18 Demigods black vase

T. Chan · May 14, 2014, 03:10:01

Dear Peter and All,
I have a 18 Demigods black vase, it is written Daoguang year. Is it the same period or more recent? Thank you.
Regards,
Taufan

Stan · May 14, 2014, 08:38:08

Hi T Chan, The same would apply here that Peter has already said the bottom foot has been artificially aged, this is a modern made vase late 20th century.

T. Chan · May 14, 2014, 14:58:06

No, the foot rim is not stain. I am looking at it right now. The pic is somehow more brown reddish because of the camera. The real one is very light brown and no stain. This one has not been clean. Let me cleat it first and I will post again the foot rim. Thanks.

T. Chan · May 14, 2014, 15:25:02

Here is the pic of the foot rim. I have just cleat it. The color is exact.

Stan · May 14, 2014, 15:40:32

This is a better picture T. Chan but there are no age signs, it dose not look antique, maybe vintage?

T. Chan · May 14, 2014, 18:39:42

What do you mean by vintage, Stan? You mean Republic era? Or after Republic before 50s? But as far as I know, Republic era mostly copy a more earlier Qing Emperors, but I could be wrong. Lets hear Peter says?
Oh yes btw, thanks Stan, now I know about density of paste(from red gilded vase). I have and know Kangxi density. So, until what period the density is still similar to Kangxi if I may know? Is there any particular Emperor which degrade?

Stan · May 14, 2014, 23:42:38

I would say mid 20th century, the neck of the vase would have been more rounded if antique, and there would be age signs.

Stan · May 14, 2014, 23:54:29

Hi T Chan, I have bought many of vase similar to yours and found out that they were good reproductions, on this vase I am sure it was made in two sections maybe three, I found that a mirror with a light to view the inside goes a long way to authenticate, where they joined the pieces together the newer vases would have a very even seam all around but the antique vases would have been not so, very uneven and small chunks of porcelain all around the seam and then you have the Ming and early Qing where the seams were rubbed out but you can still see all the cracks around the seam that clearly would be visible, the newer would have very little to no cracks.

T. Chan · May 15, 2014, 15:28:28

Dear Stan, I have looked at the inside and also feel it with my hand, there are no joins. Just swirls all way up till neck. But I thought joins are only from Song to early Ming? And additional join at base for Yuan? If I am not wrong. The swirl is rather uneven. I have take a pic of the swirl. Thanks.

Stan · May 15, 2014, 22:49:49

Hi T Chan, it looks like it was made in one piece, the mouth is wide enough for the potter to get his hands in side, sometimes they use a piece of bamboo to turn it and smooth it out, on vases with smaller mouth and neck it would be in two pieces.
If this had been an antique vase there would be pitting and some kiln stress cracks that happens when fired, these would be have dirt in them that can not be washed out, but this looks like it is more recent, I believe it is mid 20th century, it was the 50s that they started painting the faces in a more realistic fashion as on this vase.

T. Chan · May 16, 2014, 02:35:10

Hi Stan, thanks for your comment. I will remember it. Yes I think it must be mid 20th c since the face is too realistic. I wasnt realize that. It looks good though:-) but that was history and will not happen again. Stan, about the pitting, does it work with the Qing court ware too? Until now I still have no idea and what to look about Qing court ware since I dont have one:-)(or don't know which one) But by having a piece, definitely you will not go wrong finding others.
Stan, I just want to ask you, I post a foot rim paste, I suspect to be Qianglong period. Do you think this kind of paste looks promising for that period? Because it looks more denser compare to the one below(the 18 demigods foot rim). Need your point of view. Thanks.

Stan · May 16, 2014, 08:25:19

Hi T Chan, you can't judge by the mark alone and a couple blown up pictures of the bottom, you really need pictures of the whole vase and close ups of any age sign, you are right about the Qing court ware it would have been imperial and flawless as far as I know, I have never owned one my self and have never had the opportunity to handle Imperial porcelain, but I have a lot of books and experts that tell me what to look for, for example the foot rim would have a worm back foot it would be rounded like a worm, I learned that from Peter, I do not think that the foot shown would qualify as a worm back foot.

peterp · May 16, 2014, 08:50:02

I agree with Stan, neither the foot rim nor the glaze within would be imperial. The mark...that is one of the most faked and misunderstood features of porcekain. It can simply not be used for authentication, it can only used for confimration if ALL other factors are right.

T. Chan · May 16, 2014, 17:10:32

Hi too Stan and Peter, I know that the mark is the last to look. I am posting it here because of the paste. I want to learn about the density of the paste and what it is look like for Qianlong period. Because someone told me that the paste of a Court ware porcelain from Kangxi to Jiaqing is dense and solid look. So I thought could it be like this?
So anyway, since this rim is not 'worm back'(I just know it today), then the density of paste must be wrong too. Btw is the meaning of worm back = half of a circle?
Here I post the body of the foot rim. Height is 50cm. (Sorry to post this on the same thread)

T. Chan · May 16, 2014, 17:36:16

Here is another pic. The real color look like this.