|
Subject:Re: Jade bi with two Chilong
Posted By: Super Tue, Jan 06, 2015
You have to understand none of us are professional jade appraisers and therefore very often our opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. Even if you would ask for the opinions of professionals, very often you would obtain different opinions, especially based on only low-resolution pictures. I am surprised neither Adam or Lee render their opinions. Either they are not real sure about it or do not want to hurt your feeling.
I myself do not know enough about using the quality of carving or style to determine the age of your pendant. However, I did study a little bit about jade material and I have to say I was hardly impressed with the material of your piece if your pictures did show the real color and texture of it (some time, pictures taken under different lighting and with different cameras can make huge difference).
The material based on its appearance and S.G. obtained by you would be at best low quality nephrite jade or a mixture of nephrite/serpentine material. With a S.G. of only 2.89, I would be hesitated to even call it nephrite and I had yet seen any Xiu Yan jade (serpentine) with such a high S.G. That by itself is quite disturbing because there were no confirmed sources of any nephrite jade that were being mined inside China and the sole source of nephrite jade used in the making of most archaic Chinese jades were mostly imported from Xinjiang, China which was not part of China during many dynasties of ancient China. During dynasty such as Song dynasty when China was always invaded by foreign nations, the expenses in transporting Hetian nephrite jade from Xianjiang to the Chinese capital was astronomical. Only until the Qing Emperor QianLong had conquered the Muslim tribes in Xianjiang and with a reign of 60 years, were hetain nephrite jade being able to be imported in larger scales to the Chinese capital. However, even then, all imports of Hetian nephrite jade, like salt, were highly regulated by the imperial government. In short, any nephrite jade that would be used in the "carving" of any archaic pieces would not be cheap, just material wise. To cite as an example, the white Hetian jade in making a pair of jade bowls would cost about 5,000 taels of silver in the QianLong era. At today's silver price, it would be around US$94,000. Before the invention of polishing methods by using high-hardness grit in Qing dynasty, just the polishing process alone would take more than a year. Therefore, the labor cost was not cheap and most jade pieces were reserved for the imperials, nobles, high government officials and the riches in ancient China. The belief that average people would own nice Hetian jade pendants in ancient China, IMHO, are just make-believe.
Now of course, very often inferior material might be used in the making of some jade pieces especially when they were used as burial jades, very often due to deadline or difficulties in obtaining large quantities of quality jade material, local material such as Dushan jade, Xia Yan jade, etc. would be used. Also, depending on the importance of the deceased, the quality of the burial jade would also differ.
The problem here is if this pendant was for everyday wear and only used as a burial piece after the death of the owner (or not), then it should probably be made of nice quality Hetian nephrite jade. If you compare the material of your piece with the one you posted as comparison. The material of your Smithsonian piece is so much better (not because it is in Smithsonian)than that of your piece. Sorry.
If your piece was a burial piece that was made of Xia Yan jade (serpentine) then the S.G. was simply too high. Some quality Xiu Yan jade (Xiu Yu) can actually look great, though with a lower S.G. (usually lower than 2.80) but some can actually pass the scratch test. (*I do not want to call it bowenite because such term is not an academic term)
Therefore, in this case, the material used to make your piece may be cheaper material that may or may not be nephrite, may be from China or outside China, but were readily available for the making of imitation archaic jades.
Lastly, while I was no expert in judging the quality of carving, but the appearance of those small squares that surrounded the central hole of your piece (in your second picture), and the uneven thickness of the edge of your piece, to me is really disturbing. Unlike many may believe, just because they used manual jade carving tools at ancient time, it would not result in their finished jade carvings to appear sloppy, irregular, or uneven. As a matter of fact, Dr. Howard Hansford, had more than once said that holes made with ancient manual jade tools were very often much better than those that were made with modern electrical tools. The problem was not with the tools but the skills of the jade carvers.
Once again, please do not get offended because this is only the opinion of an jade amateur and it is quite possible that you may indeed have a piece of archaic jade pendant. Cheer. Super
|