Jardinière

[hn2503]

Hi Peter and everyone,

I recently came across a Chinese Jardinière in Blue and White. With drawing of two Chinese mythical beasts, namely a Qilin chasing the sun in the front, and another beast on the back. The one on the back is likely a combination of Buddist Lion and Tiger? Not sure if there is a specific name for this beast?

It has a double ring at the bottom. The inner edge of the unglazed rim has red oxidation likely due to the iron-rich kaolin used in the era.

There are plenty of porcelain age signs such as rust spots, glaze retraction, or recesses in the glaze clearly visible. See images.

There are 3 tones of blue, namely very dark blue of the flame near the head of Qilin, dark blue of the mountain/rock, and light blue for the head of Qilin/body of the beast or stone surface.

Can you comment on the age of this pot?

Thanks
Long

[hn2503]

Some more images through a high power magnifier of rust spots, glaze retraction, or recesses in the glaze.

[peterp]

Judging by the way the rock is painted, having a white interior, and the use of multiple blue color tones, it would normally have to be attributed to Kangxi. You probably know that.
But I feel uncomfortable with that dating due to the "age signs", the dark spots, which are way too many for that period. Kangxi should show a better glaze quality. The bottom seems also not quite right. First, the foot rim does not look like Kangxi, but more like late Qing, and second, the double ring mark is too perfect.
The two rings are too uniform in color and density, not like others which clearly show they were drawn with a brush. In addition, at 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock in the image showing the bottom, you can see that at each of those places there is slight shift in the line position. This very likely points to a circle drawing tool or transfer.
These make me suspect that this item could be a later item, perhaps 20th century.

[hn2503]

Hi Peter, many thanks for the message.

There are the slight shifts in the line position in my original image. But this is due to image processing and compression from large size down to around 100KB in order to be upload to the forum.

If I choose to compress to 700KB, the shifts disappear, but I cannot upload it here due to size limit of individual picture.

This is really odd.

I cannot see them with my naked eye but I rotated the pot, retook a picture and compressed it down to 100KB again, and upload the original (IMG_1894) and new one (IMG_2021) side by side here.

You can still see a small shift at around 10:30 o'clock, but it is not the same as the original because it is not near the black rust spot.

[hn2503]

Also I agree that the two rings are too uniform in color and density. They were likely to be drawn from a tool like a compass.

But such technique was also used in Kangxi era. See the following big plate of Sir David Percival collection in the British Museum. 

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_PDF-653

[peterp]

Yes, the ring looks better now. I do not know really how they drew these circles, but even on Qing dynasty imperial wares they are seldom so uniform. I also get the impression that its blue color is lighter than usual. Not sure if it is due to the lighting. This is the type of item that I would normally put away and wait until much later to decide, as sometimes some other item comes around providing a hint.
That what I meant with the too many spots remains. We consider the Kangxi to Qianlong reigns as having the most perfect glazes. Even on the bottom there are seldom glaze defects or indents going through the whole glaze.

[hn2503]

My first impression is that the drawing of the the Qilin and the lion/tiger beast are of high quality. Their faces and eyes are expressive (and perhaps warm?). The drawing lines are firm and quite thin.

I am however disappointed with how the rock/mountain/rock surface are drawn. Perhaps of a different hand/person. But they are not up there with Kangxi ware. You pointed out white interior in the rock, but I notice that the transitional part from dark-blue to white interior on rock surface is not nicely drawn, i.e. via very rough drawing stroke in this case (see first attached image).

Moreover, different layers of the rock (where the lion/tiger beast stands) are painted of the same tone dark blue. This is certainly not good enough. See second attached image.

I provide an example of how rock/mountain should be painted in the third image. See the Kangxi example here:
[link removed by admin -- please read the posting rules at the top of the forum]

Do you think this is a valid reason and/or observation to exclude this from early Qin dynasties.
Thanks

[peterp]

In my view what you mention are just minor differences that can also occur between authentic items. The Kangxi reign was very long (61 yrs) and we see also differences between early, middle and late Kangxi reigns. This is also true for the blue pigment tone, the use of multiple blue color intensities, etc. One specific pigment type is known to have been used only during about 20 years, and it was disused afterwards for unknown reasons. The blue tone were not always the same. Rocks do not always have a white interior, either, but they are less likely in later eras.

What I would like to emphasize is the following:
Decorations are easily and actually were copied in later reigns at any time.
The most important but more difficult to evaluate are the color tones (pigment hues) of the underglaze blue. But these are more important than the decoration content. Some pigments used only during specific periods, but  decoration styles could be imitated later too. Also, the bottom/foot rim is almost always one of the most important factors we look at.
Thus, what I suggest is not to consider the decoration itself as too important; shape, glaze and pigment tones weigh more in an evaluation.
If I look at this, one of the points that weighs more is the foot rim, because this foot rim does not look like an early Qing foot rim, the consistency of Kangxi foot rims often differs from later ones. Talking here about the consistency, not the shape or color. This would have been due to the clay used. The other point is the glaze quality. Often many inclusions are present in later items, due to declining production quality, and/or because later imitations are thought to look older if they have these. There are just too many. But we cannot tell for sure if they are authentic or man-made.
Thus you see, the decoration is just one of multiple factors that weigh in, in this case.

BTW, one question...what magnification did you use to take pictures of the glaze? It seems insufficient. If you want to look at glaze details you would need at least 200x or more. That is when the glaze bubbles get clearly visible. You would want to look inside the glaze to see age signs clearly.

[hn2503]

Hi Peter, Many thanks for the detailed message. I used 20* magnifier. I can see the bubbles present, most clearly at white area adjacent to drawing line, with my eye through the magnifier, but they are not visible in the photos upload here.