Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - glovely

Pages: [1]
1
Hello
 
I was recently left a vase I would like to get more information on.  I know it was scheduled to be auctioned as "Chinese Han Dynasty Ancient Jade Four Phoenix Vase, 206BC-220AD", but my family never went through with the auction.  It was purchased long time ago in Beijing by a member of my family who collected chinese antiques.  I cant find much on Google other than some museums that have a few similar in style.  Any info that can be offered would be greatly appreciated.
 
Thanks in advance.



I believe these lines might be interesting too, this could be one of the pieces which inspired William Shakespeare's 'The turtle and the Pheonix' and therefore also Keat's Ode on a Grecian Urn. Could this be a funerary and therefore an  imperial artifact?l

'Beauty, truth, and rarity.
Grace in all simplicity,
Here enclos'd in cinders lie.

Death is now the phoenix' nest;
And the turtle's loyal breast
To eternity doth rest,

Leaving no posterity:--
'Twas not their infirmity,
It was married chastity.

Truth may seem, but cannot be:
Beauty brag, but 'tis not she;
Truth and beauty buried be.

To this urn let those repair
That are either true or fair;'

Another piece who inspired Shax.
Queen Elizabeth 1st. wore as her badge the order of the Pheonix.




2
I wondered about that line too !!
I finally received a reply from Christies about a month ago and the email said something along the lines of "the item does not meet our guidelines".  They did not ask for pictures or more info, so Im not sure who else to take the item to. 

There does appear to be cracks but they are veins of different colors, it doesnt seem to have glue or any damage.  The original purchase was in the 40s-50s, apparently my great grand father frequently purchased artifacts from around the world and sent them home, many were donated to universities and museums so I would highly doubt it is a reproduction.  .

Like i said back in January, i seriously doubt it's that old and the original auctioneer's appraisal seems...wrong. Christies e-mail seems to confirm this

However, no harm in getting another opinion
I finally received a reply from Christies about a month ago and the email said something along the lines of "the item does not meet our guidelines".  They did not ask for pictures or more info, so Im not sure who else to take the item to. 

There does appear to be cracks but they are veins of different colors, it doesnt seem to have glue or any damage.  The original purchase was in the 40s-50s, apparently my great grand father frequently purchased artifacts from around the world and sent them home, many were donated to universities and museums so I would highly doubt it is a reproduction. 

The auctioneer that was supposed to sell it labelled it "Chinese Han Dynasty Ancient Jade Four Phoenix Vase, 206BC-220AD" so I dont claim to know the difference between a Dragon and a Phoenix, but I would guess there was some reason he went with that specific title.  A quick google search of "Han Dynasty Jade Four Phoenix Vase" does show other vases that have similar figures labelled as Phoenix and many also show the same color lines.

I guess I will try to take to get appraised and see if an appraiser can find more info or verify authenticity.
Hello
 
I was recently left a vase I would like to get more information on.  I know it was scheduled to be auctioned as "Chinese Han Dynasty Ancient Jade Four Phoenix Vase, 206BC-220AD", but my family never went through with the auction.  It was purchased long time ago in Beijing by a member of my family who collected chinese antiques.  I cant find much on Google other than some museums that have a few similar in style.  Any info that can be offered would be greatly appreciated.
 
Thanks in advance.



3
Antique Questions Forum / Re: Possibly late Guan?
« on: May 23, 2013, 12:09:45 pm »
No, it's not. Much later than Kangxi or Qianlong

Mid to 20th century i'd say
Was there a revival of 'bo li bai'
 like the chinoisery of eighteenth century in the early 20th.
oriental influence or do you think this piece is a european reproduction, it is certainly a soft rose perhaps the 'Ruancai'(soft)
label would apply rather than 'Yancai'(foreign) even after 1722?

4
Antique Questions Forum / Re: Possibly late Guan?
« on: May 23, 2013, 02:18:20 am »
Image ?


Excuse clutziness , I will attempt to change one of them to the flip side.
(must have been modified (zoomed) and retook which caused the first delay)
Thanks for patience.    (Although I believe it to be a fruitplate (grapes)
it is just the size of a small saucer.)              glovely.

5
Antique Questions Forum / Possibly late Guan?
« on: May 20, 2013, 01:17:54 am »
Guan or Fake ?
I, hopefully, believe this to be
a late seventeenth/early eighteenth century, Chinese Guan pottery, export fruitplate (the early Guan blue and white pottery being  greatly prized by the newly established Ottoman empire) having read somewhere that late Guan, although inferior to the early handpainted,  were made or modified for export to the domestic market and helped inspire the Iznik tradition. Indeed this piece has some early Iznik elements. It appears to be creamware backed, however, and reglazed. I'm hoping this could possibly have been done to strengthen the items 'pre-export' for transport, also some colour could have been added at this time which is the case with late Guan adding cobalt blue, turquoise, sage green and purple, finally bole red and emerald replacing the sage and purple. Production, although progressively of a lesser quality, continuing into the seventeenth century, before the second brother introduced his Ge pottery, soon after the Kutahya company took the market over as principal producer in the city of Iznik. Does anyone agree or have any thoughts on the subject of modification? On reflection I suppose my case for this piece is based on whether bole red could produce this shade of pink, the pale purple of the earlier  period being unlikely although this pink I have yet to find mention of.       I feel that the shade of green on this piece neither fits the early sage nor the later emerald, but I shall try to discover if it could have been achieved by a combination of either with the dark cobalt, probably the emerald.- - - -

Famille rose (known in Chinese as Fencai (粉彩) or Ruancai (軟彩, simplified 软彩), meaning 'soft colours', and later as Yangcai (洋彩), meaning 'foreign colours') was introduced during the reign of Kangxi (1654–1722), possibly around 1720. It used mainly pink or purple and remained popular throughout the 18th and the 19th centuries.

'Famille rose enamel ware allows a greater range of colour and tone than was previously possible, enabling the depiction of more complex images, including flowers, figures and insects.

It is made by drawing a sketch on the shaped clay, which is then covered with 'glassy white' (bo li bai), an opaque white enamel (lead arsenate), and painted in detail with the mixture of pigment and oil, before firing.'

 .....   To sum up my revised question after googling to discover 'Kangsi'  and Familie Rose and Verte is
"Could the pink (rose) and green colours on this piece have been added mid- seventeenth century from the iron red of the '5 colours' period and reglazed to prepare the pottery for export further west" as by this time the Iznik tradition had  established  it's own larger home market and the Chinese style was now favoured further west, in France ( I like to fancy that this piece was brought to our shores by an escaped minor aristocrat from the French revolution or perhaps the revolutionist Madam La Farge eating her cake and crust from my fruit plate on holiday to Blackpool (joke). The practice of 'adding colours' had been re-established at this time as in the black background of Familie Noire.






Pages: [1]