Any input welcome

[Kerry Langford]

Morning all,
Helping a friend of mine sort out all inherited items and this is one of them. Attached is also a letter from Christies from 1985. I do realise however that this is only one opinion so would appreciate some other comments. It is not in the best of shape but is still quite a nice vase.
Thanking you

[Kerry Langford]

[non-essential text removed by admin]

Charles Allsopp very much enjoyed meeting you on our recent
visit to South Africa
Since our return to London I have spoken to our Chinese
department about the vase you discussed with Charles Allsopp,
and their comments are as follows:-
The vase is Chinese of 16th or 17th century and
we suggest if it is in perfect condition, and if
offered at auction in one of our sales would fetch
between ?800/1200 (Sterling), I am returning your
photographs herewith.

[peterp]

Without further cleaning it may be difficult to tell more about the glaze, but it could be indicative in view to whether this could be authentic or not. A hands on inspection with magnifier, plus weight evaluation might be appropriate. I must say, however, that I find the bottom questionable.
The problem I see is that there is a spiral on the bottom from throwing. That is quite unusual with the production methods used in ancient China. On top of this, the picture gives the impression that there are chatter marks. If there is a spiral, there would be no reason for chatter marks. On the other hand, if there are chatter marks, as the  picture seems to indicate, then there could be no spiral.

[Stan]

would not the spiral on the bottom point to a modern potters wheel?

[peterp]

Yes, that is what I was suspecting, Stan. Usually, the spiral is an imprint from the potter's wheel, but there is another issue. If the bottom was made separately on a wheel and then attached to the body, it would theoretically  be  possible that the spiral is the trace of a tool used to shape the underside of the bottom, which would have been lying with the underside up on the wheel, to allow making a foot rim.  It would require a hands-on inspection to verify if the bottom could have been separately made, but personally I think it is unlikely. for the period mentioned.
That is why a mentioned the chatter marks. Chatter marks are from shaving the bottom and any shaving would remove the spiral, so however we consider this, it is unlikely.  My personal view is that this item poses too many questions, that can only be resolved by hands-on inspection. This type of bottom is also not very common on authentic items of this type.

[Kerry Langford]

Thank you for the input Peter. I now stand at the point where I might need some assistance on who I could approach for a more indepth study but that is where I might hit a bit of a wall. I am located in Cape Town, South Africa and am not sure if anyone would be able to assist me here. I have already taken it to 3 people but the opinions are so varied I have no idea who's opinion would be the right one to go with. To give you an idea the opinions are between Pretoria approximately 20yrs of age to Asian approximately 150yrs of age to 'I have no idea'. See the problem here? If someone does have a suggestion it would be very much appreciated.

Have an awesome day