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

Hi, opinion is this dish Ming period or latter Kangxi?

Your posted pictures leave the viewer about 15 feet back from one view and 30 from the other without a telescope, while begging the question of what else do you know about the piece that makes you apparently certain it is either Ming or Kangxi. In any event, the lack of information on your part does not encourage a response from others who might be able to provide what you seek.

Bill H.

Well the idea is to get a conversation going I know what it's

With the attitude you have and the absolute disrespect for the time and effort of the experts, I'm doubtful you would even receive a bucket of grit. You are not polite.

I had a very similar Dish,Kangxi and 4 character Hall Mark.

As mentioned,larger images are reauired but it looks promising.

Regards

Vic

Hi, this dish called Kraak the name after a Portuguese marched ship,

The mark on your dish appears to read "Made for the Kangxi Hall" (康熙堂製 - Kang-xi tang zhi), which isn't mentioned either in Gerald Davison's 2013 reprint of "The New & Revised Handbook of Marks on Chinese Ceramics" or the fairly comprehensive 2006 Mainland China-published "Encyclopedia of Markings on Historic Chinese Porcelains". The mark also is in an apparently restored and re-glazed or repainted area, which if what it seems to be, would indicate the mark is apocryphal and the dish probably quite new.

I'll take the occasion to repeat for the benefit of anyone interested, that double rings around period Kangxi six-character standard-script reign marks signified imperial wares. The only imperial Kangxi dishes of which I'm aware with four-character markings, again in standard script, were those within square borders reading "Made by Imperial Order, Kangxi Reign" (康熙御製 - Kang-xi Yu Zhi) written in underglaze blue and, rarely, also in red.

While reminding that every rule has its exceptions, Anthony J. Allen mentions in his most recent book, "Allen's Antique Chinese Porcelain - The Detection of Fakes", a general precept holding that fake Kangxi reign marks did not appear until the Guangxu Reign (1875-1908).

I would add to this that most examples of Kangxi four-character marks reading "Made during the Kangxi Reign" (康熙年製 - Kang-xi Nian Zhi) date to the late-Qing and Republic eras, although the aforementioned Mainland compendium of Historic mark shows a few period examples of underglaze blue minyao (popular) marks with and without double circles. I've also come across one dish in the Kangxi style with the same Kraak-style compartmented decoration described as Japanese-made, although it was unmarked.

Best regards,

Bill H.

Hi Bill I show you this

https://www.bukowskis.com/en/auctions/568/1807-a-blue-and-white-dish-qing-dynasty-kangxi-1662-1722

URL Title :https://www.bukowskis.com/en/auctions/568/1807-a-blue-and-white-dish-qing-dynasty-kangxi-1662-1722

I am confused Manny as the auction listing you posted further confirms what Bill just told you and that is why the auction house added Qing to the listing. It seems to me Bill hit it right on the nose and the Dish is late Qing. I am far from an expert but like to read and learn.

well, you should know Kangxi is Qian dynasty, next Bill said there is no such mark and the dish is new, also said it could be Japanese. so I proved to him there is such mark and it's not Japanese unless he thinks the auction where wrong and look at the name of the seller

Thank you for the most wonderfully egocentric remarks I've had come my way all year. Sad to say, your test proves only that better-focused mark images make for easier reading of characters through thick glasses. I had a spare-time shortage this weekend but am delighted to return here and see where you went with this thread, which was where I'd sensed you'd be headed from the outset. Must feel great to be one of those folks with a computer-like mind; nothing to worry about all day but good old-fashioned "GIGO"(Garbage In, Garbage Out, Garbage In, Garbage Out). Far be it for me to load you down with any more.

Bill H.

Hi, Bill, I don't know what are you talking about, you did say what you said now I prove you wrong you start blaming the image if that so you could say so and leave it there why say it could be Japanese fake and so on?

As those of you who follow these discussions know, this is not in my wheelhouse. However, I do have a small library of material not directly related just to my narrow field of collecting. So, I got out my magnifying glass and tried to relate the piece under discussion to some of the porcelain in texts. In a book published some years ago and purchased from the National museum in Taiwan is a plate(not a bowl) that is similar in design. The key differences are 1) The museum plate has a six character reign mark display 2) It also has minor edge fritting 3) The brushwork is very "free" and the blue varies quite a bit from one area to another 4) The cobalt is a very different shade 5)The underside is not disturbed as it seems to be on the subject bowl. For the above reasons, it appears to these old eyes to be a modern attempt to duplicate a porcelain made in a heralded era.

Hi thank you for the post, well first you should know this is not a bowl its a dish, Second what appears in the picture is not what's, have you looked at the link I provided from the auction in Sweden? look at it and see who's belong too. thank you

Lest anyone have any lasting misapprehensions as to what I think about this particular mark, as opposed to participants who believe the forum is a testing ground for the rest of us, I wish to clarify:

This is a Kangxi period mark of 'Made for the Hall of Gathering Prosperity' (Ju xing tang zhi - 聚興堂製). It is No. 1130 in 'The New & Revised Handbook of Marks on Chinese Ceramics' by Gerald Davison. A rather blurry image of it also is published on Page 118, in the Kangxi Hallmarks Section of 'The Collected Marks on Chinese Historical Porcelains' (Zhongguo Lidai Taoci Kuanzhi Dadian' - 中国历代陶瓷款识大典), 2006 2nd Printing by the Shanghai Cultural Publishing House.

I have uploaded below a cropped screen print of a period marking which was the subject of an intense scrutiny in a December 2007 Chinese porcelain internet forum (Link). The dish in question, a piece from the 'Carrack' trade similar to what is seen here, left some in the forum divided about how the mark should be read. A few disbelievers persisted even after one of the moderators recounted his conversation with an unnamed calligrapher, who'd explained how brush-stroke flourishes that are strange to the modern generation of collectors, were common during the Kangxi period. In any event, the forum image was clear enough to permit me to identify the last three characters of the mark, then to do an asterisk search on Google to ID the first and most "freeform" of the characters.

Hopefully, everyone has a machine translation capacity for Chinese Simplified with their web browser, but beware of some of the offbeat results that come about.

And to all a good night,

Bill H.



URL Title :Porcelain Forum

Hi, bill Well I thought first you said this was not mentioned in the book you were talking about and now you are saying it's mentioned make up your mind is or isn't can't be both thank you. just saying

I also should clarify, when saying "the forum image was clear enough to permit me to identify the last three characters of the mark", I meant the image accessible at the Bukowski's Auction link and not the dish images posted earlier on Jan 02, 2019.

Bill H.

This is a standard Kangxi Bowl,I’m surprised so many people are doubting its authenticity.

Definitely not Ming.

Vic

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