Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

I have posted this provocative listing in the hope we can have some reasoned debate without any contributor targeting the authors personally.

I acquired the 13cm high jade censer yesterday at auction in Auckland. To me it is very reassuring to see the signs of old carving, with the almost matt finish of final polishing, and most of all, the old custom made stand which has been repaired and repolished. The stand itself is at the latest Edwardian, so the censer itself cannot be younger than say 90 years, and may be considerably older.

I have taken a closeup of the cut lines so you non-believers can hopefully see the difference between old and new carving. Note the cleanly polished cuts and absence of edge chipping, to be found on most older jades.

The second item is a rare complete set of seven jade archer's rings, made from jadeite with emerald green coloured inclusions, and mounted in silver to make a condiment set for the Western market. Jadeite was rarely if ever used in China before the 18th century, so we have a possible date of manufacture between the 18th century and when the silver mounts were applied; the latter probably between 1900 and 1920.

I am interested to hear others comments on these.

Any chance you could post bigger pics ?
Thank you.

Sorry Mr Allen, These are fakes. The censer is made in the 1960s. The other stuff in the box appears to be brand new.

I am afraid I have to agree with Lee's opinion that Mr. Allen's "OLD" "jade" censor is unfortunately a "modern fake". Furthermore, upon examining its pictures including the close-ups closely and considering its size, I really do not believe it was made of nephrite jade either. It is way too translucent to be nephrite and is probably made of cheaper bowenite and therefore may pass the scratch test but its specific gravity will be significantly below 2.90, that of nephrite jade. However, without personally handling and examining it, it is very difficult to judge by such low-resolution pictures. Also, the luster found on it cannot be called "matt finish" but rather they were results of modern high-speed polishing. The quality of its carving is simply subpar. Therefore, there is simply no way this censor, in my humble opinion, can be 90 years or older as Mr. Allen believes. I agree with Lee's attribution that it was probably made in the 60s and therefore it may or may not have any "modern tool marks" but to call it "OLD" is just a little bit overfetched. I just hope Mr. Allen did not pay too much for this censor. I have seen better ones sold on eBay for very reasonable prices.

The quality of the picture of the seven archer rings is simply too BAD to tell what they are. They may or may not be jadeite. Usually when they were found in such a readily made box, it will more than likely items made for tourists. The silver may not be silver at all.

Bill

Some more photos. I note the nicely hollowed out bowl, the carefully drawn heads on the underside legs, even the toes underneath the feet.
I suspect this censer was used to burn incense, judging by the amount of crud that is on the upper side of the base.

1920's censers are usually carved with very fine white or celadon jade. The carvings are very exquisite better than 18th century pieces sometimes. Yours have bad quality carving and material. These is no chance of it being 1920s except it has the style of 1920's censor I suspect it is 1960's or recent. The stuff in the box appears to be tumb rings. However you never get six 18th century tumb rings made from the same material or similar design. Also the Chinese box is a suspect. There were pieces of jade put into all sort of Western objects in the 1900s. However this appears to be a modern replica, you readily buy in art shops in Shanghai or Hong Kong, with fitted Chinese boxes.

Some more photos. Sorry, my photography leaves something to be desired.

This is a photo of the old custom made hand carved wood stand. Beside it is a picture of a similarly carved stand taken from Nott's Chinese Jade Throughout The Ages, which was published in 1936. There are several similar stands in this book, which cannot be later than the date of publication. Most were made for jade carvings dating to the Ming dynasty.

This wood stand is a replica of a 1920s as it's carving is of bad quality.It appears to be a fair colored wood that has been artificially stained as the grains are not obvious. The censer appears to be coated with grease or smoked inside and out to give a old look, a 1980s and 90s method of faking. The cuts is too rough to be done by hand it is obviously machine cut.
My apologies, I have to alter my assumption on those jadeite condiments from your new picture. They are in fact put together in the 1930-1950s with the silver mark on the base. I have seen such items before. However the jadeite rings are not much older than the manufacture of it's silver vessels as 4 are of the same celadon colored nephrite and the other 2 are similar purplish green tinge jadeite.

Hi, Lee:

Bravo, I think you may be right and you have good eyes. I kept looking at these archer rings and could not figure out what they were made of because one or two pieces did look like they were made of jadeite but others did not.

Now it would be interested if Mr. Allen would indeed perfrom a MOH hardness and S.G. test on them and I would be very interested to find out what they were really made of.

Well, it also show how hard it is to judge any jade carvings based on low-resolution pictures only. No wonder Mr. Eric Hoffman absolutely refused to try to appraise any jade carvings based on pictures only.

Bill

Some more photos of the jadeite condiment set.
Please note the seed pearl border around the top rim, the beautifully made chain border around the tops of the salt and pepper pots, the three custom made salt spoons, and the emerald green knop. The maker inscribed each one SILVER SUNG CHINA.

The set sold for USD$2,540.

Hi Tony,
I'll avoid showing my ignorance about jade, but in the condiment set, the silver component with maker's stamp and perforations looks a bit like the cover for a dross box in a set of implements for an opium smoker. How does it fit with its companion pieces? It wouldn't hurt the set as a collectible if it turned out to be multi-purpose.
Cheers,
Bill H.

Dear Mr Lee,
I hope I will not be accused of the same arrogance or ignorance with which you dismissed these two items without even giving a reason for your opinion.

I have since posted some more photos, which may cause you to change your opinion.

I have a few comments to make. In the 1960's, China closed its borders to foreigners, and didn't reopen them until 1979. Whom do you think this censer would have been made for if you persist in dating this so late? In fact, of all of the 20th century, the least likely date of manufacture is the third quarter. I speculated a date not later than circa 1920, based on the custom made hand carved wood stand.

A similar date I attributed to the silver mounted condiment set, based on the quality and style of the silver fittings.

I cannot rule out the possibility that either of these jade pieces were made earlier than the date of the stand or the fittings, but in my opinion they provide a finite date of manufacture. Neither can be modern.

I would also mention that 25 years ago (1985) I visted for a second time, the Government run antique shop in the Summer Palace in Beijing. I was given access to their storeroom and was able to select a cross-section of the best jade carvings they had on offer. In all I bought 3 crates, exhausting the large amount of cash I had taken, requiring the shop to process multiple manual credit card transactions for their maximum $300 limit. Three months later these arrived in New Zealand, where they sold at auction for one of the largest profits I ever made on a transaction. Occasionally they turn up again at auction, usually redated to the Ming dynasty.

None of these jade carvings, many of which were substantial in size, could have dated earlier than the Republic period, but they were all nicely carved and presented in fitted boxes with custom made stands; nothing like the earlier stand made for this censer.

If any one is interested I still have the most beautiful 20th century jade carving I have ever seen, which I purchased at the Friendship Store in Beijing in 1984; a nanny goat suckling its kid.

I am interested to hear the opinion of other readers.

I have the most concern for buyers bidding at regional and small auctions for pieces coming straight from China being sold to unwary collectors for high prices. It is a crime in my opinion that unwary buyers pay a high prices for bad quality fakes labeled at Ching or Ming, miss led by ignorance of auctioners. Such items will not make it to
proper international auctions in London or New York or Hong Kong. I always believe in auditing the pieces that you purchase for high prices with specialists at international auction houses, to be sure one is not being taken for a ride.

Sorry, judging by the pictures this censer does not look right, meaning age and being Jade.
Ernest

May be I have missed something, I don't believe I see any openings anywhere in either the censer itself or on its top cover, therefore I really cannot see how incenses can be burned in this censer with its top on. If the top has to be taken off to burn incenses, then what is the purpose of having a top?

Items in box could be glass and metal, noting uniform homogeneous colors of yellowish material.

Chinese industry revived glass making in past 10-15 years including fairly good imitations Venetian glass. Not have colors quite right yet but maybe soon.

Good luck,
Cal

Well I asked for opinions, and that is what I got, so now I would like to respond to those posted to date.
1. There are only six (6) archers rings visible in the photos as one is obscured behind the condiment pot. There are in fact seven, and yes Cal they are jadeite, not glass.

2. How can the censer be 1960's when jade manufacturing was virtually at a standstill? 1960's is a convenient dumping ground for anything Chinese that does not fit the norm, including porcelain.

3. Nobody has commented on the old custom made wood stand or explained how the piece only fits in one position on the three holes which support the legs?

4. Bill, I wish you wouldn't respond to my posts. Some of your comments are so obviously incorrect, I wonder where you got the information. However, I respond as follows:
(a) It is not nephrite, probably bowenite. It does not scratch and you cannot possibly tell from a photograph.
(b) Too translucent. It is so well hollowed out, light shines through it.
(c) Made in the 1960's or later. How do you explain the wood stand?
(d) Readily made box for the condiment set. This set did not come in the box in which it was photographed. The box came with a plate which I had had painted to order in Jingdezhen a dozen years previously.
(e) No openings in the censer. Do yourself a favor and Google Chinese Jade Censer. The first two that came up were from auction houses, one of which was Christies. Neither have holes in the lids.

I speculated a date of manufacture no later than 1920 based on the stand and the silver fittings. I see I don't have much support for that, but it is interesting to hear other's views.

Thank you for contributing.

Regards
Tony

Anthony here's what you said,"To me it is very reassuring to see the signs of old carving, with
the almost matt finish of final polishing." I
absolutely agree with those statements. As I
look at the grooved series of lines on the heads
of the beasts, I see where the stone seemed to
resist the carver, the paths are each unique, and
certainly seem to have been made with a slow moving tool. The satin sheen is really quite nice.
My 2 cents.
John R

Anthony,

Here is my humble opinion on the above piece.

Both the sliver mark and flower style suggest that the silver mount is around 1920 +/-, The older one don�t have the English workd of �silver�, but something like �xx90�. The jade thumb rings are Qing Dynasty and are likely hetain jade, but impossible to confirm in your pictures. This type of sliver works with older jades are fairly common (like the mirror with older jades post by Lee not long ago)

The base of the censer is old, around 1920 in style.The better one usually made from Hongmu; the lesser base is stained soft wood. I need better picture to tell what kind of wood it made from. One way or other, I did not see anything wrong with 1920+/- date.

The censer itself is hard to tell, the only side profile picture is too small and it�s impossible to tell on the design/ style of the animals both on the lid and side handles. Both the jade? material and the craving of this censer seem not good. There are a lot of low end jade craving made for the export market during Republic period too, of course they also made some very high end piece as well. Just like the Chinese porcelain form this period. I believed style not quality is the better indicator in dating most jade pieces.

Mr. Anthony:

If you have a good memory you should remember that you would call almost every single piece of jade carvings posted by other collectors "MODERN" without really explaining exactly what you meant by MODERN. Furthermore, if you intend to define any jade items MODERN as those that are less than 100 years old, therefore even those that were made without any modern tool marks can be labeled as MODERN.

However, you seem to apply a different standard regarding your own jade carvings because you call your "jade" censor "OLD" even though you failed to explain what exactly "OLD" meant. Older than 20 years, older than 30 years? Does OLD mean it is not MODERN?

Well, I believe Lee had answered your questions wonderfully:

"This wood stand is a replica of a 1920s as it's carving is of bad quality.It appears to be a fair colored wood that has been artificially stained as the grains are not obvious. The censer appears to be coated with grease or smoked inside and out to give a old look, a 1980s and 90s method of faking. The cuts is too rough to be done by hand it is obviously machine cut."

The wood stand you believe is antique is probably a "fake" made to look like antique;

Your "jade' censer was probably not even made in the 60s and in that case you might be correct, but instead it was made during the 80s or 90s.

The luster of your "jade" censer is so glassy that it was apparently a result of modern polishing with high-speed rpm tools.

You see, I may not know how to attribute a jade carving like you but I have studied many jade carvings, jade slabs, jade roughes, jade boulders regarding their material. One of the good thing about getting some of my study pieces from eBay are that they are readily available, they are priced reasonable, they come from all parts of the world and best of ALL I have examined and studied many MODERN jade pieces similar to your "jade" censor.

I sinerely DO NOT believe your censor was made of nephrite jade, even if it was it would be made of very poor quality nephrite jade based on the pictures posted by you here. Of course, if I can study it closely in person, I may change my mind.

So far, from reading all the comments posted by all the forum members, Lee and Oriental Tresures seem to know the most about jade. Therefore I believe we all should take some time in listening to them.

Lee commented on your "jade" censer:

"1920's censers are usually carved with very fine white or celadon jade. The carvings are very exquisite better than 18th century pieces sometimes. Yours have bad quality carving and material. These is no chance of it being 1920s except it has the style of 1920's censor I suspect it is 1960's or recent"

I totally agree with him. In my opinion, there is absolutely (I mean absolutely) NO WAY your censer could be made during the 20s or 30s in China because both its material and carving quality are simply too POOR to be such.

Both Mr. Yang Boda and Proof. S. Howard Hansford had mentioned in their books that during the 20s and 30s, there were a lot of nice imitation archaic jade carvings that were made of nice Hetian jade or nice Russian spinach jade and were bought by tourists and took back to their home countries overseas. Many of them were ended up in oversea museums and were displayed as "authentic" archaic jades because of their high quality jade material and jade carving quality. Mr. Yang Boda was invited by many of these musuems in correctly attributing some of their "archaic" jade pieces as "MODERN" and the museums had since changed the descriptions of such pieces.

In short, if your censer was indeed made in the 20s or 30s it would made of beautiful Hetian jade with beautiful carving quality and it would probably worth more than what you had paid for it.
Unfortunately, this is simply not the case.

Lee gave the best advice here:

"I have the most concern for buyers bidding at regional and small auctions for pieces coming straight from China being sold to unwary collectors for high prices. It is a crime in my opinion that unwary buyers pay a high prices for bad quality fakes labeled at Ching or Ming, miss led by ignorance of auctioners. Such items will not make it to proper international auctions in London or New York or Hong Kong. I always believe in auditing the pieces that you purchase for high prices with specialists at international auction houses, to be sure one is not being taken for a ride."

He was too nice too add: "it was also due to ignorance or greed of the buyers who expect to buy something for nothing". I know because I used to be one of these buyers. There is simply no FREE lunch, when it is too good to be true, it is too good to be true.

One of my new jade friends who felt in love with Hetian jade, recently purchased a huge yellow jade MANGO (it is really a mango) that costed him $230. I asked why he bought it, he said because he thought it was made of nice Hetian jade. He kept talking about "water lines" found on the jade mango and I no idea what he talked about till I looked its picture. It was the natural inner structure of the stone (similar to those seen on an agate piece) and I immediately recognized it as a large piece of modern Xiu Yan jade (serpentine)because I had studied similar pieces. He also paid more than $500 in buying a piece of so-called BLACK Hetian jade sheep, only found it to be made of greyish-green semi-translucent nephrite jade that is probably not Hetian jade. I advised him to return both for refunds and luckily he did what I told him.

The truth is if there are such nice jade carvings, why would any Chinese would sell them cheaply to oversea customers?

Now for myself, I would not pay more than $200 for this "jade" censer, based on my "eBay experience" and those that learned from other jade dealer/scholar. Now of course I could be wrong and Mr. Allen might indeed have "stolen" a nice OLD jade carving and if that is true, I stand corrected.

B

Lee

You said:

"It is a crime in my opinion that unwary buyers pay a high prices for bad quality fakes labeled at Ching or Ming, miss led by ignorance of auctioners. Such items will not make it to
proper international auctions in London or New York or Hong Kong."

**********************
My reply:

That's not true. I have never seen "fine" antique jades auctioned in China these days, but Chinese bidders are sitting at auction houses in HK, London, New York, Taiwan, Singapore...to bid whatever the price goes, then bring them back to mainland China..... to re-sell them all over again.

Even online bidding of good auction houses' websites, OVER 80% bidding winners are from mainland China.

And why mainland tourists are hanging around jade shops on Hollywood Rd, HK...they buy any jade they think it looks good. All jade shops in HK are hiring staffs who can speak Putonghua, and English is now not so much important.

Anita, it is naive to assume every Westerner is a honest man. Bernie Madoff was a Westerner. There are just as many crooks as there are honest people, just like Easterners. There are Westerners than import cheap or expensive high quality fakes from China and resell them at high prices at auctions or on the internet, to unsuspecting collectors, usually mainland Chinese with no experience in jade authentication. Some even invent provenance. When it come to money trust no one .

Firstly, thank you to the person who sent me the link to this Sung Silver mark on a silver cuff bracelet, dated to 1900 to 1910. This just reinforced my original opinion about the age of the silver and jade thumb ring condiment set.

Secondly, I need to respond to Bill, lest anybody takes his rantings as fact.

Bill concluded his long derisory post by saying, "Now of course I could be wrong and Mr. Allen might indeed have "stolen" a nice OLD jade carving and if that is true, I stand corrected".
It is a pity you didn't start your ramble with that comment.

My comments apply to Lee as well, as neither of you seem to have a clue about what you are talking about, making some extraordinary statements.

Referring to the wood stand, you said "the cuts is too rough to be done by hand it is obviously machine cut". This is nonsense. I owned a furniture factory for 4 years and I think I can tell hand carving. There is no machine made that cut the petals above the legs.

Bill says the censer is not nephrite, learned no doubt in his 3 years of buying fake jades on eBay. You cannot tell from a photo, and as it does not scratch with a steel blade, you or Ernest may like to tell me what it is.

Lee said and Bill agreed that 1920's censers are usually carved with very fine white or celadon jade. You two must go around with your eyes closed. I suspect neither of you have been to the National Museum of Singapore, whose foundation jade collection, formed and donated by the Tiger Balm (Aw) family in the 1920's, was largely new at the time?

To say further, "If made in the 1920's or 1930's it would be made of beautiful Hetian jade with beautiful carving and quality" is just so much rubbish. There was a huge range of carvings produced, as there is today, some exceptional, mostly not.

Bill nobody says you don't have the right to say what you like on a public forum, but it is worth reminding you that you single-handedly destroyed the Chicochai forum, with your long boring repetitious posts of internet links of dubious veracity; some by known sellers of fakes.

But now you even have the temerity to hold yourself out as valuer?

And having made your extraordinary comment about censers not having holes in the lids, you do not even have the good grace to apologise and say you were wrong (again).

Both you and Lee need to get yourself some early jade books by Western authors; Laufer (1911), Nott (1936) and Salmony (1938) would be a good start. None of the jades illustrated can have been made by modern machine tools, for as Nott comments, the Chinese were still using the ancient methods of pedal and bow drills. That was written in 1936.

And if you still cannot understand the difference between old and modern carving techniques, modern carvers use electrically operated high speed cutters, usually on a fixed spindle but sometimes hand held (eg Dremmel).
Both old and modern carvers employed cutters or drills of various shape, in conjunction with a range of abrasives. The old foot operated and bow drill operated tools have today been replaced by high speed modern machinery, whose distinct cutting marks are seldom polished out in the rush to finish them.

I have taken one of KK's "Ming" jades to illustrate these modern cutting marks. The letters refer to the jade to their immediate right.

A. Cut lines with coarse (rough) unpolished bottoms, some of which are deeper than others as the high speed rotary cutter moved along.

B. Cut lines carelessly running through a later drilled hole.

C. Chipped edges to cut lines.

D. Rough unpolished edges.

E. Cutter marks running across the face of the cut lines.

Now, not all modern jades are finished as roughly as this example, and where there has been some effort made to finish the polishing, it can be very difficult to date the piece exactly.

That is one of the reasons there are so many divergent opinions on the age of jade carvings.

(*I hope the moderator would afford me the same liberty he allowed Tony in this forum so I may respond to him in separate "SHORT" messages.)

Contempt for eBay?

From Tony's numerous responses to ALL the jade carvings or messages I have been posting in this forum from Day 1, he seemed to have nothing but contempt for eBay, eBay sellers and eBay items.

I am extremely puzzled with his hostile attitude toward eBay because he himself has been an eBay seller since May 30, 1998 until present, selling mostly �authentic Chinese ceramics�, with occasionally a few piece of �jade� carvings (like a �Han� dynasty calcite pig�) at high prices, under the seller name of anthonyallen or aka Allen�s Antiques. Recently, he seemed to be running out of �authentic� Chinese ceramics for sales and listed only a few ceramic books written by him. So far he had sold 45 items in the last 12 months, mostly his own books. According to what I know, he was not a professionally trained ceramic expert nor was him a second- or third-generation collector of Chinese antiques or jades. He was a retired accountant, who self taught himself to become a �ceramic expert� and �jade expert�. (*If I am wrong, please correct me.)

It was true that some of the early jade carvings I posted in this forum were indeed coming from eBay and it was very likely that many of them could be �modern fakes� just like the �jade censer�, �jade archer ring condiment set� and �Han dynasty� jade seals posted by Tony in this forum recently if modern fakes meant those jade carvings that are less than 100 years old. However, Tony seemed to have double standards for �modern fakes� depending on whether they are applying to others� or his own jade carvings. He said all the jade carvings previously posted by me or those that were posted by KK recently were �modern fakes� because he said he could see �modern tool marks� on them.

Confusions with MODERN jade fakes and MODERN tool marks

According to him: (his responses to the pictures of Ming-Qing jade carvings posted by KK)

�Thank you for posting such clear photos of modern tool marks. One can see the rotating bit marks clearly where they run off line, especially on the curved edges. The scoured bottoms of the cut lines are another immediate indicator. �

���It needs to be remembered that the ancient jade craftsmen used an abrasive back and forth rubbing action to form their cut lines. This meant, with rare exceptions, that the bottoms of cut lines were smoothe and there were no chips on the upper edges.

Also, look at the circle in the last photo, bear in mind this in ancient times would have been made with rotating bamboo (and abrasives), and ask yourself how it could be of undulating depth with varying width of cut.�

He seemed to believe that if �bamboo tools� were not used, then those tool marks left by any metal tools (such as bronze) will be �modern tool marks�. He seemed to forget that bronze jade working tools were used during the Shang and Zhou dynasties and iron tools were used in later Zhou and dynasties afterwards.

Furthermore while it is generally correct that �abrasive� would be used with most carving tools in the working of archaic and ancient jade carving, there is indeed exception:

According to the article, �The identification of carving techniques on Chinese jade�, written by Margaret Sax, et al, on table 2, six jade working techniques, tools and their characteristics were displayed. The last jade working method listed is:

Technique � Point (or blade) abrasion � Hand-held tools, draw in pencil action

Characteristics of tool � Tools with a very hard and tough point or blade like a burin or a knife. Used without abrasive.

This last jade working technique was also discussed in section 3.3.2.4 of the same article:

�Point (or blade) abrasion. Previous engraving experiments by the authors showed that narrow features can be cut on quartz without lose abrasive using a finely-pointed emery or diamond tool or the fine edge of a flint blade. Further experiments with jade demonstrated that it too can be cut in this way. On tough material such as nephrite (and microcrystalline varieties of quartz), the features are characterised by relatively smooth and ungrooved surfaces. These characteristics are present on the three Zhou artefacts�..�

��The surface texture is relatively smooth and ungrooved. These characteristics indicate that the narrow features were cut into the flat face of the plaques using a pointed tool or the blade of a tool that was sufficiently tough and hard to cut without abrasive.�

Therefore, Tony's assumption that:

�It needs to be remembered that the ancient jade craftsmen used an abrasive back and forth rubbing action to form their cut lines.�

is not necessarily correct and is therefore simply a personal theory of his only.

You see the problems in using �tool marks� or �lack of tool marks� to attribute a jade carving lie with that not too many of us are lapidarists and the fact there are simply not that many jade books in the past or at present that are discussing tool marks or jade working techniques or tools because in the ancient time, those who collected jades were simply people who had higher statues and therefore they looked down upon those artisans who actually made the jade carvings which worn or owned by them. According to Professor S. Howard Hansford, his book �Chinese Jade Carving� might be the first book he knew, discussed the jade working techniques and tools in details at his time. It does not appear that Tony owns or studies any of his books, therefore, it is inevitably that he might have drawn the wrong conclusions regarding what �modern tool marks� and what �ancient tool marks� may be.

It is also no surprise that when the first time I humbly asked him to explain to me what exactly �modern tool marks� were and how I could identify them, he got annoyed and asked other members to please refer me to some jade references so that I would keep quiet. Unfortunately, no members seem to really understand a lot about tool marks including modern tool marks at that time (or they were unwilling to share with me what they knew). Now at least Anita admitted that how difficult it would be to learn about any tool marks left on any jade carvings.

Tony should not assume that just because in ancient time abrasive was used to form cutting linese, therefore, the quality of their workmanship must be "perfect" or better than that of modern jade carvings. Abrasive has been used in China for a long time and were used also in the making of modern carvings. One can find modern jade carvings that were made better than some of those ancient jade carvings or some without any tool marks found on them. Professor Hansford said one should not judge the age of a jade carving simply by the quality of its workmanship or by the types of jade working tools used because the final quality of a jade carving depends more on the skills of a jade carver. Holes that were drilled in jade carvings with bamboo drills in Neolithic times were actually made better than those drilled with metal tools at later time.

In short, before any one of us will call any jade carvings "modern fakes" because we believe the "tool marks" found on them are modern, we better have a true understanding of jade working techniques before we will be bold enough to make such comments. Otherwise, we will start calling every single jade carving posted here and in other forums "Modern Fake".

Bill

I cannot fault Tony A. from being upset when his supposedly authentic jade carvings including the "jade" censer posted by him was believed to be nothing but a "modern fake" (less than 100 years old) and may not be made of real jade by quite a few forum members here. I truly know how that feel because I had the same experience before and Tony A. was one of the few who attacked my jade carvings the most viciously. However, I was upset at first but then decided it was better for me to learn more about jade so that may be one day I can prove to them I may indeed be right, at least in some areas, than be absolutely wrong.

Therefore, I was genuinely surprised with Tony's reaction and his statement:

"My comments apply to Lee as well, as neither of you seem to have a clue about what you are talking about,"

and

"Both you and Lee need to get yourself some early jade books by Western authors; Laufer (1911), Nott (1936) and Salmony (1938) would be a good start. None of the jades illustrated can have been made by modern machine tools, for as Nott comments, the Chinese were still using the ancient methods of pedal and bow drills. That was written in 1936. "

I was well aware of these jade books and indeed have most of them. However, if Tony truly wants to learn about jade working techniques employed in China at different times, he seems to forget the books written by one of the most important western jade experts, Prof. Sidney Howard Hansford. His two jade books, "Chinese Jade Carving" and "Chinese Carved Jades" may be the first books written by any western jade experts in discussing the jade working techniques an jade tools in details. I was fortunate that my jade friend, Diasai, had introduced me to Prof. Hansford's books. I was also very fortunate to correspond with his grandson who happened to come across this forum when he did researches to find out more about his grandfather. He has a large piece of jade boulder (I now believe it may be Hetian jade) left by his grandfather.

There are a lot of western jade experts, of course both Laufer and Nott were distinguished jade experts, however, if you would read books or articles written by more recent western jade scholars such as Jessica Lawson or Margaret Sax, who do you think they quote the most? Yes, Prof. Hansford, that is correct. If you bother to look at many jade carvings listed in Christie's jade auctions, which jade scholar's books used by them as reference for their attributions? Yes, Prof, Hansford again, therefore if DO NOT have any of his books, I urge you to get a copy as soon as possible, otherwise there will be a sever lack in your jade education obtained from reading books written by western jade writers.

His other books and jade literature are:

"Two inscribed jades" 1947-8

"Carvings in Jade, Ivory, Rhinoceros Horn and Bamboo" 1953-7

"The Seligman Collection of Oriental Art", 1957

"Jade and the Jade Carving in the Ch'ing Dynasty", 1963-4

"Jade, Essence of Hills and Streams: The Von Oertzen Collection of Chinese and Indian Jades", 1969

First of all, owning a few jade books and/or reading a few jade books do not make anybody including you or me a jade expert.

Secondly, reading only jade books written by western jade experts prior to the 70s would limit the jade knowledge we can learn.

It is because many of the large-scale excavations of archaic jades in tombs discovered in China happened in the 70s or afterward. Many of the western jade scholars/book writers do not have the opportunity to the jades found in these ancient tombs. Furthermore, even today, only a limited few Chinese jade experts in China might have the rare opportunity in personally studying these excavated jades, many western jade experts were excluded and therefore the information they can obtain will be second-handed.

Prof. Hansford believe rotary tools were not invented till Iron age and were made of iron and therefore in Shang dynasty and early Zhou, such rotary tools for wheel-cutting would not be available. However, on the jade books written by Mr. Yang Boda, he clearly indicated that such wheel-cutting machine were found as early as in Shang sites.

It was believed by many western jade scholars that many archaic jades were made of nephrite jade found locally inside China despite the fact that no nephrite mines could be confirmed as sources for these jade carvings. Upon the discovery of the Lady Fu Hao's tomb (Shang dynasty) and the excavated jade carvings being studies by Mr. Yang Boda, now many Chinese jade experts such as Mr. Yang, Mr. Zhou Nam Quan and Mr. Gu Fang now believe Hetian nephrite jade were imported from XinJiang and were used in the making of Chinese jade carvings as early as Shang dynasty.

Therefore, if Tony A insisted in studying jade books written by western jade experts only (just like Anita), then I am afraid he would inadvertently miss many vital knowledge regarding jade. I surely hope his self-taught education regarding Chinese ceramics is not limited to ready ceramics books written by western ceramic experts only. May be one day, auction house will start quoting his ceramic books in attributing their auctioned ceramic pieces. However, I cannot stop thinking about how the famous doctor/jade writer who had written numerous books including a jade book and who had posted many of his high priced "authentic" jade carvings in this forum only to be revealed by Anita that he was a fraud.

Cheers.

Bill

http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?pos=2&intObjectID=5232403&sid=

A CARVED CHINESE JADE CENSER AND COVER,
19TH CENTURY
6�in. (16cm.) high (2)

Estimate: $ 3,000 - 5,000

Price realized: $ 47,500

The brown colour of the censer looks artificial, and as far as testing goes, why not perform a specific gravity test.
Ernest

Mr Allen, how is the cut on KK's picture different from the rough cut on your censer? Pls illustrate. Bill's censer is typical of early 1900's. Bill has a point. The fact is such censers were not used to burn incense. Rather it was a decorative object, which contradicts the presence of grease or soot like material on your censer. The ones with the perforation on the lid like my 18th century censer purchased from Christies- with a provenance of coming from a collection formed in the 19th century by a Russian nobelman, was used as a perfumer and not for burning incense. The term censer simply implies that it looks like a censer but has a function of a perfumer or a decorative object. There is no presence of soot on the inside. Your jadeite set is from the late republic 1930's- 1950. A similar silver mark on the bangle set given to my grandma on her wedding day in Peking in the late 1930's. Notice the 2 bangles are of similar nepherite jade just like the 4 archer's ring of similar nepherite and 2 of similar jadeite. Obviously they are contemporary to the silver work. It seems that by early 20 century they have run out of antique jade to be used for such things.

pics of censer from 19th century Russian nobleman's collection. Ex Christies.

Lee, you make some absurd statements.
If one censer has soot on it and another does not, do you bother to consider the possibility that either:
(a) One was used for burning incense, the other was not, or.
(b) One has not been cleaned.

To put that silver mark up and say it is the same as the Sung silver is nothing short of irresponsible. The circular rings on your silver piece indicate the metal was spun. I wonder how you explain that in 1930's China?

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Anthony, to state that the archer's rings are 18th century is both deceiving and irresponsible. Early 1900's silver have at least the shop name in Chinese, if it was for export. If the piece was for local use the marks will be entirely in Chinese as the locals of the 1900s have little or no English in their education. Only in the late republic did English marks become popular. Pics of a chinese bowl made in the early 1900s. A mark which indicates it is silver and shop marks.

Lee, please stop mis-stating what I said, which was "Jadeite was rarely if ever used in China before the 18th century, so we have a possible date of manufacture between the 18th century and when the silver mounts were applied; the latter probably between 1900 and 1920".

You cannot possibly tell from the photos, the date of manufacture of the jade thumbrings.

Also, did it not occur to you that the jade thumb rings are of earlier date than the silver mounts?

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