Log In to see all boards

Author Topic: Ming censor?  (Read 187 times)

ssbill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2018, 06:01:26 AM »
Yes, I will update once they send me an estimate of the value. They didn't ask for provenance. They only ask to examinate it. If you want a quick answer I recommend not to go through their official appraisal process on their website but to email directly one of their specialist. If they feel it is worth their time they usually respond within hours .

peterp

  • Adept
  • ******
  • Posts: 3300
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2018, 10:19:09 AM »
Would be nice if you could let us know what the result was, once the auction house expert has examined the actual item. Did they ask for provenance?

Stan

  • Moderator
  • Adept
  • *****
  • Posts: 3138
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2018, 08:08:59 AM »
Yes I agree Heavenguy, it is better than the history books that goes in one ear and out the other, Chinese Antique Porcelain really is a great way to learn the history as it touches all periods.

heavenguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2018, 06:28:10 AM »
Aight!!! Good Job!! It requires guts to spend money on something you are not 100% sure. I'm glad the starts aligned for you, so congrats...

Same happen to me with the blue tang censer but I'm gonna keep it to my personal museum. Besides, they always want this 30 year old provenance for something you just bought in an estate sale or auction house. I'm like, how on earth I'm suppose to know such things...

to Peterp:

Thank you sir, I'll keep on reading more books on the subject. My next step is to kind of learn about the Kilns in the Song and yuan. The more I read the more fascinating it gets. China really has this amazing history that if it wasn't for Chinese porcelain, i will probably never learned about.

Stan

  • Moderator
  • Adept
  • *****
  • Posts: 3138
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2018, 04:34:19 AM »
Good job SSbill!!!!

ssbill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2018, 02:05:23 AM »
I bought it. I emailed a sothebys senior  specialist with more photos. They say it looks credible and likely to be a yuan tripod censer and they would like to inspect it  to sell  it at their september auction. I guess the stars aligned and the weather was good.

peterp

  • Adept
  • ******
  • Posts: 3300
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2018, 01:02:56 PM »
No, Stan, that is not exactly what I meant. High gloss is still making it more likely that an item is later, as a rule, and applicable to many cases.  It is just that there are 'some' exceptions.

And to heavenguy:
> 1.- Sometimes, not every time, the lack of high-gloss in an antique item can mean the item is a fake.
It often does, just not every time. But this is also somewhat dependent on the period. With more ancient or pre-Ming kilns (not JDZ kilns) gloss was more unlikely, but a very few of those kilns made high gloss items. Gloss is related to the vitreous glaze, and its thickness, not to age. Gloss is more likely encountered in the Ming and Qing dynasties. I always say a glaze can reflect light but should not mirror objects or people. That is too shiny.

>2.- Yes, even an item that is over 1000 years old can look like new.
Here too, don't take that as a new rule thinking that a 'new' look can be ignored. Only few items look new after so long a time. Again, gloss is not equal to age, or the lack of it. It depends on the quality of the vitreous glaze.

>4.- Not because I have never seen one, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Careful with that too, that is true to some point, but some fakes have shapes that actually did never exist. They are just new creations.

>5.- Also, sometimes, when the weather is nice and the starts align, you can find an imperial ware at >your local thrifty shop.
Hehe, as a first condition you need to be knowledgeable to recognize something of value, a. Then comes luck, you need a lot too. But you probably are aware that were valuable are most likely gone before they are in the thrift shop. Owners often sell better items to antique dealers before they appear on the shelves in the thrift shop. That is how some antique dealers get their wares.

Just always consider multiple features in few to authenticity or dating, and keep an open mind for any possible non-standard variations of porcelain features.

Stan

  • Moderator
  • Adept
  • *****
  • Posts: 3138
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2018, 09:50:35 AM »
Thanks Peter, from now on I will not assume that a high gloss means its later.

heavenguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2018, 11:33:13 PM »
For every rule there is probably an exception (or many), Some rule breakers I have learned so far from collecting Chinese porcelain,

1.- Sometimes, not every time, the lack of high-gloss in an antique item can mean the item is a fake.

2.- Yes, even an item that is over 1000 years old can look like new.

3.- Sometimes people buy things and never use it. Just multiply that by a hundred years and you have a "oh that is not a ming because it doesn't have scratches" type of vase.

4.- Not because I have never seen one, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

5.- Also, sometimes, when the weather is nice and the starts align, you can find an imperial ware at your local thrifty shop.

6.- Feel free to add your own...

peterp

  • Adept
  • ******
  • Posts: 3300
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2018, 10:52:28 AM »
To Stan:
Yes, as a general rule high gloss items are later. By chance I discovered that a certain high profile kiln of the Southern Song dynasty produced both, low and high gloss items. Actually it is two kilns known under the same name. So, as a rule there should be little gloss for early wares, but there are exceptions as with everything in Chinese ceramics.

peterp

  • Adept
  • ******
  • Posts: 3300
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2018, 10:41:00 AM »
I would take the risk at that price. There is one anyway with every item bought online. How many times have we discovered that an item is not what it seemed to be once we held it in our hands!

ssbill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2018, 10:14:26 AM »
It's selling for 200$ at a small low key local auction. The auctioneer have no idea what it is or might be. I'll buy it tomorrow. If it's old it would be great if not it is still a nice decorative piece. I'll post my findings here

peterp

  • Adept
  • ******
  • Posts: 3300
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2018, 08:12:27 AM »
There we are, talking about Jun glazes. I did not want to say it is Jun because I am not sure...and the shine of the glaze is one reason for that. Worm traces are limited to Jun glazes, but not all have them. But Jun glazes are thick and this one is thin, otherwise the edges would not be bared liked this.
On the other hand, Jun wares were made for a long time, and there are quite a number of different glazes. However, the long neck of the censer would point to Northern Song. However, a Jun item made in the Ming dynasty, for example, could easily replicate the shape.
A lot of "buts"...I would acquire if it was not expensive. After all, we need something to study such glazes with. Pictures are sometimes just not sufficient.

heavenguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2018, 02:58:20 AM »
The glaze doesn't bother me that much since there is a lot of examples on museums and major auction houses that shines really bright like this one. If you can see more photos you can look for the typical earthworm-track markings on the surface of the glaze. They say they are hard to replicate in modern examples. But still I think this is a nice example that even if not real, it is a nice decoration piece to have.

ssbill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
Re: Ming censor?
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2018, 02:50:17 AM »
It's also my concern. But I've found a few song censers with a glossy glaze. Some are glossy some aren't, but it's just my observation.  perhaps someone can add more to this discussion?