17th century unusual Imari bowl

[DSky25]

Hey guys

I am a novice Asian antique porcelain collector and would love some input on a piece that I acquired from a low end flea market.  I picked up this bowl that looks like a brush pot and it had an unusual mark on the bottom.  The character reads "dai min nen sei" and is ubiquitous on mid-late 17th century Imari porcelain.  The foot rim seems to have genuine age but it seems to be in "too good" of condition.  The colors are correct and the design around the bowl is well done but I really need someone who might have experience possibly give me some tips.  Again, I am a novice and really would appreciate any input from people who are experienced in this field.  Thanks in advance!

Garrett
 

[Ipcress]

Although the pics aren't great, i think this is more recent.
Firstly, the mark you talk about usually appeared on Arita porcelain that imitated the Chinese porcelain of that time. Also, for Dei / Dai the first character ( top right ) would require an extra dot ( if you visualise the character as the Eiffel Tower, the dot would be between the legs ). As it is, that character means Da ( Great )
I think the pot was made in the 20th century - it's slightly confused and the style is wrong for the period you mention.

Have you read about Arita / Imari ?

Have a browse through these for examples of the quality of 18th century Imari

http://www.liveauctioneers.com/search?q=18th+imari&fq=country_code%3A%28%22UK%22%29&sort=relevance&dtype=gallery&hasimage=true&type=complete&rows=20&pagenum=1

[mart]

Although Imari is not my forte` it does not show the age one would expect !!

[DSky25]

Thanks for all the advice guys. I agree that it does look too good for the age. I had an expert in chinese porcelain take a look at it and the only thing he could tell me is that the foot rim has genuine age and it is at least 100 years old. He was baffled because of the age of the foot rim looked genuine but the rest of the piece seemed in great condition. It's hard to find an expert on Japanese pieces out here. He did say is that Japanese porcelain does not show as many signs of age on the glaze as Chinese porcelain because the glaze and porcelain was made thicker. I think the most crucial thing is the character mark since it was said that the first character is missing the dot underneath. But the Chinese expert said that the characters were well written and did not point to a faked piece, it might just be spurious since they would mimic the Chinese.

[DSky25]

Here is a closer view of the foot rim.

[mart]

Well, I would differ with that expert,, the foot is what I was looking at and it does not appear to have had the use that a piece of that age would.  And if he didn`t catch the missing mark when sometimes a tiny line can change the entire meaning,,just wouldn`t put much faith in him !! Ipcress is pretty well versed on these and has dealt in many items !! Think I would go with his opinion !!

[DSky25]

Thanks so much, you guys have been a big help.

[Ipcress]

Base rims can be " aged " and sometimes faked in the firing and glazing process.

I'm still very confident this is nowhere near 17th century but good quality pics in good natural light really help

One fairly common thing to look for in items made in the last 100 years is the glaze - it can often appear thicker than on older, finer antiques. Holding them at an angle, there's more glare and this can look pixelated when looked at really closely
Marks on the base only tell part of the story