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

It has been a while since I have posted, and again, thank you all for opinions...

I came across this bronze Buddha head approximately 6" tall. Now I have seen similar examples, most looking to be modern casts.. but this one caught my eye.. while I did not get an opportunity to look under magnification before purchasing, it was inexpensive so figured would get it then take a look..

Well, interesting indeed.. the bronze has area of Cuprite, Malachi and appears small amounts of Azutite on top of the layers.. ( pictured area selected near chin)

No question in my mind, this is no new bronze Buddha bust..

I am though looking for opinions about age.. I have read that these layers form no earlier than 200-500 years?

I would be grateful for input for the forum..

Thank you in advance

Bob,

In my opinion, the head appears to be mid 20th c.

The crudeness of the rendering is not indicative of the careful craftsmanship of earlier works for a figure of this size - hair spirals would be well defined and all facial features would be much more refined.

As for the formation of cuprite, malachite, and azurite crystals, all of these can be artificially created in a short period of time.

In my experience, when these crystals form naturally, they do so in distinct layers, not clusters, and the individual crystals form much smaller so as to contour the form of the object.

Thank you Tim for your opinion. I agree with you regarding the casting..

The one thing I just can't figure out is how the Cuprite was created, if faked. I have not been able to find anything over many searches over some years regarding
how to Fake Cuprite. Now, there may be a way, but I sure have not been able to find that information. The only information I can find is that it indeed can't be faked. Another fact that confuses me is that the Cuprite with what looks to me Malachite on top, is clearly part of the bronze surface. It appears to be the transition of bronze to Cuprite, not a surface application of sorts..

This one does indeed have me scratching my head, and would like to hear more opinions..

Also, if anyone can point me in the direction regarding the process of faking Cuprite ( other than grinding up and applying to surface as I have heard) I would appreciate that link..for this mystery, and any other pieces that may come up ...

Oh, one more note that does not seem to follow the fake thinking, why fake the Cuprite in only several locations throughout the piece in a size almost the size of a pinhead.. less than 1/16 inch say?

I think we all have seen the faked Bronzes, and their patina.. and me like most can spot it within seconds...most are bad... Lol..

Well, thanks for any more inform on this piece

Bob,

As I am not a chemist or metallurgist, and I suspect few if any are in this Forum, so perhaps you could post the question elsewhere and get a precise response regarding cuprite formation - Can you even be sure it is cuprite and not a similar looking crystal?

Below is a link that discussing artificial patinas that might be helpful since you seem to have some familiarity with the subject than I do.

In two cases where I had objects that would be of considerable value if genuine, I reached out to Dr. Bezard Bavarian from the California State University, Northridge, and he performed a very thourough analysis of the metal composition and mineral growth (patina).

Dr. B. wrote his doctoral thesis on Chinese archaic bronzes and is quite familiar with their correct chemical composition vs. modern bronze alloys.

It cost me $500 plus round trip shipping, and only one of the two turned out to be genuinely old, but both had extremely convincing patinas - a rep I know from a major NY auction house handled both and was unable to confirm nor deny the authenticity, and in the absence of provenance, I sent them for lab analysis.

I think you'd agree, your head is not a good candidate for analysis given the crudeness, and as a kind word of caution - from the standpoint of authenticity, try not to get caught up in the complexities of bronze oxidation without first giving priority to casting method, bronze composition, and correct adherence to the esthetic of the period of creation of the piece.

At the end of the day, while collectors are always concerned with authenticity, if the item does not demonstrably look 'right' for the style of the period reportedly made, no amount of paper offering 'authentication' will change their minds.

Best,
Tim






URL Title :https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169433217300818

Thank you Tim for sharing your store and offering great information... I agree totally. I will say, it sure looks like true conversion of bronze to Cuprite etc.. but I will never really know; spent $25 on it and never really thought it would have major value, even if a hundred years old or so..

I do find it fascinating how well it has been patina'd , if it has been. Who knows, they have been making bronze busts for hundreds of years in those regions, maybe they barried it for a couple of decades...

I have has much fun finding Asian art, without really focusing on value.. although I don't think I have ever spent more than a hundred dollars...

I have another set of seated Buddha bronzes that are dated 1898 (OLD dating style) some of which has been translated ( old Myanmar) that are far beyond the quality of this piece, so can agree with you on craftsmanship and the lack there of..

Ultimately, it is the shared knowledge and experiences of contributors on this site that just blows me away

Excellent and thank you..

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