Asian Arts | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries | Message Board


Message Board
Asian Art Forums

AsianArt.com Main Forum Message Index | Back | Post a New Message | Search | Private Mail | FAQ
Group: Message Board
A mighty amazing thread, a nice plate and a nice vase!
Posted By: Bill
Posted Date: Mar 09, 2009 (10:56 PM)
Message
Although I know nothing of Chinese porcelain I found the discussions in this thread truly amazing and I really enjoy reading them.

First of all, I have to agree with what Tony said about "i think Republic period items if well done are a superb investment" and I believe he is a very astute collector/investor. I especially like the lovely plate posted here by him. I agree that it is absolutely beautiful and I would not hesitate in paying more for it. For �2, now I believe the seller did indeed have more than one malt.

I really do not know how Bill H can tell by the low-resolution, blurry pictures first posted by Michael in making his conclusion that "I'd estimate no earlier than about 1925. The painting style and mark are consistent with the later Republic period."

It is not that I believe he might be either right or wrong but just like examining jade carvings, even with high-resolution pictures, many real jade experts will absolutely refuse to attribute it without being able to examine the real piece because in doing so is both risky and irresponsible. Then Micheal told Bill H that "its actually a 19th cent vase Purchased from a reputable Auctioneers in Scotland" and agreed with Tony's conclusion that "the vase is c. 1900 give or take".

Then Bill H. went so far in saying "methinks your reputable auctioneer in Scotland might have been swigging down big belts of single malt between lots when he made that 19th century call."

Now don't get me wrong. I know nothing of Chinese porcelain and I believe Bill H.'s jeers made toward Michael might very well be good-nature though admittedly a little bit condescending.

The interesting thing is Bill H had just posted another thread titled "Late Ming Nephritic Jade Censer of Qilin Form" in this forum and called the jade piece he posted "an authenticated example of late Ming carving" without presenting any evidence, references or researches to support such an attribution but depended solely on his statement that "tt was first evaluated about three decades ago by an internationally recognized authority with retail bases in Asia and the USA."

Now once again, don't get me wrong because I am not saying that his piece could not be that of Ming dynasty. It could very well be. However just because he said so would not make it authentic and his faith in the reputable dealer would not make it so. To be a true collector, one must learn to think, evaluate, judge and continue to study.

Therefore I find it truly amazing that while I know there are indeed a few experts out here in this forum who truly know Chinese porcelain and yet I have not seen a single one of them venture into expressing their opinions regarding Michael's Chines vase or calling it modern (well, made after 1925 is indeed modern). I believe they should make all of us very humble and hesitated in expressing our "absolute" opinions.

I believe it is fortunate and fun that each of us can express our opinions here regarding Asian antiques whether we truly know what we are talking or not because it would be the only way we will learn from others who know more than us.

I actually like this Chinese vase, especially after seeing its close-up pictures. I believe it was made before 1925, say 1924 (just joking!). I really have no idea when it was made but would like to hear from some of the real experts here.

Cheers. May be I should drink some malt myself!

Bill

P.S. I would like Bill H to forgive me if I have offended him in any ways. I just believe none of us should be too certain about anything without be able to really study them. Even then, we can still make mistakes.

Post a Response
Responses:

Asian Arts | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries | Message Board