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

Trying to gain some experience with understanding the differences between modern tooling and ancient tooling of jade. Experts - PLEASE offer up your thoughts on what you see or don't see in this piece.

Purchased with no provenance.

Measures 8" tall. Took as many photos as I could of the details. No flash used....just the light from my kitchen, but I think the photos show the stone color fairly accurately, although natural day light would likely have made clearer photos.

I see fine (micro) straight lines that show the tooling. The inner 'hole' is not perfectly flush....looks like they carved from both sides of the jade and the bore did not line up perfectly.

Various fractures in the stone and some areas where the jade has chipped...patina suggests that the damaged occurred long ago.

Stone varies from a celadon green to dark green/black. Translucent in the lighter areas when held to light. Passes the scratch test, so I'm confident it is jade.

What do you think?

I would suggest that you look for a Jade specialist( maybe a museum) in your area, This one is almost impossible to judge from pictures alone.
Ernest

I understand. I'm going to take the piece with me to Boston this week while I visit with family over the holiday. Do you think the Boston Museum of Fine be willing to check it out?

The carving quality and material of this cong piece are a bit disconcerting to me.

Firstly, the material itself does not appear to be nephrite jade or quality local jade such as Dushan jade which cannot be scratched. It looks like some softer stones, probably serpentine to me. If any artisans would spend so much time, using hand tools to "carve" such a large piece of cong at ancient time, IMHO, they would pick better material;

Secondly, the workmanship exhibited on this cong, again IMHO, is simply inferior. Very often, jade collectors believe archaic pieces (made with manual tools) would be inferior in workmanship than modern pieces that were made with high-speed tools. That is simply not true.

Thirdly, the luster displayed on this cong is simply lacking to the point that it almost appears the whole purpose of this piece is to make it appear "old".

Therefore, judging by the quality of its carving and material, I doubt very much this cong can be ancient or archaic. Now once again, since I am no jade expert and this cong can indeed be some archaic pieces and if that is the case I would like to apologize in advance. I would be very interested to hear from you the opinions of the museum (I hope they would render one but they may not).

Cheer.

Super,

I agree...this one looks 'too old' to be true or of good quality.

After reading your comments, I scratch tested again....mixed results. Some areas were soft (the areas of the stone that were brown/black) and scratched, and other areas did not scratch (greener/translucent). Perhaps serpentine or just inferior stone, but I thought I had read posts stating older stone carvings can be scratched.

There is also some type of brown/black tar like substance accumulated in the narrow horizontal cuts....perhaps just more 'material' added by the creator to deceive, but I'll post some photos of the material just to be sure.

The Christie's example that I posted certainly did not achieve the kind of sale result that would suggest a high quality piece, and who can really say that my piece is anything like theirs without having physically examined both.

I have already sent an email to arrange a viewing at the MFA in Boston... probably will not hear from them in time before I fly back, but if they do extend an invitation to me, I'll likely fly back...such a rare opportunity for a student like myself should not be missed.

Just doing some more research....check this out....

Take a look at the Christie's cong sold in 2006...I posted the link in response to Scott Alexander's comments. Not a stellar performance by any means, and no guarantee that it is truly neolithic, but as you can see the color and type of stone seem to match mine, style of carving is identical, and even the rather 'crude' appearance of looking 'too old'/too soft a stone seems to match.

Still, not a great example to make a comparison since there is no provenance provided by Christie's on the piece they sold, but it does suggest that the appearance of my cong is not entirely unrealistic for a period piece, else Christie's would not have made such an assertion.

I might add that Christie's also makes a point to mention that the hole in the cong was drilled from both sides...just like mine. So, the construction of my cong seems correct.

Now, take a look at the link I've provided from Freer - Sackler. The cong depicted is a different carving and different color stone, but more importantly, zoom in to view the opening of the cong. Do you see it?

You can clearly see the same kind of lines on the inner hole where the core was cut out as on my vase. You can also see on the outer mouth of the cong where light is reflecting that it too has strong scratch marks.

Here is another example from Freer-Sackler of a larger sized cong with nearly identical stone: http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/edan/object.php?q=fsg_F1968.30

Here, again, is another larger cong at Freer-Sackler...zoom in and look at the exterior scratch marks from the carving...very much in sync with what is seen on my vase - http://www.asia.si.edu/collections/edan/object.php?q=fsg_S1987.887

It seems to me that these larger congs, those over 6" in height, have a bit more course workmanship, especially when they are rendered from this green/black stone.

Or, perhaps these congs were never fully carved or finished/polished....maybe the carver died unexpectedly or gave up on the project...who really knows?

That said, by no means am I dismissing your remarks...my cong may be a copy as I know nothing of its origins and have nearly no experience with jade. But, I am left wondering what other criteria can be used to determine age other than the tooling and type of stone, since genuine examples of Liangzhu carvings do exist with 'rough' carvings and similar green/black stone.



URL Title :Freer-Sackler cong

Not sure you'll find anyone at the MFA able to help with this (particularly over the holiday weekend), but I think Scott's observations are germane.

Let me know if you want to meet up though, I am local. idio_tic on yahoo

Why not send an email to the museum? The worst they can do is to say NO. Or... just go...
Ernest

Did that...waiting on a response. Going to visit on Saturday...maybe luck will find me.

A couple of observations on this piece (although I'm certainly no expert):
(1) It appears as the large hole as drilled with a fast rotating bit, judging by the tool marks scored on the inside of the hole through the middle of the cong.
(2) Compared to a museum example (see http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/72376), it appears as though this one is crudely carved (not smooth, but very rough, and very much lacking in the equisite details of the authenticated examples).
(3) The carved out patterns on the corners don't appear correct (as if they were machined by a router, not done by hand).

There was a very good discussion of Congs on this forum, back in 2007. We'll see if this link works: http://www.asianart.com/phpforum/index.php?method=detailAll&Id=21151#21151

Sincerely,
Scott Alexander

Scott A., non expert or not, all comments are appreciated.

First off, thanks for the links....the forum discussion is quite interesting and informative.

Your 2nd comment regarding the crude design as compared to known examples does have a component that I agree with, but only in part. The design seems more simple in that the carving of this cong is only a series of deep 'C' shaped ravines, as opposed to circular patterns and shallow cut scrolling decorative lines that I see in many museum examples. So, I, too, am stll looking to find a genuine cong of the same design. However, there is nothing rough about the carving, nor the feel of the jade.

If you look at the manner that the 'C' shapped ravine is carved, you will see a nearly perfect mitred edge where one side of the 'C' joins to the next. Any broken and/or roughness appears to from age, but I understand this can be faked. There are no circular cut marks...only straight micro line scratches, so i am inclined to believe these are hand tool made unless you can explain how a rotary cutter can make these type of micro lines.

On my flight up to Boston, yesterday, I read Jade:Stone of Heaven, by Richard Gump. Written in the 1960's, much of the information is anictdotal stories about Chinese opinions on jade....not much science. However, the book has a nice section on how jade was carved.

With regards to the center hole of the cong, according to Gump, a hollow tube (probably bamboo) was covered in abrassive sands, then rotated. Once a certain depth is achieved, the core is removed by administering a solid wack with a chisel and mallet.

To me, this looks exactly what has happened with this cong. It also appears that since the cong is 8" in height, that the cutting of the hole took place from both sides of the cong. There is not perfect alignment and inside there is a ridge from where the center core(s) were broken off. Furthermore, the hole is not a perfect circle, although visibly it is near to it.

I do not know what techniques are use when high speed drill are utilized. My thought is that the hole would have perfect alignment and circular symetry, as most likely a drill press would have been used creating a perfectly circular cut at a perfect 90 degree angle.

I also do not think it is fair to compare the inner hole of small congs with that of larger. Small congs have an advantage that the inner tube can be further tooled/carved more easily. A hand and tool would not easily fit in my cong.

The only images of the inner circular hole of museum congs I could find were all small examples, 4" or less in height. If you find an 'inside' photo of a large example, I would love to see how it compares.

Regarding the use of a rotary cutter for the exterior, look at the last set of photos again. Sorry that they are so small....when I am home next week I will post more pics. Meantime, you can see in the closeup of the surface very distinct straight line cuts. These are very small lines, invisible to the eye except through a magnification. I was able to compare these small cuts with museum photos, so I am quite sure the piece was hand tooled, but this does not mean it is old.....that is the question I hope to answer.

Thanks,
Tim

Since I brought the cong with me to Boston, I took a few more photos which may (I hope) shed some additional light on the age of the piece.

Group #1 photos show the inner core of the cong. Taken with flash, note the highly translucent quality of the jade, nice smooth polish, but as you can see there are rings from the cutting instrument. The last photo of the group shows the inner rim/fragment remaining from where the core was broken out. None of the surfaces look recently worked (surfaces appear to have dirt/dust accumulated in some very hard to reach spots).

Group #2 photos show the straight tools marks on outer surfaces of the cong, 2 with flash, and 1 without. These marks are not easily visible to the naked eye and feel perfectly smooth...no roughness. Also, not that the straight lines are cut in different directions in some spots...the maker changed the position of the tool he was using to polish the jade.

Group #3 photos show the inner surface of the 'C' shape carved design. First 2 photos are with flash, and the last photo is without on an area where some dirt/black material has accumulated. The lines are not perfectly straight as to suggest the tool shifted slightly as it was dragged across the surface of the jade. I assume a high speed cutting tool would have left a much more perfect straight cut, but that's only my assumption.

Please comment! Thank you for all the help and advice.

Tim

So, after a bit more probing around, I found an example of a cong with the same design as the one I have posted photos of that was offered by Christie's in 2006.

Mine is slightly larger and since the photo Christie's provides online does not permit enlargement, it is impossible to judge the method of carving.

Still, it at least suggests the possibility of my cong being Liangzhu.

URL Title :Christie\'s \'dark green jade cong\'

Thank you for posting additional pictures of your cong and the Christie's link for us to enjoy. Based on pictures alone, your cong almost looks better than that of Christie's. Now Christie's described its piece as "A dark green jade cylinder, cong, probably Neolithic Period, Liangzhu Culture" and with a price Realized of only £960 Set($1,764), I have great difficulty in being convinced that it was indeed a genuine Liangzhu or Neolithic piece.

Based on all these white lines seen inside your cong, I am almost 90% sure that it was not made of nephrite while a lot of authenticate Liangzhu pieces were made of real jade that was hard enough that they required corundum and/or diamond to carve. That was the uniqueness of the Liangzhu culture because both corundum and diamond were believed to be available for their jade "carving".
I also believe the carving of your piece were accomplished with modern high-speed tools and to purposedly leave it in an unfinished state (without a thorough polishing)was to make it appear to be archaic. I once saw pieces of a Vietnamese Neolithic collection for sales by a collector (around 300k) about 8-9 years ago, as soon as I saw the material and carving quality/appearance of them, I immediately knew they were genuine. I only regret that I did not attempt to acquire a few pieces from him. Another forum poster at that time did get a few pieces from him. How I envy her. IMHO, it is very difficult to appraise any jade pieces based on tool marks because there were at least 14 changes of tu but much easier to base on the quality of their material which are usually unique and superb. I do not believe most of the genuine Neolithic pieces would be made with inferior material. Even today, with modern high-speed tools, a good jade "carver" would take a few years in finishing one jade piece, therefore the selection of good/great jade material is almost a must. After selling his pieces for what might appear to be high prices, what he received for his labor was really minimal. During the Qing dynasty, before polishing with high hardness grit (such as diamond, corundum, etc.)was invented, it would take a year or more to just complete the polishing process. Therefore, some time judging by the luster of a jade piece can indeed help in evaluating its age. Of course, once again, I am no jade expert and can very easily be off the mark. Even many jade experts have different opinions when appraising the same jade piece. Again, thanks for sharing and I wish you good luck in your further studying on your cong. Keep us update in what you learn from the museum. Thanks.

Super,

I agree, the sales result is quite flat for such a large piece of supposed neolithic jade. However, high results are very spotty and only pieces with exceptional provenance or exceptionally beautiful stone and/or carving seem to achieve anything better than a few thousand dollars, even at Christie's.

Also, if you go through the auction's other items, you'll find that this was not a particularly high end sale with 245 lots bringing only 831,540 (GBP) INCLUDING the buyer's premium.

In contrast, here is a similar size, similar looking stone, and modestly carved cong sold by Christies in 2014 that brought a spectacular $245,000. That auction had 467 lots selling for $27,401,250 (USD).

Just judging on appearances through photos, the most significant difference seems to be the provenance and the overall quality of the sale, which is an important lesson for me and anyone else reading this discussion who has an interest in learning how to collect jade.

Just a guess, but had Christie's put the cong sold in 2006 aside the well provenanced piece in their 2014 sale, the result would have been much higher purely on association (ie. if this one is good, then the other one must be, too). More psychology than science, but nevertheless often true as this is a common practice among auction houses.

Fortunately for me, I bought this cong from a local Goodwill thrift store, so needless to say, I am at no financial loss one way or another with this piece, and the education has been invaluable.

Truth be told...I never had too great of an interest in jade, but I think I've caught the bug. The question is whether or not there are enough pieces available in my area to start collecting as I do not typically buy from auction.

Thanks again. Very much appreciated.

Scott,

Not sure if you've followed some of my responses to Super, but I've turned up examples of congs reportedly of the period with the same kind of stone and carving.

One thing that seemed to be of the greatest concern as to my cong's authenticity was the rough cutting marks on the inner core that you and others have attributed with high speed cutting.

For the benefit of making this example a little easier to find in this post, I've re-titled the subject line in this reply so that it identifies the source of the following photo, and I'm including the direct link as well.

Among the numerous examples of neolithic jade congs in the Freer-Sackler collection, I found one photographed in such a way that you can clearly see the identical cut marks found on the inside of my cong.

You can follow the link to view it online...just click on the photo and zoom in to view the mouth.

Also, I've attached a screen capture of Feer-Sackler's mouth next to a photo of the mouth of my vase. They are identical.

Maybe not all congs are as finely made as others.



URL Title :Freer Sackler Liangzhu cong with inner core markings

Around the holidays, I have a lot more time to navigate the Internet, so please excuse me if it seems I am beating a dead horse about this topic.

I am just interested in sharing some of my findings as I look at various sources for information on Liangzhu culture and jade. Probably much of what I am sharing is well known among jade collectors, but it seems pertinent to the conversation. So, here goes....

Follow the link to a breif article on Liangzhu jade Bi by Freer-Sackler.

Here's two excerpts:

"On some, traces of sawing and grinding have been completely polished away, and the smooth surfaces are buffed to a lustrous shine. In many cases, however, the flawed stone is irregular in shape, and the disk still retains intriguing evidence of its manufacture."

"Hollow tubular bits, aided by mineral abrasives and water, could have been used to drill the central hole from both sides of the disk to avoid breakage. A tiny projecting ridge inside the hole remains if the drill bits were improperly aligned."

Note that the article states that 'in many cases' the type of tooling that I propose is being described as 'rough' in our discussion, is indicative of the carving of Liangzhu jade, and not 'high speed' rotary tooling.

The article does seem to suggest that there are varying degrees of quality, and those that have the tooling marks completely polished away are fewer in number.




URL Title :Freer-Sackler Bi - cut marks

I should have read this article on Liangzhu cong earlier on by Freer-Sackler...

My theory that larger cong could be less refined than smaller cong is precisely what they state:

"Much larger cong, which are frequently made of lower-quality nephrite, emphasize impressive scale over meticulous workmanship. They have flatter sides, sharply angled corners, and squared collars at top and bottom—all indications that less time and attention were paid in shaping a rectangular block of jade. Simplified mask motifs on these cong would have been easier to produce as well. Such shifts might be associated with changing attitudes towards ritual objects that were intended for burial."

The quote seems to describe my cong perfectly.

URL Title :Freer-Sackler - quality not as high on larger cong.

Hello Tim -

You've found some good sources to support the thinking that this is a true Liangzhu cong, especially the piece from the Christies' auction, which does look strikingly similar to yours. Of course, finding such a piece in a second hand store would be like winning the lottery (not to say it couldn't happen).

You should definately print out hard-copies of your supporting evidence, and if you do discuss with an expert for authentication, share your findings.

Here are some other links which folks might find interesting:

SOURCES on LIANGZHU and ARCHAIC CHINESE JADES
=============================================
[1] Real or Fake Jades
http://hoffmanjade.com/real_or_fake_figs.html)

[2] China: Ancient Culture, Modern Land, edited by Robert E. Murowchick, Section titled "Liangzhu Congs"
https://books.google.com/books?id=tO42ZlxKf4cC&pg=PA66&dq=%22liangzhu+culture%22+cong+jade&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihneqr1rHJAhWSlYgKHQuZAxwQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=%22liangzhu%20culture%22%20cong%20jade&f=false

[3] The Smithsonian's Museum of Asian Arts, section on Ancient Chinese Jades
http://www.asia.si.edu/explore/china/jades/default.asp

[4] Digital Taiwan - Culture and Nature, Chinse Jades Through the Ages
http://culture.teldap.tw/culture/index.php?option%3Dcom_content%26id%3D1960:art-in-quest-of-heaven-and-truth-chinese-jades-through-the-ages

Scott,
Some good info - thanks!

I saw in some other jade posts references to the Friends of Jade website. There were some interesting articles there, too, including an article on fakes.

http://www.friendsofjade.org/current-article/2004/12/1/copies-of-neolithic-jades-of-the-liangzhu-culture-zhejiang-china.html

I've attached a photo from the article of the workshop responsible for the mass production of museum quality fakes, and as can be seen, they use a drill press to bore out the circular hole in the congs.

Such a process would result in a perfectly round hole and the hole would be at a perfect 90 degree angle to the base (provided the exterior of the cong was also cut perfectly square).

Earlier I mentioned that the hole in my cong was not only miis-aligned in the middle, but also not perfectly round, and not cut at a perfect 90 degree angle.

Based upon the photos of the modern workshop, it seems improbable that this could be accomplished with a drill press.

The fakes also seem to emulate the style and stone types of famous museum examples. Mine differs in that it is a style and stone color that does not seem to appear in a museum, nor seem to be in high demand by collectors.

Nevertheless, the best that I can hope to accomplish is what you have already suggested, which is to print copies of supporting documents, and when the opportunity arises that an expert makes themselves available to me, present my cong and paperwork and hope for the best.

Collecting jade is truely a scholarly pursuit, perhaps more so than my time, budget, and aptitude allows. But, I think this discussion has helped me a lot. Many thanks.

'Finding such a piece in a second hand store would be like winning the lottery' - Where do you reside?

I understand the sentiment.....just look at all the posts (including mine) where people write in hoping for that golden 'Antique Roadshow' moment where they find out their $5 thrift store buy is worth a fortune.

Truth be told, I have about 25 years of experience collecting Japanese prints that widened into many areas of Asian art over the past 8 or so years. I also live in Florida, which offers an interesting dynamic of as to what comes into the antique market due to the number of retirees that live here. The knowledge I have and the near constant influx of 'stuff' coming through second hand stores has proven quite lucrative - it is how I make my modest living.

Finding genuine Asian antiques of good quality is challenging and time consuming, but I can tell you that finding a couple of pieces worth $1000 +/- each month has been quite normal for me. And, usually once a year I find something extraordinary.

My most recent 'big find' was a 17th c. Huanghuali table that I bought in July. Someone painted the table brown and cut the legs down by 9". Still, After stripping the paint I was able to sell it privately to a specialist in China for quite a nice payout.

I think a more correct analogy would be to say that finding genuine Asian antiques at a second hand store is like prospecting for gold. Gold can be found almost everywhere in the world, but it usually is in such small quantities that you have to shovel a lot of s**t (material) to accumulate enough for it to be worthwhile.

In my case, I have more time than money, so my weekly vsitis to various shops has really paid off over the years. Unfortunately, I rarely can afford to keep my best finds.....there are always bills to pay, but such is life.

Depending on where you live, you may be undervaluing what your second hand stores have to offer. I'd be happy to share some suggestions on my personal strategy and experiences if you are interested. That is, as long as you don't live in Florida! Just joking...

Tim

For comparison, here is a Neolithic, Liangzhu Culture Yellow-Olive Green Jade Cylinder, Zong up for auction:

http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/33391-28186-25991-21270-4000-4500-24180-44-c-39b4f85b62?email=736a73687572736b79407961686f6f2e636f6d&utm_source=house&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=exclusive&utm_content=gia120515

Cheers,
Stan

Thanks, Stan.

I am not a member of Invaluable, so while I was able to view the photos and description, I do not know what the estimate is or what auction house.

I did notice the photo that shows the inner core of each cong. From my short investigation into Liangzhu congs measuring this size (9.5"), there should be a center ridge from where the hole was bored out from both ends of the cong as a result of the typical misalignment of the primitive drilling methods used at that time.

No such ridge can be seen in the photos. Even if additional tooling took place to remove the ridge, the hole would not be so perfectly cylindrical and aligned.

So, either the carver was very lucky and perfectly aligned the hole cutting tool on both congs, or this pair is a later copy.

Just my opinion.

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