Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

This bowl was bought from HK after the 2nd WW by a tourist from an antique shop it is one of a pair. It appears to have been used by the emperor Daoguang himself from the wear on the inside. The dealer sold them to me for $50 each 7 years ago because he thought they were replicas.

more pics

Oh! Man,

Hi Larry,
Looks to me to be Daoguang (1820 to 1850) mark and period, made for the Imperial household.

It is highly unlikely the Emperor used it, as they are generally believed to have used a bowl made of gold. However, it was probably used by someone in the Imperial household.

Even with the wear they are probably worth a lot of money.
Regards
Tony

I totally agree and highly regard Mr. Allen's professional opinions on ceramics.

Randy Li

Thanks Tony and Randy for looking at this bowl. Yes both of you are right it is of the period, because I brought one to Sothebys 3 years ago and they sold it for me, so I have one left. Regards, Larry.

I thought I've already seen this bowl from somewhere.

Check out this site. the article is from the magazine "wen wu tian di" published by State Cultural Relics Bureau. It has this exact style of bowl from different periods as early as Qian Long mark.

http://www.ciqi.org/jianshang/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=5484&Page=4

http://www.ciqi.org/jianshang/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=5484&Page=2

No wonder the dealer sold it to you as a repo. It's obviously different from the Dao Quan period one.

See the awkward twist of the arm of the dragon on your bowl compared to the one in museum...

The phoenix is in the wrong style too. The slim and simple head phoenix compared to the feathered one.

The flower and pearl is also wrong.

No matter how scratched this bowl is... it still look like a repo to me.

Sotheby's was fooled by a deceptive move of faking something not so valuable.

Sorry Hallo, I do not agree with you. such types of bowl are quite common and rocks up in almost every auction. If you attend enough auctions you will notice there are several designs and sizes for such bowls. The design of my bowl is the earlier design found in Kangxi, Qianlong, Jiajing to early daoguang. The bowl from the museum is a latter daoguang design.The Tongzhi and and Guangxu have also different designs as well. Anyway you can see the different designs in the sold item section in the Sotheby's website and it a fantastic way to learn and research about chinese porcelain. Cheers, Larry

Yes! I agree with Larry that the Dao Guang bowls Hallo posted from the Chinese Net are later items.


Randy Li

Read the article in Chinese. If you can't read it get it translated. I'll post it again. it list in extreme detail the variation of design of the bowl through the different periods and stress three main detail.

清官窑五彩龙凤纹碗上，凤和龙的纹样在不同时期有略微的变化。这里主要强调三点变化规律：一是凤纹脖子上羽毛的画法。凤纹的脖子有线条式和羽毛式两种。康熙、雍正和嘉庆朝的为线条式，道光、咸丰、同治和光绪朝的为羽毛式，乾隆朝的两者兼备；二是绘有彩色羽毛颈凤纹的碗，龙爪的指甲和龙牙上一般点缀有白彩；三是嘉庆官窑五彩龙凤纹碗内心的龙纹是正面龙，而其余朝代碗内心的龙纹为立式赶珠龙。

One detail it stress is the changes in phoenix design. Only in Qian Long pieces are there both feathered and non feathered simple variety. Dao Guang , Xian Feng, and Tong Zhi era bowls only have feathered phoenix.

Lately a lot of fakes have been showing up on auctions. A good testament to what fakers are capable of.

Sorry Hallo, but in my opinion you are quite wrong.

The pictures you show are typical of cheaply printed Chinese magazines. The colours are not accurate. I have little doubt that all of these pieces are genuine.


Regards
Tony

Hi Hallo, I suggest in future when you buy porcelain always check the color esp the underglaze blue and the over glaze color like Tony suggested. Than check the porcelain quality like transparency color of porcelain and good quality foot rim- smooth and not rocking around. Than make sure the reign mark is hand written and done perfectly. Than check the design as that must be drawn finely and properly as well. I enclose a photo from Millers antique guide of a early Daoguang bowl of similar design to mine sold in 1990 at Sothebys Bond street London.Notice the dragon's leg in the earlier design. Also another early daoguang bowl with no feather on neck phoenix and a full feathered pheonix daoguang plate.

Pics of a circa 1840-50 Daoguang plate.Notice the full feathered neck pheonix.

Cheaply printed LOL more like bad scanning on the part of the web site.

The publisher and author are both backed by State Cultural relic bureau. Show me a more authoritative source then the Chinese government cultural bureau.

All bowls depicted belong to Nanjing Museum Qing Imperial ware collection. The article featured in 文物天地 "Wen Wu Tian Di year 2004 issue 12. The article is properly named Nanjing museum Qing Imperial ware collection. It methodically explains the qing dynasty WU CAI dragon design evolution and history.

All documented.

Talk is cheap... expert in the field of chinese antiques giving detailed lectures on specific bowl is priceless.

unless you think the experts are lying. In which case it's your word against theirs. I'd take their word over yours any day of the week. LOL

Lots of imperial chinese art was lost from China to the West years ago, and what is left is only a skeleton of what there was before. The ransack of the Summer palace and the Yuanmingyuan in the 1850's was the begining. Than there was the boxer rebellion and than the palace eunach stole and sold many thousand of pieces to foreigners and to Chinese collectors from their shops in Beijing in the 1900s. Than Puyi and his brother and members of the royal family also sold lots of pieces. Than there was Yuan Shi Kai and other republic officials that also sold and gave antiques to diplomats for favour. The rest have gone to Taiwan and stored in the palace museum. There are lots of palace antiques in the west in auctions every year alot of them are not found in Chinese museum's collection. Some are marked others are not. A well trained collector or may I say treasure hunter will know which is real and which is fake. While most experts will advise you the basics, they will never teach you everything.

Dear All,

I don't agree with some of the stuff of that Cizi net site. I don't like the colors of the items they posted. All the bowls of different reigns all look the same color that are too deep and too sharp to the eyes. Unlike what Larry posted that the colors of the bowl is very gently soft. I especially like the grey color of the little Buddha of that bowl. As for the Cizi items, they appear very suspicious to me. The Daoguang reign stamp's blue color and other blue spots around the bowl are so uneven in color. I won't say anthing if it were Jia Xing or older. And, the worst part is that they all appear about the same.

The items don't even have to be listed there, if they can go to Sotheby's or Christie's.

I believe what are posted on Cizi net are replica! They also failed to mention that the bowls are Blue and White inner-glaze with Wu Cai- five different Fengcai. It should have read as 青花鬥彩 in Chinese.

Randy Li

Thanks Randy for your helpful amber authentication technique. I will use it next time when I find an amber sculpture.Regards, Larry

Your are welcome! Larry,

There used to be some Qing Dynasty amber statues around my area, and they were made of the so-called Jin Por 金珀. In fact, they were brownish red instead of being golden brown in color. My friend bought couple of them. I did not buy any, because I only like to collect amber that are durable, small and that I can carry and play with. I don't see these Jin Por(Golden Ambers)around for quite a while. It might be due to the fact that I don't visit the area's antique shops like I used to. There also had been some buyers from as far as Hong Kong and China absorbing all of these items for resale in Hong Kong, Macau, and China.

Randy Li

There is a pair of bowl like mine on sale in Christies NY on the 19th of March. lot 627 sale 1976. Goes to show you cannot believe everything you read.

Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries |