Hi All,
Another collection item, mint condition...What do you think???
Can you provide a closer shot of the blue decoration. Only partial is fine, but it should be so close than any blemishes or glaze faults, even the brush strokes, are visible clearly.
Hi Peterp,
Detailed image
getting closer
Stan, could this be Japanese? Also on the surface of it it looks like Kangxi, the delicated floral decoration and fine lines around the mark are unusual. But, this impression could be caused by the size of this?
Hi Peter, This could be Seto ware, the single blue line on the outside of the foot, I have seen plates and chargers that are marked this way, Did the Chinese use lines like that ?. I think part of the decoration is printed, the two blue circles around the centre decoration the lines are perfectly spaced and then it is missing part of the line that has been drawn in by hand, I can see this in other parts of the decoration.
I have virtually never seen such a fine underside decoration on Kangxi ware.
So it is Seto ware? Stan, I assume you mean Seto kiln ware and not the wider meaning of Seto ware?
(Seto ware was originally made in a place of that name, but in today's colloquial Japanese Seto ware has become a term synonymous with "porcelain".)
Thanks for correcting me, your right Seto ware could included a wide verity of porcelain ware Where as Seto kilns might narrow it down to specified items like plates or chargers. Thanks Peter.
Thank you guys for detailed answers...Does this piece have any collectible value?
I like it, seems like you inherited a pretty nice collection.
Hi all:
Angle view
Stan, does any Japanese porcelain have this foot rim shape?
Hi Peter, I have seen bottoms with a foot like this on 17th and early 18th century Japanese Plates but this looks to fresh, with no age signs and no ware that I can see. Sorry I did not look that close at the photo's, it looks like on the edge of the plate it looks like maybe a grinder or some kind of tooling took place it dose not look natural, a close up photo of the edge will confirm this.
Hi Stan:
What edge' s close up photo do you need exactly? I dont understand...
The last two photo's you posted both is showing glaze loss on the rim of the bowl, a close up of the rim is appreciated, thanks.
I think what Stan wants to see is the top rim. Your close up picture shows the plate upside down and there is some glaze peeling visible along the rim. This can be natural, from usage, but with newer imitations they sometimes create the glaze peeling effect artificially, which is a common age faking technique. So what should be checked is if the peeling is all around (too much) or too regular, which may be a giveaway of fakes.
(Remark:
As a part of checking the authenticity of an item it is also necessary to check for the absence of age faking traces. In other words, the presence of certain features allows dating (only), but checking for the absence of age faking traces is also a necessity, especially when an item has the gloss and superb condition as this one.) :)
Hi Stan, Hi Peterp,Hi all:
Here are top and buttom rim close ups...I hope this will help...
Hi Askent, you're almost there, in the photo's jpg 11 and 12 on the outside of the top rim of your plate, not the chip but the areas around the rim missing the glaze, if you could take a photo of the outside rim and it needs to be clear, thanks.
Hi all:
I hope I got the right picture...
The outer edge is what we want to see, but the underside of the top edge where it is missing the white glaze, thank.
You should show any blemishes, glaze faults chips or anything that is there. Instead it seems that you are showing the nice looking part of the rim only. :-) But the above are important because they provide usage, production and age related clues. A spotless item on the other hand makes it look too pristine to be old. Giving an example,the larger chips viewable in these pictures, either on the foot rim or top rim, look new. They are not old usage signs. But in one of the photos where the plate is turned upside down, there is something that looks like glaze fritting shown. That is important and may provide clues. Unfortunately, these are not shown clearly. Best would be if that would be shown, and also their distribution along the top rim.
Hi again:
Here is the buttom rim:
This is what you should show clearly (see the blue arrow). The rim frittings along the top rim, but completely invisible in your other pictures. A close-up of their color and and overview of their distribution along the circumference of the plate.
Hi Peterp:
I hope Ive got it right this time:
If these rim frittings are present only in a few places, they can be natural, but of they are present around the whole circumference, then they could be man-made. The white chips on the top rim and foot rim are not from normal usage, and their color shows they are new. That means someone made them in more recent times.
Overall, the painting and glaze look pristine, but it is difficult to tell the exact age. Judging by some features the plate could be late Qing or 20th century, in my view -- if it is of Chinese origin, but again, the painting style deviates a bit from traditional styles. And, the glaze shows no patina pointing to an earlier Chinese period.
This all is based on the supposition that it was made in China. I do not know if the Japanese copied Chinese porcelain in this style and to such a degree. Stan may be in a better position to tell if it could be Japanese.
I think the mark itself, tells us that this is Japanese copying a Chinese mark, in my book on Japanese marks and seals on page 29 it shows a mark Just like this denoting the period and the words Nen and Sei, as to age this could be late Edo or early Meiji.
But the fritting that Peter missioned is a concern, if this fritting is all around the edge it could be a modern copy.