Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Hello forum members.

We have recently acquired an old Chinese small (12'x12"x17") censor stand that has very fine mother of pearl inlay. It was purchased from a Japan based dealer, where it was simply identified as 200+ year old karamono. Pieces of this form have been made from Yuan through Qing. From the heavy construction, lacquer condition, grime and darkness of exposed wood we are fairly confident this this is an older piece and not a recent reproduction. Based only on the detailed figural work and diaper patterns, we think is possibly Ming. There seem to be relatively few surviving examples of similar stands, and we would like to hear opinions about the piece based on the style and contruction. All comments are certainly welcome and appreciated.

Warmest regards,

Doug & Moyra

Dear Moyra and Doug,

Very nice piece, but you know more than I do about it. Have you checked the base wood? Is it right for the Ming period? Is there any filler material (e.g., clay, fabric) between the wood and the lacquer layers? These features, in addition to the construction should give strong clues as to its age, much more so than the style of decoration. I agree that it looks ancient (almost certainly not a recent "fake"), but still it could be a 19th c interpretation. To remove all doubt you could have the base wood C-14 dated, but unfortunately that's still expensive.

Best of luck with your research.

Robert

Robert

Doug & Moyra


Congratulation on your awesome find!

It is exiting to see something of high quality on this forum. (Wish it happens more often) There is no question it is older piece. For now I will said it is more of early Qing style. Could you post more clear detailed photos? I can find a lot of info and pictures in Chinese websites and will post some Ming to Mid Qing pieces for your comparison.

Thanks for sharing!

KK

Thanks Robert and KK.

The piece is actually on it's way to America from Japan right now, so for the time being we will have to base our discussions on the multitude of photos that the dealer provided us. In a week or so, we will have the piece in hand.

We suppose that the only way to tell what type of wood it is is to thoroughly clean the dust and dirt from underneath it and try to match the grain patterns. We're not knowledgeable about what to look for and have no furniture reference materials. Can anyone suggest a good book or website that will help us identify the wood by grain style? And tell us what types of wood were most often used during the Yuan, Ming and Qing periods?

It is clear from the photos that where there is loss of inlay, there is a light colored substrate material underneath. We can't tell yet if there was a cloth under the substrate or not. but that may not be conclusive. Older pieces tended to have linen or even silk cloth, newer pieces not - but it's not a hard and fast rule.

We've mostly collected carved lacquer with a few Qianjing and Tianqi incised pieces thrown in th mix. We have many reference materials that show Yuan, Ming and Qing inlaid pieces - mostly plates, boxes, trunks and panels. We think our piece may be late Ming or even perhaps Kangxi, because there is considerable detail on the figural clothing but the building is somewhat simplified compared to the Yuan and early Ming examples. There was somewhat of a style revolution in inlaid lacquers during the mid Qing days. There was movement away from traditional figural scenes (which had their origins in popular woodblocks), and elaborate geometrical diapers and "still life" motifs took over. During the 19th century shell inlays generally became very simplistic.

We've done the usual internet searching for similar censer stands, and have found only a handful on Sothebys, Christies and Artfact.com. We think we were very fortunate to have found this piece. It's absolutely filthy of course, but we're pretty experienced in cleaning lacquerware, and we are quite confident we can have it looking superb in fairly short order.

Here are a few additional close up photos. You'll notice a considerable similarity in design and workmanship to 16th C pieces in particular.

Cheers

Doug and Moyra

Identifying wood by comparing it visually to known samples can often be difficult because any given species of wood can have many different appearances. In order to identify, it often requires taking a sample, slicing it thinly, and examining under optical aid.
The best book I have found for the amateur is "Identifying Wood" by R. Bruce Hoadley. But even this book may not be adequate for identifying unusual eastern exotics.
The following is the best on-line site I have seen for visual identification of woods. With scores of examples for each type. It clearly illustrates how much variations there can be within any given species.
http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/

On another note, I'm always surprised when I hear someone decide that a piece is old because of wear, dirt, patina, etc. I've seen modern fakes with incredibly accurate imitation of true patina, and I've seen genuine, centuries old pieces in museum collections that look as if they've been made yesterday.
Asian arts is not my specialty, but in other areas of collecting, I've learned that condition is ONLY an indication of condition. It is NOT proof of age or authenticity. When a talented counterfeiter makes an error, it's more often in interpretation of style, design, shape, rather than poorly done "aging". That's why the fakes can usually be spotted by those who are expert in that particular type and style of antique.
DD

A very nice piece. Send it to a professional cleaner and it could be worth a small fortune.

This piece would probably be between Ming/Qing. Check on the figure (cannot see clearly), the costume and head gear suggest that it could well be Japanese.

Ark

After having a good look at the figure, the possibility is that, the stand, is made in China for the Japanese market. The costume for the figure looks very much like the Japanese style. The other item is the chrystantamum, the flower below the all the figures, the style is very much japanese norm. The period, Ming-Qing still holds.

Just my opnion. Others may have their views too!

Ark

This is definitely Japanese or from the Ryukyu Islands based on the uniforms and form of the stand. A quick but unscientific method of gauging its age is by the thickness of the mother-of-pearl. The thicker the pieces, the older the artefact.

Thanks Ark.

The piece arrived yesterday, and we are thrilled.
On close examination, we have come to the
conclusion that it is fairly light wood, and have
heard from postings on another forum that
softwoods are typical for these pieces.

We've started cleaning the piece, and in the
process have made two discoveries. The underside
is actually covered with a thin cloth material that
is coated in a black lacquer - so there is no exposed
wood other than the areas which were chipped.
The exposed wood that we do see is quite dark.

The next discovery is important. The piece was definitely
re-lacquered at some time long ago. It is clear that
most of the piece (except the two top surfaces with
the figural and bird panels) has been relaquered long
ago. This is typical for very old pieces.

The most important discovery is the fact that we have found
embedded thin silver??? twisted wire inlaid on the top panel, surrounding the figural design, and another at the edges of
the top. Twisted wire inlay was used from Southern Song
through early Ming, but was most commonly found on
Yuan pieces. It is also found on Ryukyu pieces, usually from
the 16th or 17th centuries. Since this piece was acquired in
Japan, it could be either Chinese or Ryuku Islands. It is
difficult to tell them apart. Our gut reaction is that this is
Chinese, and either Yuan or early Ming. With the discovery
of the inlaid wire, this tends to dismiss the possibilty of a later
Qing era copy.

The lacquer and inlay is very fragile, but we are making good progress in cleaning the piece, and should have some photos to
share in a few days. One thing is certain. This piece is very rare
and we are fortunate to find it.

Again, all comments are welcome and appreciated.

Moyra and Doug

Moyra and Doug

The second group censor stands are dated Qing dynasty by the auction houses. They did'nt state early, mid or late Qing period.

I would love to see more detailed pictures. I notice that there very few cracks on the surface
Are they filled during re lacquer.

KK

The wood used in lacquer works are 红松、楸木, 杉木 etc�I am not sure this will help you dating the piece.

I found a number of black lacquer censor stands, two from museums and rest from major auction houses inside and outside China. It is hard to say if they dated their stands with the same standard. The style of the top panel and the sides are sure look like many Ming period trays in Sotheby and Christie s auctions from the past two years. My feeling is auction houses outside main land China seem to date them a little earlier. Chinese lacquer furniture is relatively a newer field.

First group: Ming (First two from Museum, the rest from various auction houses)

Thanks Ark and Oriental Treasures for your interesting observations. You might be on to something here, and we are exploring it.

We have made a pass or two at cleaning the piece, and it is turning out rather nice. Because the inlay is very thin and fragile, we are not aggressively cleaning it, as we do not want to risk damage. Here are a few photos showing the inlay details, and twisted wire inlay.

Thanks again all, for your kind comments.

Moyra and Doug

Thank you very much KK!

The references you have posted here are most appreciated. Although we speak a number of languages (Moyra speaks 7 actually), Chinese is unfortunately not one of them. This can occasionally be a hindrance in our chosen area of interest! You are most kind to take the time and research this material for us.

The more we research, the more we are leaning towards either a Yuan or Ryukyuan attribution.
Our gut feeling is Yuan - based on the condition of the lacquer and the fact that the re-lacquering seems to have been done a very long time ago. The fabulous Ming and Qing pieces you have shown us are in significantly better lacquer condition than ours. Have you also run into any Yuan pieces on your auction sites? Any Ryukyuan examples? If so, could you kindly post an example or two?

Daniel, thank you for your comments and insights. Yes, condition alone is not a reliable indicator of authenticity, as you have astutely observed. Given enough talent and energy, a clever faker could duplicate condition convincingly. But we believe that if a faker spent so much effort creating this intricately inlaid piece and artificially aging it, he would probably have marked it with some valuable reign identifier and introduced it to the market through some other channel than an obscure Japanese dealer selling it cheap on eBay. We've handled a lot of lacquer pieces over the years, and this one just "smells" very old to us.

We are continuing to research, and if we get additional information we will share it with you all.

Thanks again to everyone for your kind assistance.

Moyra and Doug


PS - We thought you might like to see a photo of the censer stand actually holding a censer - so here is what it looks like with one of our Satsuma koros.

--First I am pretty sure your piece is Chinese, not Ryukyuan. There are many Chinese censor stands in very similar design to support this.

--The figures and bird panels look re- lacquer as well (Fairly common). It is fortunate that they did not change the designs but carefully painted lacquer around the figures. So the inlay designs are original to the stand. The bottom condition looks too good, it may be re lacquer as well. Can you see the age cracks under the later layer of lacquer?

--The clothing on these figures is Ming style, not Qing.

---Sorry, I don�t buy the wire = Yuen dynasty theory because the inlay works style and the form of stand doesn�t support it. I am more comfortable that the inlay works is mid/late Ming. The legs of the stands are a little too elegant and too airy compare to some Ming pieces. Ming aesthetic usually has more weight to it. This is why my first impression is early qing.

This is still a very earlier lacquer work in good condition, one of the best in design (form) that I can found on the internet. Congratulation again!


Ps I am not an expert in lacquer field, so please read my posting at your own risk! All my pictures are stored in online album and the links may expired in a month or two. No guarantee. Cheer!

here are a few closeups of ming lacquer:







Two Yuen lacquer trays

Hello KK.

Thanks for the additional reference postings. To answer your question, we simply cannot tell what is the extent of cracking under the original lacquer. All we know is there is considerable lumpiness of the re-lacquered layer - and perhaps that is the result of cracks underneath - or maybe not.

We have many lacquer reference books, including some very rare early 20th C obscure original printings, and have been intensely studying inlaid pieces. Two characteristics of our stand are rare. Inlaid twisted wire (sometimes called rope twist) is not often seen. The Ryukyuan pieces all seem to have much coarser wire inlay than ours.

Usually the figural elements are made from one or two large pieces of engraved mother of pearl - but ours are made from dozens of small separate pieces. We have only seen this on one other example which is a 16th C Ming plate in the Metropolitan museum.

We are trying to establish a dialog with a lacquer expert for one of the big auction houses, and we'll let you know if we learn anything new.

Thanks again

Doug and Moyra

I would agree that the figures made from smaller separate pieces mother of pearl is generally suggest Ming 16th C. +/-, so as the building and the clouds, the willow trees are consistent of the style and of this time. By the time of Kangxi peroid, the mother of peal designs became more naturalistic and fluid, and the tree left become more diamond shape. It may be hard to see: some top panels from my examples are very close in style comparing to yours.

Of course there are always some examples don�t really go with this rule such as lot 2243 above.

As always I look forward to other expert�s opinion.

kk

Hello KK and others following this thread.

We've heard back from one of the major London Asian art dealers that specializes in lacquer. His opinion is that it is Chinese, likely 15th or 16th C. Of course, the usual caveats about the need to handle the piece, etc.

Based on his expert feedback, we are attributing this piece as early-mid Ming.

There may be mountains of fake Chinese antiques on the market, but there are still some hidden jewels out there if you are willing to take the time to dig through the piles.

Warmest regards,

Doug and Moyra

Very nice!!

love to see more successful stories on this forum.

For the sake of accuracy of this posting, we'd like to share some additional expert opinion we just received. A recent opinion from a highly respected source, says that this piece is Qing - late 18th or 19th C, and just looks older because of condition problems. We thank everyone who commented, and appreciate the opportunity to learn from your feedback and examples.

Doug and Moyra

Expert's opinion(s) don't always help...

Cheer

KK

here is search of "black lacquer mother of pearl inlay" in Chinese, There are a lot of pictures.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%E9%BB%91%E6%BC%86+%E5%B5%8C%E8%9E%BA%E9%92%BF&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Thanks for the link KK.

This is most interesting. It brings up a lot of pieces we have not seen documented in Western collections. We sure wish we spoke Chinese.

Our little censer stand has proven to be quite puzzling. There is substantial disagreement among knowledgeable experts about it. Right now two say Ming, one says a late Qing copy. We know that the piece is covered in lacquer dipped cloth, and we've heard that was Mid Ming and earlier. Late Ming and Qing is cloth/plaster/lacquer, or lacquer only. Also, the twisted wire inlay points to an older time. The very thin cabriole legs could mean recent, or very old. If you look at the style of the slender legs, and how elegantly they are integrated into the apron, it almost looks Southern Song doesn't it?

Here is a photograph on an Ancestor Painting (Ming) in the Simthsonian Institution Sackler Gallery. Notice the style of the censer table in the background? Notice the inlaid red lacquer panel? Notice the hexagonal diaper motif of the Mother of Pearl? I think this Ancestor Painting portrays a stand very much like ours...

Thanks again KK for your interest and encouragement to continue research.

Doug and Moyra

i'd avoid relying heavily on this image. for one thing the painting is Korean rather than Chinese, and the type, size, and use of the table seems rather different from yours

Ming and early Qing Lacquer works is very hot in the past few years in China. There are large number of them come up in Hongkong�s Christie�s and Sotheby auctions. I don�t really see them here in US market. Please check them out on their websites if you have not do so. They may help you to date your piece. IMHO their dating sometime is a little early than other auction houses inside main land China.

I look a lot of mother and pearl inlay censer stands from the books and Internet I did not come across any late Qing copy of Ming style piece. As far as I know Chinese Furniture is not really collectible until 20th Century. And Lacquer furniture is even later.

I found this while trying to find out about the mother-of-pearl used in 18th century Japan and I remembered your table from a recent search that I did.
I didnt realise your post here was from 2009 but maybe its still relevant.

URL Title :Lacquerware Supervision Office Document

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