Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Hello all,

I was wondering if anyone can help translate the marking on my statue?

I appreciate any help in advance.

Kind Regards,
Steve Griffin

[url=https://postimg.org/image/xxx4zx8fh/][img]https://s14.postimg.org/xxx4zx8fh/47209594_3_x.jpg[/img][/url]

[url=https://postimg.org/image/63p8f1qjn/][img]https://s13.postimg.org/63p8f1qjn/47209594_4_x.jpg[/img][/url]

[url=https://postimg.org/image/ptp0v6m0d/][img]https://s14.postimg.org/ptp0v6m0d/47209594_1_x.jpg[/img][/url]

a Qianlong reign mark carved in a poor hand. the statue is 20th century

I will begin by saying that my comments are off topic as regards your only wanting a translation of the marks, and not wanting any comments as to whether the object is ivory or not.

The last "ivory" post I commented negatively on, the original poster became quite upset and sarcastic since he "knew" already that his object was 100% ivory. Just remember that opinions on these objects are for discussion purposes, and to give others who will see them down the road an idea of what they should be looking for.

Based on your photos, I am not necessarily in agreement with the appraisal which accompanied this piece as regards it being wholly carved of ivory. There is simply not enough detail in the photos to accept that conclusion.

Given that the piece was dated ca. 1900, I am surprised that the appraiser did not comment on the marks.

There is something about the stacked tiers below the carved body, specifically the lotus blossom tier which seems wrong. Almost like it was made to go below (and above)something else which was a bit larger,

With so much detail, when I see something like the lotus tier which is not carved with the same detail as everything else, it is a red flag. The flat top and unfinished bottom of that section just don't look right.

Looking at the photo of the base, it appears to be made up of an outer ring of ivory, in which there appear to be Schreger lines, and an inner plug with the carved msrks. I don't like the incised curved lines which seem to have been situated based on the actual Schreger lines of the outer ring, and placed over both surfaces although the plug itself does not show any Schreger lines.

There is no aesthetic reason for placing curved and stained scratch marks on a piece of ivory, therefore I must believe they were placed there to give the appearance of being Schreger lines.

Again, I am limited by the detail of your photos, if you can provide some which do show Schreger lines, I will happily revise my opinion.

That said, apart from the lotus blossom section which appears out of place or otherwise unfinished, I love this piece and the fact that all of the fragile details are intact.

I am sure you will enjoy it in your collection.

Cheers
Gman

URL Title :Chinese carved ivory \\

I collected ivory pieces for years while it was legal in my state. I agree with Gman's comments. Some part of the base appears to be real ivory, but the two pieces attached to the side as well as some of the statue are clearly resin as you can see the casting and cutting lines.

This piece brings together elements of multiple cultures: Indian, Chinese, and southeast Asian. The base appears to be of Chinese origin, but the statue has Indian and southeast Asian styles. My guess would be that the statute was attacked to a broken Chinese ivory statue.

The other issue is that the hands are outside the area of the original tusk it is supposed to be carved from (the tusk is not wider than the base).

I would give a third quarter of the 20th Century dating (c. 1970s).

As I see it, six arms are part of the body, and twelve arms are attached to the body.

The photos are not much help in proving it is ivory.

Yes, perhaps this is a marriage piece.

Cheers
Gman

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