Message
Hello Kevin,
I was curious about your bi. Unfortunately the picture was not good enough to see exactly what it is. Reading your post I get to know the origin of your piece and visited this website�
http://eastcornercompany.com
Knowing the origin of a piece is always a very good start to appreciate it.
I would advise you to be careful with this source�
I started by reviewing their ceramic gallery:
The first item (before Song) is real antique, description is correct, but the quality is very low, I doubt famous auction house as Christie�s would accept this piece. What I mean by perfect is that this piece is a ceramic piece (not terracotta); therefore the smallest scratch would ruin its value. From that point of view this item is still correct.
The second must be a repro. The general shape is wrong (especially handles and neck), the light reflect on the oil is wrong too, the bottom also. Thru is there is very few Tang san Cai left on the market and many fakes. Some very well done by this one is very common.
The 3d item should be real antique, but not much value from collector point of view. I would say 100 $ to 300$ (in china) would be a correct price for it.
The 4th item is real but with important defects (oil degradation and broken). This item is interesting because you can compare the bottom with the N�2 (fake one). Considering this, this piece has almost no market value.
The last item of the first page also shows important reparations, therefore lost 80% of his value.
The last item is an obvious fake (light reflect on the handles, shape, and type of ceramic�). If it was real this kind of marble ceramic are very valuable, the price would be much higher than that. (Price problem).
For the Song-Yuan ceramics, many shows important reparations (n� 6-15), or cracks (n�7), some are fakes (new)(items 1-2-3-5-8-9-13)
Item 4 is interesting because it is what we call �hou gong� or �dong shou� the vase is old, real Song dynasty but the carving and black painting inside the carved areas are new, just made to give it more value. This is quite common way to make a fake
Correct ones are n� 11-12
Others: no opinion (miss good pictures or out of my field of expertise)
For the jades:
Most of them are fakes (forgeries) or new, good examples are n� 1-2-3-5-6-8�20 (new)-19 (new)-16�21-22-23�26-27�29�37-38�41(forgery)�
Remark: the 3d one has exactly the same kind of chemical made �baojiang� you can find on jades from chicochai website witch are the worst on the market so far.
As a conclusion I would say (from what I have seen) this is not very serious way to deal antiques...
Regards,
Pipane
Post a Response
|
Re: opinion requested on nephrite neolithic bi - Kevin - Dec 25, 2007 (09:45 PM) 
- John - May 03, 2008 (10:24 PM)