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

Can someone tell me what this mark is please

Hi Michael,

This Chinese mark reads "Qianlong nian zhi" (Made in the reign of Qianlong)These red marks in a double square were used a lot in second half of the 20th century.

regards,
Arjan

although late 20th C. porcelain makers may have made prodigious use of the boxed reign mark there are ample examples shown on michael vermeer's site - www.teadust.com - which demonstrate notable use of boxed reign marks in both red and blue during the qianlong reign showing again that generalizations must be treated with caution and circumspection. which in this case means that just because something appears in one era does not mean that it does not appear in another - that's merely logic 101.

i will also jump on my soapbox about the common insistence that reign marks not created with utmost hygiene, impeccable calligraphyship, and perfect symmetry are frauds is indeed quackery. any casual observance of even the vaunted yongzheng reign marks show variations and what could be described as flaws. thus never accept the notion that something is fake or not of the period simply because some fastidious standard of production is not met. usually those generalizations are by people lacking astute observational skills or having limited exposure to chinese porcelains. people are not machines and qualities will vary from piece to piece to piece.

now, after stepping off of my soap box and considering the evidence of the artistic work, my opinion is that the vase is c. 1900 give or take. i don't consider myself an expert by any means but that would be my final answer absent a life line call. i do not think that it is late 20th C. but i could easily change my mind with better pictures or handling of the vase.

on the other hand, even if it turns out to be recent, it is well done - it is a quality production.

many late guangxu and early republic pieces have been deaccesssioned from museums once they learned that their alleged kangxi and qianlong pieces were in fact late 19th / early 20th C.

any way, i consider myself a novice in chinese porcelains and anything i say must be considered in that light.

Qianlong nianzhi, or made during the Qianlong reign period. These are on all sorts of objects that postdate the Qianlong era, however.

Michael, it says "Made During the Qianlong Reign" (Qianlong Nian Zhi), but it's not necessarily of the Qianlong Period (1736-95). If you'll share images of the porcelain piece that goes with the mark, someone may be able to shed light on its authenticity.
Regards,
Bill H

Thanks everyone the mark is on a vase its the vase on the left in the picture with 3 on

I'd estimate no earlier than about 1925. The painting style and mark are consistent with the later Republic period, but I'm not sure about the form of the piece. Vases of that shape, decorated with copies of earlier motifs and "pendant jewel" borders around the neck were produced in abundance after 1950.
Regards,
Bill H

Well Bill its actually a 19th cent vase Purchased from a reputable Auctioneers in Scotland.Tony Bonn seems to have spotted it well.Tony mentions the fact of a lot of Museums and collections are disposing of Republican period pieces,i think Republic period items if well done are a superb investment,i bought a lovely plate the other week for �2,the price was that low because the seller thought that having MADE IN CHINA on it it was new. Yet have you seen the prices these items are fetching in Amsterdam, London and New York.So when we look at a piece we should always look past the mark.

Michael, 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. Cheers, Bill H

Bill stick your glasses on

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.

Dear Bill and others....

I hope it's OK for beginners to react as well.
I know a collecter (he is for decades) who says about this "I dont need a magnifier to judge a piece but judge it from a distence, looking at the hole piece gives me a better impression than staring at a detail".
Bill H gave his opinion on base of what he knows, have seen and experienced. (shape, decoration, colors a.s.o.)There is nothing wrong with that I think. 100% science??? I don't think so.
Till now, nobody gave another or better argumented opinion to convinced me that he's wrong.
I was the first to give an opinion about the mark. I wrote that it reads "Qianlong nian zhi" I think everybody game with that same opinion so maybe we can call this a conclusion.
But I also made a warning to write that it was probably 20th. century without seing the piece.
Tony -more or less disagreed with this maybe he saw this as a/my conclusion. That wasn't a conclusion... just a warning based on what I know/found/saw before. In this case;
Tony refered to Mikes Vermeer's site. I know that site of course but this only helps the other way round as Tony ment, I think. There is not such a mark on this site and I never saw one like this that was M&P. I've seen double boxed blue character marks, double boxed red seal marks, but never a M&P double boxed red (4) character mark. That doesn't mean that the don't excist but If it would be very rare.

Back to the piece. (I'm talking with myself now).
What else do I notice? .........
Women !!!..... with high hair and hairadornments.
When was this kind of hair in fashion ..........
Well...early 19th. century and later on in..... uhh...... Republic periode.
Was the style of painting the same.......
No..., In early 19th. century they often painted the inside faces with pink and the hairadornments, neckles and earrings were painted in gold.
In Repuclic... inside faces often unpainted, hairadornments, often painted in color , not in gold.
Does this prove anything? Of course not, just maybe one clue .......

best regards,
Arjan

Hi Bill
Welcome to this discussion.I think very highly of Bill H,s Judgement he is always helpfull to anyone who asks,and very good on translation,s,and i am sure he has a good sense of humor (ihope)!!.Going back to your comments on everyone learning from each other i totaly agree,some of us see things in one light,and others see other things.I just happen to think The Chinese potters can still make lovely items I would recommend anyone to read Anthony Allens books An Introduction to Chinese Porcelain and Authentication of Chinese Porcelain. He is a wonderfull writer the books are so readable and funny on his observations of the trade ,i bought a nice Cockeral plate after reading about them in his books.I have attached a picture Mr allen dates these to 1925,but i guess Bill will have other ideas

Hi everyone, sorry to leave the thread hanging while on vacation without regular PC access. After perusing the larger photos, I still think the baluster vase is an early 20th century Republic Period product.

This is a subjective opinion, based on subtleties of style and color. It looks to me like someone was attempting to replicate the famille verte palette as it was applied to porcelain during the Tongzhi Period, but with an added subordinate theme (the pendant jewels) that was more prevalent during the early 20th century

It also figures, in my mind at least, that the "average" apocryphal Qianlong mark of the late 19th century (when most apocryphal marks proliferated) was written in standard kaishu script without borders.

This is my opinion, a distillation of my 30 years experience as a collector and student of Chinese and other Asian art. I don't anticipate that everyone, if anyone, will agree with it, because I expect that each of us has arrived at this forum via a different route.

As to the jade qilin, the original evaluation has been validated independently. Besides that, I simply have too much confidence in and respect for the original evaluator to toss out his own or his company's name for the public at large possibly to turn into a target for criticism of a personal nature. Anyone who doesn't understand that rationale is part of the problem I address by observing it. At the same time, if anyone wants to have a field day criticizing the jade qilin based on its own merits, have at it under the proper thread, which I haven't had a chance to check lately.

At last count, I had 25 or 30 pieces of porcelain in that "Rooster & Bridge" pattern, including slight variants with and without "Made in China" markings. As far as I can tell, retail values of these dishes peaked a few years back along much the same curve as sales of Tony's first book, which featured them, but certainly ought to be worth holding onto for their investment value through the current economic downturn. They remain some of the best decorated porcelains among those mass-produced during the early 20th century. And if there's anyone out there who doesn't know, the ones where the bridge is painted in bright orange and yellow enamels (instead of blues) are more modern repros.

And that's all, folks, until I finish this vacation next week. If anyone out there needs to exercise their gums, you're just gonna have to chew on this for the time being! :)

Bill H

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