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

I am a novice. I have been reading some of the posts and answers, and it's not clear to me how one can date a piece. It seems that the mark isn't always telling. Any info on this piece?

Dear Terry

The mark is that of Jiaqing, from the early 19th century. But you're right, this object is more modern.

It seems to be attempting a Guangxu era style (late 19th century to early 20th century). However, the excessively shiny turquoise in the foot, the excessively white footrim and the cherub face on the little fellow make me think this is more modern that that...possibly Republican or later?

Kind regards
J.Lim

Thank you so much for the resonse.

Dear Terry

If you are still interested, I have been reflecting further on your bowl. Anthony Allen states that Jiaqing marks were not used on porcelains after the reign of Jiaqing except rarely in the very late Qing dynasty/early Republic. They were again abandoned until quite recently (Detection of Fakes p78).

Although genuine Jiaqing marks were indeed painted in overglaze red enamel inside a turquoise ground, this would only have occurred on Imperial porcelains (Introduction To Later Chinese Porcelain, p106).

In your case, the clumsy appearance of the mark, including the badly miswritten "Qing", are remarkably similar to the Republic era mark pictured on Detection Of Fakes p84. Allen points out that the roughly drawn mark is typical of apocryphal marks of the Republic era.

The similarities are so great that I think it only confirms my view that your piece is early Republican in date. Perhaps others could share their views.

Kind regards
J.Lim

Does that mean that the bowl has no value, or that it is still a nice early 1900's bowl? Why would a bowl made in the Republic era use an older mark? Just curious. Lot to learn!

Thanks Bill. Terry, you can compare the turquoise inside the foot of Bill's tazza with your own bowl, to see what I mean by "too shiny".

I don't know about Republican porcelain but an early type, which this might be, is not without value.

In the very early Republic I know there was a sort of flurry of usages of Imperial reign marks and Imperial dragons on commercial porcelain, as the Emperor was no longer there to stop them. A less prestigious name like Jiaqing may have dropped from use, only to revive later when "less prestigious" names became more desirable. Anthony Allen, for example, says that Guangxu's name was revived briefly in Republican porcelain, then dropped from use largely until about the 1980s.

Kind regards
J.Lim

FYI, here's a famille rose bowl of quatrefoil lobed sections, decorated on the exterior with four butterflies and various flower sprays. The interior is decorated with four butterflies interspersed with flower sprays, around a central cartouche featuring Xi Wangmu, Queen mother of the west, her celestial palace and two other female immortals on a raging sea, surrounded by flying bats and a crane. The dish is approximately 11 1/8” (28.5 cm) long, 8 7/8” (22.5 cm) wide and 3 1/8” (8 cm) high. The base has a six character minyao seal mark of the Jiaqing reign, painted in over-glaze iron red enamel, on a turquoise ground. The dish is mark and period of the Jiaqing reign (1796-1820). The condition is very good, one small chip on one side rim with a short hairline emanating from the chip (see photos) – No other cracks, chips or restoration.

If anyone doesn't believe the mark, maybe they'll believe the decoration. This kind of paint job ranks with the best of Chinese export.

Best regards,

Bill H.

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