Qianlong marked iron red & gilt cup and cover

[GerryG]

Hi Everyone,

I'd appreciate comments and feedback on this wine cup and cover both carrying an underglaze blue six character qianlong seal mark. Question being is this of the period and inspecting the cup and cover, I have some reason to be optimistic though also some reasons for concern. Overall the form, palette and potting seem ok. The brown rim is of the period and the foot rim on both look of the period. The subject matter and illustration seem good and early qianlong, not too busy and a period depiction of the dragon/foo dog seem right. Now on the down side, the glaze seems quite lustrous and thick though I might be a little critical with this, The seal mark is good in some respects, cobalt has a good hue and is hand drawn though the positioning is a little off centre which would always have me worried. Also there are some anomalies with the actual seal it self, the character DA has no nubbin on top and whilst this is a bit unusual, I have seen genuine marks drawn in the same manner. The water radical looks quite different, drawn with one line instead of the usual broken three. Overall the glaze on both pieces is white and quite pure with minimal occlusions which seem to fit with the period. I add up all the facts and they lead me to hope rather than certainty and if not of the period when might the cup and cover have been made considering they have obvious age.

Thanks for looking,

Gerry

[peterp]

With this type of painting and mark I am being careful. Basically, the decoration could also be 19th century, but this type of Qianlong mark was hardly used then ... except in the early Jiaqing reign. It would be difficult to tell for sure, however, which this is. Jiaqing continued using some styles and the Qianlong mark for some years, initially. My view is that this likely either Qianlong or early Jiaqing, made by a private kiln.

[GerryG]

Hi Peter, certainly an interesting hypotheses, one I did not consider but fits quite well with the total sum of the parts. I can also recall reading somewhere that the qianlong mark was continued in use into the early Jiajing period as you have commented. Standards had slipped by the end of the Qianlong period and the potting was not so fine which could explain the glaze, footrim etc. It is definitely a path of investigation worth pursuing. Thanks again for your comments and input.

Gerry

[GerryG]

Hi Peter, in my last post I said Jaijing instead of Jiaqing. Nearly 250 years out, my error.

[peterp]

Well, actually it is thought that quality decreased towards the later Jiaqing reign. In the beginning it was similar to the Qianlong reign. It is quite normal that in the initial years of  the new reign the marks of the previous were applied. It is also because the Qianlong emperor was still living in the first years of the Jiaqing reign, and some things were simply kept as they were out of respect for the retired emperor.

[GerryG]

Thanks Peter,

Assuming this might be the case then I guess there might not be too many examples of Jiaqing porcelain made between 1796 and 1799 bearing the Qianlong reign mark. I will see if I can hunt down some examples.

Kind regards,

Gerry