Celadon Jar-Which Dynasty

[Lee Seng Kong]

Please find attached photos of the jar.

Any advice of on its age is appreciated as I would think it is late Ming/Early Qing

Thank you

[Lee Seng Kong]

I find that the "anhua" is quite well done

[peterp]

I'm afraid this is a fake. I think this is a 20th century fake item trying to imitate Longquan wares.  The base is imitating a Song/Yuan foot rim, but the color is not convincing.  The foot color looks artificial too. Basically, the glaze looks too thin, and has too much decoration for this type of ware. For a Ming Longquan plate I am repairing the glaze thickness is 0.5-1mm thick. Many layers of glaze were usually applied.

Hope you did not spend too much on this. I'm sure once you have handled three or four genuine Longquan items you will be able to recognize the difference.

[Lee Seng Kong]

Thank you Peter for your interest.
The glaze appears is quite thick?.in fact, it was my intention to show the thickness of the glaze in the photo of the lid.
The lid is broken, so it will be easy to check if the glaze thickness is between 0.5 to 1 mm.
The ?banana leaf pattern? at the base is not vertically straight compared to other jar of similar design. Thus, created some doubt.
Also, the jar do not have the ?mutton-grease feel???a term coined by in journals to describe the texture of the item... I will describe it as ?fine bubbly and greasy feel??.but , best?to try feeling real mutton  grease .
If I can recall correctly, this ?mutton-grease feel? describes those Song Celadon?hence may not apply to Ming nor Qing.
For comparison, attached are photos of 2 Celadon Plates from my collection which certified as genuine Ming pieces by local museum
1st Plate has the ?mutton-grease feel? and the glaze is not shiny.
2nd Plate does not have the ?mutton-grease feel? and the glaze is slightly more shiny.
I have examine and held other plates which are even more shiny and are genuine.
On the colour, I am not able to detect the difference in the colour of the jar compared to the plates
I bought this jar from a collection, whose owner passed away a few months back. ?A few of my collector friends chipped in to buy from his son?.basically to assist their family.
Paid around  USD 120.00 for jar??. rather cheap even as a collectible?.. I would not be surprised if the owner paid more as the jar is around  33 cm H x 34 cm dia. And quite heavy for its size.
BTW Peter?.is it a bad practice to wash an antique piece. I scrub with sponge and detergent?.some pieces I even soak in Clorox to get rid of stubborn stains?. Just so for display
There are antiques dealer who deliberately display their so-called antique covered with dust/soil??especially with the orange brown dust/soil
I do the opposite, and foot-rims stains are quite stubborn to be removed.

[Lee Seng Kong]

Photo of 2nd Plate

[peterp]

To me the top plate looks as if it could be Longquan celadon. The lower one has a glaze color and decoration that could be Yue kiln. However the underside vertical rib decoration looks more like those of Longquan wares than those of Yue wares. But as the two are close, geographically, it is possible that this is influence from the other kiln. The interior flower decoration is unusual with Longquan, though.

I would not use Clorox, it is possible that chemical residue in the pores damages items in the long term. And always flush and soak sufficiently.
That price is a fraction of what an authentic jar of that size would be nowadays. My personal view.

[Lee Seng Kong]

Hi Peter,

You are right about Longquan / Yue plates. The anhua flower is correct.

About the use of Clorox.....for a Blue and White ware with the glaze INTACT, Clorox  clean off all stubborn stains gathered over the years and make the white brilliant!! and it is unlikely for the Clorox to penetrate under the INTACT glaze to damage the color beneath.

However, with wares with spots of  DAMAGED glaze, the Clorox do penetrate beneath the glaze and in some instance (those  wares with very thin glaze) , the glaze surrounding the damaged areas flake off and also cause discoloration to the colors beneath.

Flushing and soaking do not help much  in some cases, especially with utility items  such a plates a, bowls etc etc which are not meant for decorations .

This is what I learnt from my cleaning experience.

Agree that the price of the jar is a faction of a genuine piece auctioned at reputable auction houses.

But then again, I have bought genuine pieces many years ago at cheap prices because some owners did not appreciate an antique item for what it is worth...because of the lack of knowledge, its age.... coupled to financial needs and also, due to the small numbers of collectors....meaning ....they lack the opportunity to meet collector/buyers.
So, when someone comes along and was willing to pay some money for something that had been lying around.....in many instances, they did sell after some haggling.
So...one of my appraisal technique in buying was....buy cheap when not sure whether genuine or not...so buy cheaper for its ART......and also, when the seller was willing to sell  at a price which could not justify the workmanship and how it got to a place that is so remote from China...I would take the risk  that it might be old and was handed down from generation to generation.

So even though eventually when I do find an item that is not genuine, I treat it as a collectible that can be used for comparison study.

[peterp]

What I told you is what porcelain restorers will tell you. Bleaching agents and other cleaners may contain chemicals that can result in damage in the long term. Glazes are not impenetrable because of the vitreous top layer, as you seem to think. In fact, many porcelains have crackles in the glaze that are almost invisible from the time they are fired. Often these become obvious only much later when dirt, etc. lodges in the crazing. It's your decision. You may not see damage, but those restoring antiques often follow the advice of museum conservators.
Cleaning an item properly can occasionally take hours or even days of immersion in mild cleaning solutions. There are fast methods but these require expensive equipment.

[peterp]

>especially with the orange brown dust/soil

One of the the ways tricking buyers into thinking an item is authentic.
But, you should be aware that genuine antiques from excavations may have traces of the soil too. These can be hundreds of years old and are often not removable, although that does not mean all items with non-removable soil traces are genuine. The fakers know ways to make fake dirt non-removable too.

[Lee Seng Kong]

Hi Peter,
About cleaning.......thank you for your advice on the correct practice....your are very right.....I never consider the fine crackles on an antique piece when the Clorox could easily penetrate beneath.

Hopefully....after washing with Clorox, the soaking in clean water has prevented any ensuing damage.

My attitude  to fast-track the cleaning process stemmed from my Construction Business......that is....time of completion!!!....big mistake

.....especially with the orange brown dust/soil

Over here, there are occasions when some main-land Chinese come to sell their Art-works......porcelain, furniture, paintings etc etc.

Some of them are displayed as new art-work.........but some are displayed as antiques.....with dust and all that.....from even Tang period

I do examine them but surely, do not buy them.