Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries


Visitors' Forum

Asian Art  Forums - Reply Message
Asian Art Forums

Message Listing by Date:
Message Index | Back | Post a New Message | Search | Private Mail | FAQ
Subject:Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: Minto Mon, Aug 29, 2005

Hello netters,

My family have this dish panted in underglaze blue and pinkish red flower basket. I saw the same design like this dish at Jingdzhen when I visited there a year ago. This dish is perfect condition (like new), but researching the official mark, indeed, it is different with modern one (see Kangxi mark). The brush stroke of lotus leaf is also different. I tried to find the similar one, with Kangxi mark, on the several recignized catalogue and book but I did not. In the qianlong period, there are any several samples like this piece.

Any opinion of this dish?

Minto







Subject:Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: Anthony M. Lee Mon, Aug 29, 2005

My general feeling on this is that it is not correct though copied off a stylistically correct original with soem differences. The Kangxi original would likely not have been underglaze copper red and blue, but rather overglaze iron red, as well, this is an export style dish pattern on a Chinese domestic style plate, too heavily potted and large for the looks of it. I am also not happy with the right edge of the pomegranate which is cut off under the circling border. I think this may be evidence of a print, though I cannot confirm from the image.

Anthony M. Lee
Asian Art Research

Subject:Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: Minto Wed, Aug 31, 2005

Mr. Lee,

Thanks for your judgment, but I am not with you as I have researched what the print looks like. If your theory says that The Kangxi original would likely not have been underglaze copper red and blue, but rather overglaze iron red, herewith, I also have overglaze iron red and underglaze blue. For the evidence whether it is print or handpainted, please see the part of detailed one. This second plate is similar design on central and border, but it is painted underglaze blu and overglaze iron red.

Yes Sir, as you said it is difficult to confirm the originality from image since I have difficulty to shoot the detailed images, and the space of clear image is too large for this site (100k).

Thanks,
Minto




Subject:Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: keith jennings Mon, Aug 29, 2005

The rings around the mark look printed too, there are no start or stop points. keith

Subject:Re: Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: Minto Wed, Aug 31, 2005

Hello Keith,

What is your opinion of this mark, there is start or stop points. There are a lot of fine Chinese mark with good circle line. If you see imperial mark of Yongzheng wares, you will not see where the start and stop points of circles. We must research standard script calligraphy of mark.

Minto



Subject:Re: Re: Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: Minto Wed, Aug 31, 2005

Please see also Yongzheng mark.





Subject:Re: Re: Re: Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: Aminuddin Sat, Sep 03, 2005

Hello Minto,

I agree with you, indeed, your piece is official dish with correct Kangxi reign mark. Because your piece is very excellent condition, some of viewers here assume it as modern and print through images. I am sure this piece is handpainted, which the its tradition design was for Europe taste, though it was also for domestic consumption. In the later reign, Yongzheng and Qianlong, this design was still followed, and also Europe manufacturers produced and transfered the similar designs in the 18th to 19th century.

I have ever researched the modern ones in similar to your dish displayed by Dinfeng Cooperation, a modern Chinese porcelain art manufacturer in Jingdezhen, but they are transfer print painting rather than handpainting. Your piece is large, slightly thick and heavily potted which is typical characteristics of large Kangxi wares. (Aminuddin)

Subject:Re: Re: Re: Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: PyroManiac Sat, Sep 03, 2005

Using a modern made mark as reference to prove that another modern made mark is not modern is ... kinda dumb in my opinion. All hand painted circles have a start and end point and an area where the strokes overlap causing a slightly darker section. Sometimes quite pronounced, sometimes just barely visible. The circles in your examples do not have it cause they (the mark) were made by modern printing method. Also if this was Kangxi as the dish is supposed to be, then why is the exposed clay of the foot rim that color? That's not Kangxi clay. That's something very different. This dish seems to be trying to pass itself of as an imperial version of a Chinese export item. But at least it's a very nice dish.

Subject:Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: Aminuddin Sat, Sep 03, 2005

My opinion is dumb, but myself is not. Minto has tried to attach another official mark, where all circles can't be seen a start and end point area. Many modern and fake circle lines have a start and end point stroke!. In Jingdezhen, the circle lines are painted using compass for drawing lines, not only using hand itself! It can be used just one turning or more. For the detailed reign mark, you must read further the book referring the official mark painting, by Prof. Liu Liang-yu. All hand painted circles have a start and end point and an area where the strokes overlap causing a slightly darker section is... kind a dumb in my opinion.

What do you mean why the exposed clay of the foot rim that color? I just see that this unglazed foot ring is channel, the clay is quite heavily potted where this is typical large Kangxi wares, and was is still very much in the Ming tradition. In my opinion this Kangxi dish was not trying to pass as an imperial version, but this dish was for export and domestic purpose. All wares inscribed with reign or imperial mark are not always for imperial. A lot of wares written with official mark are used for export. Read: kangxi Porcelain, Jan Wirgin, Sweden, 1973.

That's not Kangxi clay, ahhh...don't guess a game, friend! Its great scholar's opinion! You have never thouched it, why do you conclude the clay? We just research all pieces here via images, so then we must conclude the stylistic of designs, brushtrokes, shape without clay phisically. You said that that is not Kangxi clay and that is something very different, so then you must present your pieces on this forum, which your right reign mark and clay are absulately right and authentic. Minto has attached his/her reign marks for the readers comparison.

Subject:Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: Minto Sun, Sep 04, 2005

Thanks Amin, this sound is more reliable and logic opinion. Many of fine drawing dish are presumed as a print transfer as its beauty. Many of imperial reign mark dish is presumed for only imperial use, whereas many were exported in Europe and for domestic.

Thanks,
Minto

Subject:Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: PyroManiac Sun, Sep 04, 2005

Only a fool would say that such a underglaze circle was drawn using free hand method. I didn't say that did I? Take a compass. Draw a circle. See a start and end point? Do you see a start and end point on these circles? If you still can't or wouldn't, then there's nothing I can do to help you on this anymore. You also do not know what good quality Kangxi clay should look like?

I was really reluctent to post a reply to this very obvious fake dish because I knew the kind of reply I would get both from Minto and some other poster. This time it happens to be Amin who has not posted here for some time but the last time it was for a very similar reason. It follows the very classical posting response I had mentioned earlier. You know... a new poster with a free e-mail address posting a fake item and when someone spells out reasons as to why the posted item is a fake a "saviour" will come rushing in on his white horse defending the poster and and singing the praises of the rare, very real dish and pushing aside all factual explanations that causes any persons with with any common sense to shake their head in utter disbelief.

Seen that. Done that. Replied to that.

It's getting a little stale don't you think? You should find some other new methods of posting such argument. I don't even know why you and others bother with this. What's the point? Why post something that you know is a fake and try to defend it as real? I don't get it.

No I'm not going to post images for you to see cause I know the kind of responses it will generate. It's like a ship with a jammed ruddler. Round and round we go! You have books. Look it up.

As for the dish itself. I don't really care if it is fake or real. I know what it is and more important I bet most people here know what it is no matter what a small group of people with surprisingly similar writing styles proclaim. If Amin and Minto want to dance and sing about the virtues of this "mark and period" dish like a theatre play, the more power to them. After all it takes two to tango. It's your time, it's your energy, it's your dish, it's your money, to throw away.

By the way Amin, how's business? I notice your website with the all the extremely rare porcelains is no longer up. I miss looking at that huge ultra rare, man sized Ming Wanli mark and period vase found in the small remote village. Take good care of it. It's a unique one of a kind item.

Subject:Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: Aminuddin Sun, Sep 04, 2005

You pretend to be expert here, when perceiving several posting. In some cases, your arguments based on your poor judgment, whereas, you are apparantly not expert. In this case you always avoid what other reasonable arguments on images provided, by blaming others. You assumed this dish was posted by me? It is a dull-witted idea! I have seen many contributors here are polite and have reasonable opinion and reference books. I am sure they will be pleased when the pieces presented here are evaluated and strengthened with scholars references.

I am not expert, but I'd like to share the ideas from reliable experts here. I don't like to share ideas with an explossive person.

My business? yeah.....you are curious with others. I am not antique business, but I have been employed by Archaeological and Museums Inst and Galleries in Bali besides my core business is HR Consultant. When you see the website mentioned my name, it indicate that I am independent researcher in evaluating the pieces displayed, not business owner as I don't like to be. Our team and I are accustomed to researching the pieces on firsthand, not images. Our team have handled the projects exvacuated from shipwrecks, and other archaeological sites. In this forum, I just try to guess the pieces based on reliable scholars books, not guess a game, though the opinion must be re-evaluated, criticized, and avoided by the owners. Of course, what my opinion shall be different with others as opinion is opinion. Visitors and you may criticize, disagree or throw away what I say. We have freedom to express idea!

Subject:Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: keith jennings Sun, Sep 04, 2005

Boy, PyroManiac must of hit the nail on the head or his post would not have evoked such a strong response. Good job PyroManiac! keith

Subject:Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: Minto Sun, Sep 04, 2005

Amin, I keep nailing my colours to the mast on your opinion. Many of people don't have a leg to stand on.

Subject:Re: Kangxi underglaze blue and pinkish red design
Posted By: Anthony M. Lee Sun, Sep 04, 2005

Minto and Amin,

You are free to believe what you want to believe about this plate, but I will stress again, culturally it does not work. It is an export format with a guanyao type nianhao seal. Export pieces were not so marked. Nor is the painting perfectly in keeping with the export style of the period. It is not in the court style at all. I include an image of Kangxi export mug, correct and of the period in my opinion.

If you are certain you are corrrect, nothing I can say or offer will dissuade you, I am sure.

Anthony M. Lee
Asian Art Research



Subject:Response re marked export wares
Posted By: Anthony M. Lee Sun, Sep 04, 2005

Durning the Ming period, many export wares were marked as during the Transitional period up to the Kangxi period. However, they were not marked withthe double ring of an imperial guanyao (court ceramics) and in this script as shown in the various examples above. Usually the mark was six characters during the Kangxi period in three rows horizontally DAQING KANGXI NIANZHI or vertical three rows, but of a previous reign, e.g. Ming Chenghua or Xuande marks. In the 19th century Kangxi export style blue nad whites were normally marked KANXI NIANZHI two lines of two characters. I enclose a 19th century example from a garniture beaker vase. Though imperial marks , these are not to be confused with ceramics destined for court usage.



Subject:Re: Response re marked export wares
Posted By: Amin Sun, Sep 04, 2005

Thanks Pak Lee,

Firstly, I appreciate your involvement as I have to learn from real expert. Jan Wargin said on his K'ang-Hsi Porcelain, Sweden, 1973, that many of the wares exported are of exactly the same type as those placed on the domestic market, and wares from the imperial kilns, which some reason or other had been discarded, were most certainly put on the general market and COULD ALSO BE USED FOR EXPORT. This argument conclude that imperial or export wares are not always incorporated whether the wares have imperial mark or not, but their superior quality is significant for imperial wares, which appeal to representative of contemporary scholarly taste.

The imperial mark was started from Sung period, where Jian wares crafted with imperial mark were also globally for export. In addition, if we recall the history of Ming - Jiajing wares period, that At the beginning of the sixteenth century, there were about twenty private kilns and by the close of the century, there were three hundred firing ceramics. These semi-independent factories, to some extent, sacrificed quality to quantity. They completed official orders for the emperor, used in household and temples, to present the gifts or in exchange for foreign tribute. They also made ceramics for sale globally and for the vast domestic market. The use of marks became more widespread at this time possibly as kilns were accustomed to making weres with official court marks. (See: Tsing Yuan, The Porcelain industry at Ching-te-zen 1550-1700, Ming Studies, No. 6, spring 1978). At that time, imperial kiln needed to instruct some independent kilns to produce high quality to meet imperial standard for export demand as at the end of the Zhengde and during the early Jiajing reign, land prices falled down, especially around Hangzhou and North-east Jiangxi province. Yet as the agrarian economy declined, mercantile and craft industries flourished, so then imperial kiln had effeciency to collect more profit to instruct and buy the fine wares from private kilns. Further, Barbara Harrison, Later Ceramics in South-East Asia, 1995, pp. 28, recommends that fine export qualities were supplied with reign marks, along with sundry other marks, inscription, commendations, and decorative characters.

During Wanli period, it is great part of the porcelain supplied to the Palace seems to have been farmed out to private kilns. Soame Jenyns, Ming Pottery and Porcelain, 1953, pp. 121, informed us that Ozaki is of the opinion that all the Wanli Imperial wares were the products of private kilns. This is why we usually see the clumsy design wares inscribed with Wanli reign mark.

In Kangxi period, Recent research has indicated that there were already some fifty of more place marks in use during the Kangxi period, and that number continued to be used through the Qianlong and into Daoguang period. A further status symbol on porcelain was the use of a place mark, in which the place marks were first used during the sixteenth century, and continued to be inscribed on porcelain of the later Ming and Qing dynasties. They are the names of rooms, studio and libraries in the homes of the aristocracy and the well to do, and were often used to designate specific halls in the imperial palace. We can see a lot of Kangxi reign mark wares for export globally. I attach a dish written Kangxi reign mark, and I think this dish is not for Imperial use but for export made by private kiln since this dish was produced in 1671 - 1673s by private kilns. This dis was not produced in 19th century. In the 19th century, the craftmanship and painting were in peak, not loosely drawn and clumsy. The Chinese imperium was influenced by European artists, and demand of Chinese porcelain art indeed only for high quality. With exception, the Kangxi export wares painted in slightly clumsy, loosely drawn and without reign mark were for daily use only. I also attache the detailed madarin duck design produced in 19th century, instructed by Empress Cixi.

Pak Lee, in my opinion the reign mark is only part of characteristics to evaluate the pieces. I have to start with design, brushtroke, and others in evaluating the pieces.

Thanks, Amin.







Subject:Re: Response re marked export wares
Posted By: Anthony M. Lee Sun, Sep 04, 2005

Yes, I agree, design first over reign marks, but reign marks are not enough to qualify a piece. The piece you show, I would not accept as being correct for the period either and the mark poorly executed in my opinion. The bowl is heavily painted and not at all calligraphic or tastefully done. Yes, design first and design wise this duck plate just does not say to me early 18th century.

I enclose a domestic blue and white charger which I would accept as being Kangxi period, and not court porcelain nor necessarily export taste.

Anthony M. Lee
Asian Art Research







Subject:Re: Re: Response re marked export wares
Posted By: Phil Mon, Sep 05, 2005

Dear Minto & all,
I think that the plate in the first post, although apparently finely painted & not printed, (with the exception, as noted by Keith of the double rings) is unfortunately modern.
An aquaintence of mine here in H.K. often offers me similar pieces which although looking fairly convincing in photos all turn out to be new upon closer inspection.
I know that it is possible for pieces to survive many hundreds of years & still remain in excellent, almost pristine condition but the odds are still stacked heavily against this.
The major points against this plate being of the period have already been mentioned, firstly an export design bearing an imperial mark, secondly the double rings enclosing the mark show no stop or start point & therefore cannot have been drawn by hand. I also agree with pyromaniac that the paste does not appear to be of the quality expected of the Kangxi period, even more important when the piece is supposed to be of imperial quality.
I have posted a couple of pics of Kangxi export wares, both bear Kangxi "fantasy" marks, a conch shell on one and a spider mark, (version of shou character) on the other.
These are smaller pieces than the one Minto posted but the quality of the paste can be seen as can the stop & start marks.

Kind regards,
Phil.







Subject:Re: Re: Response re marked export wares
Posted By: Amin Mon, Sep 05, 2005

I am socked with your third piece you showed that you confirmed it as Kangxi period. The piece you show, I would not accept as being correct for the period either and the artemisia leaf mark poorly executed in my opinion, though you mentioned your dish was made by private kiln in 18th century. The dish is pale painted though blue wash applied, but all mark or tastefully done are correct. See the design and artemisia leaf are painted in a haste, the blue is not shown delicately graded washes of blue that give a most pleasing effect. Again, the body of your dish is not great precision, where it was unusual in Kangxi wares. Eventhough, it has graded washes of blue, but it survived in 19th century to 1920s.

Underglaze blue decoration of Kangxi ware is painted in the pure sapphire blue, carefully brushed over with a feathery duster. The glaze is also thin and lustrous, which has an attractive blue-greenish tinge istead of the dead white. Eventhough you mentioned your dish was from private kiln for domestic use, but I have never seen your dish with artemesia leaf mark produced for domestic. The research defined that the demand for it, both at home and abroad, was enermous, so it was logical that every possible care should be taken to ensure the porcelain itself was also without blemish at that time. (see: Duncan Macintosh, 1977). I enclose the fine Kangxi dish with fine Artmesia leaf mark. Printed and Copy? If collectors have never touched it at firsthand, they assume it as copy or printing as its prestine condition and fine. For further marks of commendation and export porcelain for SEA and Europe, see: Barbara Harrison, 1995. On this book, you will also see the Princesshif Museum collections how Kangxi reign mark within double circle lines painted in export style.

Many Kangxi wares are inscribed with marks of commendation, including lozenge, artemesia leaf, and other The Eight Precious Things, but all marks were painted in skilful manner, and may I say that your piece is an export style but for domestic. What for at that time? Export, Domestic for decorative purpose? If this piece was for daily use in 18th century, why the potter and artist inscribed Artemisia leaf mark, which was usually for export as mark of commendation. Was it produced in 19th century for daily use? No, eventhough the Kangxi blue-and-white wares were often copied in 19th century, but it was painted in fine manner, except for daily use. See the prunus style, which is unusual Kangxi prunus design. I enclose the prunus design commonly painted in the Kangxi period.

I have hundreds of underglaze blue wares from Teksing shipwreck excavation. When seeing the blue pigment of them, they are slightly similar to your piece, but I don't guess your piece was from 19th century, though you believe it as 18th century for domestic. I have also blue-and-white dish inscribed with Artemisia leaf, but I guess it as copy of Kangxi period as it was painted in careless manner and wrong taste for Chinese people having high taste for decorative purpose at that time, probably except for peasants.

Come back to our previous discussion, you mentioned that Kangxi reign mark is for court only. You have not replied what other scholars reference argued above. All arguments here are based subjective opinion, without scholarly comparison, including why the export wares used Kangxi official reign mark, whereas, they have been discussed on recognized scholars reference.

Regards,
Amin







Subject:Re: Re: Re: Response re marked export wares
Posted By: Amin Mon, Sep 05, 2005

Please also find attached a detailed polychrome and underglazed blue ware painted in refined blue, dated 19th century. Compare it with your first first you confirmed as Kangxi period.



Post a Reply
Name:
Email:
Group: China & Japan
Subject:
Message:
Link URL:
Enter here the complete URL of any site, page or image you would like to show other visitors.
URL Title:
Enter here the title of the link you've given above. This will appear to the visitor. Eg., if you are linking another picture, enter "Another picture". The link will not appear without a title.
Image URL:
Enter here the URL of an image if it is already uploaded on the web. The image will appear with your posting. Do not post pictures which are not yours without permission from the copyright holder. It is the responsibility of each poster to make sure they have permission to use any photos they post.
Image: You may upload up to three images. If you would like to upload more images to this message please do so by replying to this same message.

Please make sure the file type is JPEG or GIF and the filename does not contain spaces.





Use the Browse button to find an image (jpg or gif) on a local drive on your computer to upload for including with your message. Do not upload images with file names containing spaces. Please do not upload files larger than 500 KB in size. Do not post pictures which are not yours without permission from the copyright holder. It is the responsibility of each poster to make sure they have permission to use any photos they post. Check the "email notification" box below if you would like to be notified of any responses to your message.
Check here for email notification.
Security Code: Security Image: please enter the text appears in this image.

Please type in the code you see in the image directly above this input box.

Subject:Re: Re: Re: Response re marked export wares
Posted By: PyroManiac Mon, Sep 05, 2005

Phil quite clearly stated that the mark is a conch shell and not an artemisia leaf which is also pretty darn clear from his image of the bottom of the dish. The dish that Phil illustrated is from a private kiln and because of that the quality of the Kangxi "fantasy" marks vary greatly even on a similar subject. Of course there are many different type of fantasy marks as well not just a conch shell which I also know for a fact is not an artemisia leaf .

Subject:Re: Re: Re: Re: Response re marked export wares
Posted By: Amin Mon, Sep 05, 2005

Sorry, I am encountering and discussing with Mr. Lee, probably I am wrong to press a reply button.

Subject:Re: Re: Response re marked export wares
Posted By: Amin Mon, Sep 05, 2005

Mr. Lee, sorry I am wrong to post a reply to other. I just replied your message in countering your opinion. Please find my below argument:

Amin

Subject:Re: Response re marked export wares
Posted By: roy weatherford Tue, Nov 07, 2017

Here is a bottle neck?vase believe to be Kangxi period doubled blue circles,5 period colors,i'll take better full vase pictures,any help is it Kangxi??







Subject:Re: Response re marked export wares
Posted By: JLim Thu, Nov 09, 2017



Dear Mr Weatherford

This is an unusual place to put such a question! At any rate, no, your vase is not Kangxi, simply because of the giant pink peach (?) that is visible. Pink was a colour that only came in right at the end of the Kangxi era; from the colour scheme and roughly levigated foot I should think your vase is c. 1890s or newer.

The shade of pink on the peach may, however, indicate an even newer date? I've never seen that bubblegum colour on old wares; but the rust spots in the foot hint that there is at least some age to this.

Rereading this horror of a thread reminds of oh so many others. Truly some people just don't have the eye for porcelain. How anyone could think that the original dish was Kangxi, let alone that this vile travesty of porcelain design could be Imperial grade(!) truly beggars belief.

Kind regards
J.Lim

Subject:Re: Response re marked export wares
Posted By: Roy Fri, Nov 10, 2017

LOOK CLOSER ITS NOT A PINK PEACH ITS A VASE ON A STAND the peach is yellow

Subject:Re: Response re marked export wares
Posted By: Roy Fri, Nov 10, 2017

The color is yellow and purple kangix period only had 5 colors purple was one check CHRISTIE'S AUCTION SITE ON CHINESE GLAZES DO YOUR HOMEWORK

Subject:Re: Re: Response re marked export wares-2 duck plts
Posted By: Kang Wed, Sep 21, 2005

Only posted a couple of times long time ago. Enjoy reading the posts.

But really and so sorry, the 2 duck plates are not imperial in any way. I have no need to see the mark which only compounds the problem.

In contrast, the little fish dish posted by Phil is so beautifully and lightly Kangxi even though the design covers the entire surface. Also no need to see marks.

My father always told me to imbibe the spirit of the Kangxi design & color, and focus less on technical detail. Typical Chinese advice. It was years before I understood.

Good luck,
Kang

Subject:Re: Response re marked export wares-2 duck plts
Posted By: roy Thu, Nov 09, 2017

anyone help with this vase-period it is 3 piece luted,peppered with rust spots trying to date this KANGXI?????







Subject:Re: Response re marked export wares-2 duck plts
Posted By: JLim Mon, Nov 13, 2017



Dear Mr Weatherford

I am stunned at your rudeness and do not intend to respond further.

Kind regards
J.Lim

Subject:Re: Response re marked export wares-2 duck plts
Posted By: plasticman Wed, Nov 15, 2017

I will just add my 2 cents to the list. In my opinion, the plate is modern work trying hard to be Kangxi. I have several pieces of period Kangxi porcelain and every one looks like the tankard in color of enamels and general condition. Kangs remarks mirror my experience. First look at the enamel work, the condition,(especially of the rims)and last at any marks. All of these criteria point to a modern product.


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