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

Could anyone help with dating this jar? I know that the jar is in the famille rose style with four panels of flowers representing each of the four seasons and believe it to be 19th c., but would be interested in knowing a more specific time period.

Photos can be seen here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23676403@N07/sets/72157625684321671/

You can see the porcelain has 'pig bristle' bursts, very white biscuit paste, and fine crazing to the green glaze of the leaves (especially the lotus leaves).

Also, the style seems very unusual with the pink feather pattern. The lines of the feathers are painted on, not carved as is the case with sgraffiato. Has anyone seen this style before?

Thanks.

Tim, here are two details from a circa third-quarter 20th century bottle-type vase with faux sgraffito painted on its surface too. As with your jar, it is in the antique style, specifically Qianlong with apocryphal mark.

During the late 19th century and Republic period, sgraffito designs remained popular and in regular production. As such, I wonder why anyone would have seen reason to abandon a successful technique at that time.

On the other hand, I speculate that while there were still good painters around when this late 20th century vase was made, the technical skills and tools for doing sgraffito might have been scarce.

It may be that your jar also is from about the same period, but this is only a guess based on possible guilt by association.

FYI, I'm only showing details here, as this vase currently is being auctioned.

Best regards,

Bill H.

Bill H.,

Thank you for your reply - I always appreciate your insight. Your point about painted vs. carved sgraffiata is well taken. However, it is difficult for me to make a comparison of my jar with your example given the limited photos.

I do see some similarities, but I'm not sure if that is because they come from the same period or because both pieces emulate Qianlong style. One thing, the feathery manner of my jar is distinctly different than your example - not sure why.

Still, I am wondering if you could provide further explanation regarding some of the more technical components of the jar's construction as it relates to assessing age.

Having read many guides to assessing age/authenticity of Chinese porcelain, I try to abide by the guidelines provided, but realize there are always exceptions.

First, the jar is constructed in two parts (top & bottom adn you can see the seem in the photos) - I have read that this method of constructing jars was abandoned after the 19th c. Is this true?

There is crazing in the green glaze and has an oily reflection that can clearly be seen. I have noticed that these elements are lacking in later 20th c. pieces - is this not a definative characteristic for age?

The white areas of porcelain are very thinly glazed (you can see the texture of the porcelain), and the unglazed areas show 'pig bristle'. Have these elements been replicated in later 20th c. pieces?

Mixing of different color glazes to emphasize shadow (ie. eggplant on the edges of the green lotus leaves on diaper border, underside of lotus leaf on central panel)- I've seen this technique on 19th c. pieces and earlier, but not on copies, but this may be my lack of experience.

Lastly, the foot ring is beautifully polished - silky smooth. Again, I always thought this was a practice found on fine early pieces, not later copies.

Your thoughts? Thank you.

Tim,

Perhaps others can add cogent comment to the matter of foot rim and degree of levigation, as well as luting practices. I tend when dealing with pictures like this to rely more on visual clues in the motif to ID porcelains. If it isn't a standard pattern and contains unfamiliar icons, I favor leaving room for doubt.

This feather scroll on your jar isn't quite familiar to me in an iconographic context. For something I believe traditionally was relegated to a low profile in most motifs, it occupies a significant space on your jar without speaking much Chinese symbolism to me. Indeed, it almost drowns out the other symbolic references provided in the flowers.

The perceived contradiction strikes me as weird if there's an expectation that the piece was made before 1949. Traditional canons of artistic expression prevailed then, if for none other than market-driven reasons; e.g., the people who bought this stuff wanted it to look thoroughly Chinese. Afterward, on the Mainland at least, the more overtly metaphysical icons of Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism were deemphasized in the decorative arts for much of the first quarter-century.

Right offhand, the only place I can recall seeing other than a sgraffito feather scroll on porcelain before the late 20th century jar I've already shown was on better examples of Guangxu and early Republic millefleurs pattern dishes. It was used sparingly as a gilt accent between the leaves and buds, as shown in this Guangxu M&P cup and saucer set.

Hopefully somebody else wil drop by and provide edification for both of us, but for now I believe there's a possibility your jar may be late 20th C.

Best regards,

Bill H.

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