Chinese Hu form vase impressionistic.

[Stan]

Hi Peter, this is one of the nicest impressionistic vases that I have seen, very talented artist, I could guess at the age, but I am hoping that there is enough information in the calligraphy to date it, my guess is republic period 1912-1949, the hight is 32.4 cm it is all hand drawn and hand painted, there is a couple small rust spots and the vase has an orange like texture other than that there is no age signs, I will post 12 photo's to view, thanks for your help.

[Stan]

Here are four more photo's to view.

[Stan]

Here is the last set of Photo's, thats for your help.

[peterp]

Hi Stan,
First, this is a deer head zun. Don't ask me what "zun" is. We use it for some vessel styles, but this term/character is otherwise not used in modern Chinese. "Hu" is a very common term, however it is not a well defined term either; but this is rather because its usage is too broad. It is used for many different vessel types, including teapots (cha hu), ewers, liquor containers, and many others.

I'm afraid this may be a fake. There are three reasons I believe so.
First, the main reason is that the signature mentions Cheng Men ...he is listed at the top of the Qianjiang style painter hierarchy, that is as the first known painter doing Qianjiang style porcelain painting, and of whom some works remain. Cheng Men lived 1833-1908, He is known to be the (or one of the) first painters of this style. There are several others of the same family name, probably his son(s) and relatives, painting also during that period. The text on your piece mentions ?? year, which would be 1882. 
It was normal for Qianjiang painters to copy earlier artist's works, but often they wrote "copy of the work of ...".  I have never seen one who used "Cheng Men".
Second, although the wavy surface of the glaze is normal during the Guangxu period, here it is a bit too obvious for my taste, covering the whole item. Mostly it is on the bottom, but even if it is on the side it is never so prominent. Looks as if it was exaggerated to emphasize that it is late Qing dynasty.
Third, the early Qianjiang decorations had very soft, sometimes even faint colors. That was due to the color used, which was different from the stronger fencai colors. However, the green and purple of the leaves in the top image are not Qianjiang colors. They are either Fencai colors or the new colors that replaced Qianjiang. The new colors started to appear about 1900 and many Qianjiang painters shifted to them, but 1882 is too early.
I have a plaque dated 1886 by a well-known Qianjiang painter and some colors are generally faint, more than on this item; that is possibly in part due to abrasion of these on-glaze colors during usage.

I am not sure if all written characters would correspond to the period. At least the first and possibly another is not a traditional character. Not sure if it would have been used before the 2nd half of 20th century.

Please double check what I have said above.

[Stan]

Thanks Peter, I will study up on the artist and thanks again.

[Stan]

Hi again Peter, are you saying that some of the Characters are simplified Characters and were not used until 1960 or not before 1882.

[peterp]

It is the handwriting, Stan. Sometimes abbreviated writing was used even in traditional Chinese with handwriting. It is difficult to know for sure if such abbreviated characters were used intentionally by an artisan or if they are a slip by a faker. We just have to. include it in the overall considerations.
The problem is that a part of today's simplified Chinese is coming from simplified writing in earlier times, it was formalized as part of the writing in the PRC. Sometimes the current writers slip  when they write traditional characters on porcelain and write a current simplified character instead.
The first character is definitely used today in simplified Chinese. I suspect that it is/was also written that way in traditional Chinese, but I have not proof for that yet. It does not exidy in a  dictionary of the early Qing dynasty. There is one more character which I have doubts about, but nothing concrete for sure.

It is better to treat the characters as a minor problem, in this case. With some simplified characters it is very clear that they are new PRC characters, but with those on your item they might (or might not) have been used also by artisans on earlier porcelain. I am just expressing my view in the matter.

However, I have found an item signed apparently by Cheng Men in the 1870s. The handwriting is different, the seal is different (it says "Men"), and the characters are so faded that they are almost unreadable. That is the normal condition of Qianjiang of that period.

Thus, it is likely that this was made by someone later...

[peterp]

The colors and condition of the vase are more of a problem. I happen to have a special interest in Qianjiang and to me it just does not fit to what I know. Faded or very soft colors, clear age signs, etc.
Your item also shows little ageing, quite contrary to the majority of Qianjiang porcelain made in the late 19th century, that I have seen or handled until now.

[Stan]

Thanks Peter, I did not no anything about Qianjiang porcelain until now, I know in the past you have mentioned it, I did a search on Christies for Qianjiang porcelain and a hu shaped vase came up and it to was signed by Cheng Men and another artist from 1885, the finish on their vase was smooth compared to this vase but thy Characters were about the same as far as clearly visible and the red mark was different, the auctioneer said that it was republic period, put that could mean anytime in the 20th century right. the artist that painted this is very talented the brush strokes flow with ease and expertise, its amazing to me that an artist of this quality just doesn't paint his own style using his own name, I realize that is what the fakers count on, using a known artist and cashing in on there fame, thanks again Peter for you insight and knowledge.

[peterp]

Stan, basically Qianjiang needs two conditions. The painting is in the classic style of Chinese paintings and, even more important, it needs a specific painting material. The composition of that material was such that no bright colors could be painted. The later ones are already incorporating different material. Qianjiang paints do NOT include glass powder as the fencai enamels do, thus it is completely flat and even with the glaze, not protruding at all. Everything that looks like a classic painting but has enamel is the later new color material that later all but replaced Qianjiang.

Again, Hu Vase is a misnomer. There is no specific shape or form called Hu. It can be said that in Chinese almost any container with a mouth that is smaller than the body diameter and is not a jar can be a Hu, but a vase can never be a Hu.

[Stan]

Good information Peter, thanks,