Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Can anyone please tell me what it says in on the base and anything else about the plate? Thank you.

The plate has an apocryphal mark of "Made in 1775 (Yi wei year) during the Qianlong Reign of the Great Qing Dynasty". The central spur mark on the base identifies it as made in Japan. Japanese Meiji period (1868-1912} porcelain frequently is found with common Ming and Qing reign marks, but this is the first time I've seen a period reign mark, suggesting to me that this plate could date later.

Best regards,

Bill H.

As you have correctly recognised, it is an export product. However, the piece is of Japanese and not Chinese origin. The arrangement of the characters, the presence of fire support marks and the dot under the da character indicate the Japanese origin.

The characters are called 太清年製 (great qing period made)
乾隆乙未 (Qianlong [year of] wooden sheep).

In this case, I think the year of the wooden sheep would be 1751, including the reign of Emperor Qianlong. Incidentally, in China the zodiac for sheep is replaced by the goat.
However, your piece is not from the Qianlong period, but much later, probably from the middle of the 19th century.

A single fire support could be an indicator for the 1850s/1860s. The vine decoration in dark cobalt blue on the cavetto and exterior also speaks in favour of this. The coarse washes and careless contours also speak in favour of a low-quality export product of the time. Your piece is very unusual, if I may be so bold as to say so. I have not seen such careless decoration for a very long time. Nevertheless, it is not without an attraction in its own right.

With kind regards

Madria

Madria, always appreciate your comments but have rechecked my references and verified that the only year of the sheep/goat during the Qianlong period indeed fell in 1775. The preceding such year was 1715 during the Kangxi reign and the next was in 1935 during the Republic period.

Best regards,

Bill H.

Dear Bill,

You are of course absolutely right with 1775. I must have slipped in the row of the cyclic table. I apologise and thank you for double checking.

With kind regards

Madria

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