentive to are whether the form of this garlic head vase was known to be Qianlong and if so whether the proportions are correct for that time. There are plenty of objects marked as Kangxi or Qianlong that are desirable collectibles but which were made in later periods; knowing what shape was made when will help you distinguish among them. And there's also a huge amount of junk.
If you want a great resource on Chinese porcelain, I suggest digging into the discussion board at gotheborg.com. Since it's a forum as here, its organization is not always very clear, but use the search function or head to the sections on blue and white, or qing polychrome, or whatever your interest is, and you'll find some experienced dealers and collectors discussing their own pieces and what others post for assessment. You will notice that the experts often disagree, but that doesn't mean there's not a lot of good information there.
|
( China & Japan ) - Mike - Oct 13, 2014 (10:50 PM) .JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)