I recently bought this miniature celadon tea set on a stove online. Anybody an idea if its old and maybe rare? Looks like it could be pretty old. Surely not modern i think cause its been made kind of crude, the little cups etc arent made perfectly. There are also allot of particles in the clay they used. The little stove is 7,7 cm wide above 5,6 cm wide base and its 5 cm tall. Little bowls are around 2,3 cm, the lits are about 1,7cm, little vase 3,2 cm high 2,2 cm at its widest, pots is 2cm high and 2,3 cm widest and lit is 1,4 cm and the little cup is 0,9 cm high 1,2 cm wide.. anybody an idea of its age, seems pretty old to me but im no expert.. grts apple
More pics
More
Few more
Another few
Some more
This looks as if it might be burial ware. A complete set is quite a rarity. Mostly you see single pieces, or part of a set. It could be from about the Yuan dynasty, I believe not much later than the early Ming dynasty, because the custom of using such items seems to have disappeared during the Ming dynasty.
A hands-on inspection might allow checking the glaze with a magnifier for age signs.
Thanks for your reaction peter. If its yuan or early ming burial ware that would be awesome offcourse.! Could actually make sense by the size of the set because it seems to me a little to big to be dollhouse pottery. I will try to take some detailed pictures of the glaze. Can you tell what to look for as in aging of the glaze? And could it be made a complete set again later? The pot and one of the bowls have a similar older looking base. Other bases look a bit different. Is there a way i can get your suspicion of it being yuan or early ming burial ware veryfied and certified? Maybe you know an expert who can determine for sure this is the case? I really want to have this figured out.. grts apple
Diffferent base of bowl and pot
Some detailed pics
Some more
A few more
Some more
Is this a Chinese design? The shape of the stove/pot reminds of something I've seen in Korean burial ware. The design I beleive is from the 3 kingdoms/Silla period. Although I think those were originally made from stoneware.
E.g. www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/wcm/connect/4b3992ca-e1e5-4710-a40f-42e9b3870514/i_7m.jpg?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-4b3992ca-e1e5-4710-a40f-42e9b3870514-lnFANcb
www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/sila/hd_sila.htm
I dont know hmm. If i read about qing bai burial ware it fits the description a bit better. The white clay, the iron residu i think i see, the celadon coloured glaze for example. But im totally not an expert. I did read on the qing bai wikipedia;
"Many types of items were made: as well as the usual plates and bowls, there were teapots and small round lidded boxes, usually described as for cosmetics." Which could be the lidded bowls i got(?) I read it was meant for common people and quality was viriable. They not only made it for burial but also for export or for the middle rank chinese market. It wasnt prestigous ceramic.. im really hoping for a definitive determination and an expert can tell me 99% sure its yuan, song or early ming.. i really appreciate you guys your input and opinion though. But neurotic as i am i really want to know everything about it. Grts apple
To Hmm: I did consider the similarity to Korean items too but think it is unlikely because of the difference of the bottoms of Korean ceramics. And, did Korea have burial ware apart from epitaphs? This custom in China has a long history, but until now I could not detect anything similar in Japan or Korea. I believe the items of this type found in Korea were more for actual use. And, at least in China items of this type seem to be pottery based, usually.
It is very well possible that these items are from different firings, or even accumulated later from different sources. That would explain that some have orange lines and the others not. Usually, even in the same firing items may show some differences in color, because they were all fired separately and then lids and jars, etc. were afterwards paired.
What is increasingly done now is looking at the bubbles and other aging signs within the glaze and clay itself. This requires strong magnifiers or microscopes. But age signs may differ with burial ware, depending on the environment and whether it was really tightly closed off or not. But I do not think at the present stage it is possible to tell exactly from which era something is.
Burial wares often are considerably smaller than everyday items. Only some liquor cups are sometimes so small as items of those. You will have to look at museum items items of this type for more information. As such items are unlikely from mainstream kilns it may be difficult to decide age more accurately unless you find something similar.
Thanks again for your reply peter. Very much appreciated. All the items by the way have that orange/reddish line around the non glazed base, but the lidded pot and one lidded bowl have a little wider and cruder base and more defined orange/reddish line, but all the pieces have that orange/redddish line. Just noticed on the lidded bowl theres a little scratch which shows the whiter clay type beneath like all the others pieces. And as far as i can tell its probaply at least made from the same clay type and probaply came out of the same kiln would be my guess. But again im no expert. I hope you did noticed how small this tea set is cause it is miniature. Im looking into finding an expert in this matter but im affraid i wont find an expert who can defenately can confirm it is qing bai ware from the yuan or early ming dynasty. Ive searched hours and hours on the internet but cant find any similar crude pieces or a set like this. I do get to see some miniature pots but there not that crudely made. The porcelain look way more pure and seems better made. But since it was common ware also for common people i dont see why there wouldnt be more crudely made items.. if you have any ideas for sites to browse or you know any experts which or who can help me out in finding more about this item would be very welcome. Maybe you know some museums i could email which know about this qing bai celadon? Any help appreciated. At least thanks already for the info provided...just really think this might be special somehow :) grts apple
Small cup/bowl without lid
Tea set in perspective
Finally the size is shown. This definitely is burial ware, nothing of a liquor cup.
And, the color is now also clear in your last picture. Celadon like that of Longquan would have a lighter (even yellowish) appearance in ridges or protruding areas, but that is only valid for the later Longquan wares of the Ming dynasty. Originally I thought it might be Longquan, but the base is not typical...however it is sometimes difficult to tell. Some peripheral kiln in the Longquan system, other than the main kiln, might have made this.
I have had the opportunity to see single items on occasion, but I doubt you will be able to find plenty online, unless they are fakes, due to several factors.You will likely also have difficulty to find anyone specialized on these. Some burial wares, including epitaphs, offered online are fake.
One reason that these items are difficult to find is probably that many people do not like to collect items related to the departed. Museums are therefore more likely to have them. Also you may be aware that trading in excavated items in China is now severely punished, it is therefore unlikely that many will become available in the future, unless they are already out of country. Such items were probably made to order like the epitaphs and may not be that plenty, as commoners were less likely able to purchase any porcelain, not to speak have it made for the dead. :-)
What you can do is make sure with a magnifier whether the rust spots have a three-dimensional appearance, because they should have grown out of the glaze. Identifying by the bottom is perhaps not that easy because production of such small items would probably have differed. They may not have been processed the same way. A grayish clay would correspond to Longquan wares.
The clay its made from is white. I have made some detailed pictures hope you can make out more and maybe can see if this is really old, yuan or early ming or maybe new. The iron spots actually are little craters. Like the glaze got sucked in by the iron particles. It looks kind of gray but that the light shining on it so you can the contours. I had this also posted on an antiques facebook group but since nobody reacted i posted it here from a tip by a friend. I actually got a reaction on that fb group by an celadon expert and he immedeatly shot it down. He said the form of the cups etc are not from that era and he said the glaze is way to new and he wouldnt even call it an antique. I dont really care if its made in the 14th century or 20th century but i just want to know from when it is. Hopefully you can tell more with the new detailed pics. Grts apple
More
Pics
More
Det
Few
Pics
More
Pics
Pics
More
Pics
More
Pics
More
Pics
More
Pics
More
More
The clay its made from is white. I have made some detailed pictures (20 posts or something below here)i hope you can make out more and maybe can see if this is really old, yuan or early ming or maybe new. The iron spots actually are little craters. Like the glaze got sucked in by the iron particles. It looks kind of gray the rust spots but thats the light shining on it so you can the contours. The are dark brown or blackish. I had this tea set also posted on an antiques facebook group but since nobody reacted i posted it here from a tip by a friend. I actually got a reaction on that fb group by an celadon expert and he immedeatly shot it down. He said the form of the cups etc are not from that era and he said the glaze is way to new and he wouldnt even call it an antique. So i dont know what to think about it anymore. I dont really care if its made in the 14th century or 20th century but i just want to know from when it is. Hopefully you can tell more with the new detailed pics below. Grts apple
> Like the glaze got sucked in by the iron particles
That might be right...but really, an inspection with a magnifier of more than 20x, or a microscope would be best. Artificial rust spots are usually painted on and have a flat look. Real old ones, if magnified, clearly show that they grew out from underneath the vitrous layer, that is from the clay. Often, but not always, they have a three-dimensional look, and the part below the surface, inside the vitreous glaze, gives as similar impression as stones or sticks in the ice (in winter). you see the part below but it clearly is looking a bit different when imbedded. You really should check this, because fakes often use too many rust spots in order to convince that an item is old. But in the enlarged pictures they seem to be natural ones. Being natural means having age. It takes considerable time for iron to grow from the clay through a thick glaze.
Whether the clay is light gray os white does not really matter. That depends much on the kiln, where the clay was mined, in what depth, and how much it was refined before use. Clay color varies depending on location and depth where it was mined.
The crazes in the vitreous glaze may develop with age. Artificial ones do not usually look this way. But not sure IF it is possible to create them this way, nowadays.
I do not understand why you want to force a decision on this? Do you want to sell it?
We often keep items for years until we find some proof for or against authenticity, or similar items.
Shape of such miniature items cannot be expected to be the same as larger ones. It is even doubtful that they were thrown on a wheel, as they would with normal size items. More likely would be they were made at least partially in a mould, or completely with hand tools.
It is not possible to tell more from pictures, I'm afraid.
(Basically, I'm against telling people that an item is 'that or that'...too many times we have been told this ourselves and later it turned out differently. For example I have been told repeatedly that Longquan clay is gray, but then I had to disassemble one of my repaired Longquan plates and the clay was white like snow...debunked. There are always exceptions.)
All I can tell is that the celadon glaze is resembling a later Longquan glaze, but not any other one I know. It might be an imitation thereof made at Jingdezhen, though. And, as bit of peripheral knowledge, namely that the use of burial wares decreased in about the Yuan or early Ming dynasties.
Further, any shapes would not have to conform to later Ming or Qing dynasties, when these changed and continued in a more or less similar way throughout, to the end of the Qing dynasty. Those shapes conform more to those made at Jingdezhen. Shape variations before and up to the Yuan dynasty were much more plenty, made in a wide area of China, often dependent on individual kilns. I would not dare insisting on a certain shape.
My advice is find a knowledgeable collector in your area and have him/her do a hands-on inspection. Or wait until something similar comes around. Sometims questions regarding items' authenticty or age resolve themselves over time.