Is this a Ming item?!

[nino huynh]

Hello every body,
I have this porcelain jar. It's a colour jar with mark four word. I think it's a gift for some one in Ming dynasty. What do you think about this item. Please tell me. Thank you very much!

[nino huynh]

Hi peter,
Can you help me the age of this jar?! Thank you very much!
I post more pictures.

[Stan]

Hi Nino Huynh, this looks Japanese to me.

[nino huynh]

Hi Stan,
Thank you for replying my topic. This jar looks Japanese, but the mark is a kind of present mark in Ming imperial. That's so dificult to me. Any idea else?! Thanks again.

[Stan]

The mark is spurious, you can't use a mark to tell what age the vase is, if all points to ming and the mark, only then can you use a mark, but this lidded jar is not Ming.

[nino huynh]

Thank You Stan.The cobalt blue is under glaze ware.The orange colour is on the face was draw along white line between blue lines.There are also some signs of Ming porcelain...anyway, i think this lidded vase is early Qing at least.

[Stan]

That would make more since Nino.

[peterp]

This is either Japanese, or 20th century Chinese, in my view. The blue and red colors look like chemical colors and have a flat appearance.
Basically, a combination of such dark red and blue colors as shown here along neck, shoulder and bottom rim is found more often in Japanese decorations, but hardly on Chinese ones. Japanese and Chinese have quite distinct (different) preferences what concerns colors.
What is this decoration? Looks like a medusa, but really, is this meant to be cut flowers bound together? If yes, not Chinese style. What are the flowers themselves. One looks more like a peony, but has something that I cannot identify, the other looks like a chrysanthemum in the center. Another point against its being traditional Chinese.

Then the shape:
- both body and lid have what the Chinese would call a pumpkin shape. There do exist Chinese vases or jars like this, but not lids. Chinese traditional lids hardly would have a wave-shaped lid rim like this.
- looking at the jar body alone, it looks more like a ginger jar than anything else. But Ming ginger jars have slightly different shapes, and no such high lids. Qing ginger jars do usually have no such lids, and an unglazed neck/shoulder area.
- the lid shape itself is also a bit off the normal, either for a temple jar or other lid of this type.

I did not write that much, but the more I look at the details the more there is to tell.

Again, in my view this is either Japanese, or it is 20th century, no matter what the mark or bottom looks like. The decoration and shape have just too many inconsistencies when compared to Chinese antiques of the Ming and Qing dynasties.

[Stan]

Hi Peter, the blue color is why I thought it to be Japanese Imari as well,  so would this be considered a wanli period mark? Or Japanese export to China, bearing a mark from that period.

[peterp]

I doubt this is "export". Usually, export items are made to the importing country's taste. Whatever, I late Ming dynasty mark on a Japanese decoration would be strange. You will find that many Chinese marks on Japanese porcelain are reign marks, lake the Chenghua mark or the Wanli mark you have on your charger. Fuku (Fu) is an auspicious character mark, so that is popular too, but I doubt that the current one is understood in Japanese, it is even difficult to understand its meaning in Chinese.
But, the first I did was to check if there was a Japanese emperor with that reign name. There was, but in the Heian period. Long before porcelain even did exist, so that is out of the picture.
The Japanese do have some really good copies of Chinese designs and decorations. If they wanted to export to China, they would surely be better with a typical Chinese taste decoration, I think.  Only if there are other examples of authentic Japanese items having this  mark would I be able to accept this as Japanese.
So, this is one of the cases in which I think that it might be a 20th century item, in  resembling neither traditional Chinese nor Japanese. In my view there are really too many inconsistencies in style to be acceptable for either. I think it is not antique.

[nino huynh]

I thank you Stan and Peterp very much. You gave some information and your ideas really interesting. I'm reserching about this item. After having a general looking about the shape,ware...i believe it is a real antique. But have no idea about age and country made...Thanks again!

[shelley Kong]

My gut feeling is that this is not Chinese and is about 50 years Young.

[Stan]

I think your right Shelly, or like Peter said modern Chinese, perhaps made in the 60s.

[Stan]

Anyway Nino, please let us know what you find out. thanks. BTW I purchased an Imari charger from china last year, nice large charger and very beautiful, it has all the appearance of Japanese but i suspect it could be a cleaver fake made in China, I am seeing a lot of Black ship ware coming out of China and it looks new, I wonder.

[nino huynh]

Hi Stan,

I'm Vietnamese. I bought this one in South of Vietnam from an experience old colector (That not mean i believe him...).