I like that there is no faked age. Desirable amount of scratches. Only few rust spots. To me the black on the foot rim looks natural. Don't know about the decoration and the dragon. Is not he too happy? Also, are not the double rings too close to the rim?
Dear Kardinalisimo, dont trust on scratches..sometimes misleading. The color is minyao color. But I have never seen a minyao bowl with a dragon design. Btw the happy dragon looks like a catfish:-) I like that.
In my view the dragon inside is fine except one thing. The tail end is too thick for being Kangxi/Yongzheng, as the mark would indicate. The band decoration (coin decoration) along the interior rim is quite unusual. But, the band decoration along the exterior rim is unknown to me on bowls or cups.
In other words recent fake or just not from the period? If the last one, what period it could be? To my eyes it looks nicely made.
Peter, I don't get the dragons thing. I thought Early Qing ones should be fierce. Or this is just a different type of dragon. I know there are few kinds.
The scales and tip of the tail are also important. This tip would correspond to late Qing dynasty.
What is the deal with the tail's tip ? Too fat and round?
Well Kardinalisimo, if he reply to this 'instantly', we have to believe that real 'experts' in this kind of field are indeed very rare.
So, we should look to a dragon until its tail. And he already give you a clue, late Qing. If it is less than pocket money, should take it. Btw, after a long and thorough looking, the dragon is missing a scale near the tail:-)
Peter, I am getting a little bit confused. I just realized that the bowl is similar, almost identical to the another one I posted before ( topic title :Blue Porcelain, Are Those Genuine Marks? from March 22, 2014).
There you said that "the dragon looks like a thick, fat worm" and here you are saying that "dragon inside is fine except...".
Are not the dragons exactly the same? I see some differences like this one has not so many rust spots, the blue rings on the base are not that close to each other, some details on the decorations are slightly different and there may be other thing that differ.
Can you comment please?
Thanks
Yes, the dragon is similar, its tail has a round tip. That is just not what dragons of that period should look like. I also mentioned that the rim decoration is unusual, both the one inside and outside. That means it is likely either a later fake or Japanese. The marks are too stiff compared with period marks.
But you cannot get over the hurdle that the decoration (the tip of the tail) does not fit the period of the mark. How could a feature that is from the late Qing dynasty appear in the early Qing dynasty. These are signs that this is not a period item; that is either it is not Chinese but Japanese, or a 20th century fake altogether.
Just forget about the marks, they mean NOTHING!!!
You cannot assume that an item is a period item just because there are some features that may be right. One single point that is wrong can debunk the best items fakes, even if all the rest was fine. The mark does not make it of the period.The tip of the tail alone makes it impossible to be of the period.
But I could not tell for sure if it is Japanese, or a later 20th century Chinese fake. My specialty is Chinese "antique" porcelain, not later Chinese or Japanese porcelain.
Thanks for the comment Peter.
I totally agree with you about not being from the period. The dragon tail tips look like a solid proof when determining periods. I just was not sure if this type of dragon( as depicted on the bowl (fat and happy) is seen on Chinese porcelain.
I will dig a little big to find out if similar pieces were made in 19th or it is totally 20th century. Will also search Japanese porcelain to see if I can find similar bands. Just for future references.