Ming censor?

[ssbill]

How old is this censor?

[ssbill]

I want to add the glaze is quite shiny.  It might be a modern fake but I've seen other authentic  examples online with a shiny glaze

[peterp]

It looks old, older than Ming, but I have not enough experience with this type of glaze. If it is not too expensive, it might be worthwhile going for it.

[Stan]

My concern is the High Gloss, that tells me it is later made item.

[ssbill]

It's also my concern. But I've found a few song censers with a glossy glaze. Some are glossy some aren't, but it's just my observation.  perhaps someone can add more to this discussion?

[heavenguy]

The glaze doesn't bother me that much since there is a lot of examples on museums and major auction houses that shines really bright like this one. If you can see more photos you can look for the typical earthworm-track markings on the surface of the glaze. They say they are hard to replicate in modern examples. But still I think this is a nice example that even if not real, it is a nice decoration piece to have.

[peterp]

There we are, talking about Jun glazes. I did not want to say it is Jun because I am not sure...and the shine of the glaze is one reason for that. Worm traces are limited to Jun glazes, but not all have them. But Jun glazes are thick and this one is thin, otherwise the edges would not be bared liked this.
On the other hand, Jun wares were made for a long time, and there are quite a number of different glazes. However, the long neck of the censer would point to Northern Song. However, a Jun item made in the Ming dynasty, for example, could easily replicate the shape.
A lot of "buts"...I would acquire if it was not expensive. After all, we need something to study such glazes with. Pictures are sometimes just not sufficient.

[ssbill]

It's selling for 200$ at a small low key local auction. The auctioneer have no idea what it is or might be. I'll buy it tomorrow. If it's old it would be great if not it is still a nice decorative piece. I'll post my findings here

[peterp]

I would take the risk at that price. There is one anyway with every item bought online. How many times have we discovered that an item is not what it seemed to be once we held it in our hands!

[peterp]

To Stan:
Yes, as a general rule high gloss items are later. By chance I discovered that a certain high profile kiln of the Southern Song dynasty produced both, low and high gloss items. Actually it is two kilns known under the same name. So, as a rule there should be little gloss for early wares, but there are exceptions as with everything in Chinese ceramics.

[heavenguy]

For every rule there is probably an exception (or many), Some rule breakers I have learned so far from collecting Chinese porcelain,

1.- Sometimes, not every time, the lack of high-gloss in an antique item can mean the item is a fake.

2.- Yes, even an item that is over 1000 years old can look like new.

3.- Sometimes people buy things and never use it. Just multiply that by a hundred years and you have a "oh that is not a ming because it doesn't have scratches" type of vase.

4.- Not because I have never seen one, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

5.- Also, sometimes, when the weather is nice and the starts align, you can find an imperial ware at your local thrifty shop.

6.- Feel free to add your own...

[Stan]

Thanks Peter, from now on I will not assume that a high gloss means its later.

[peterp]

No, Stan, that is not exactly what I meant. High gloss is still making it more likely that an item is later, as a rule, and applicable to many cases.  It is just that there are 'some' exceptions.

And to heavenguy:
> 1.- Sometimes, not every time, the lack of high-gloss in an antique item can mean the item is a fake.
It often does, just not every time. But this is also somewhat dependent on the period. With more ancient or pre-Ming kilns (not JDZ kilns) gloss was more unlikely, but a very few of those kilns made high gloss items. Gloss is related to the vitreous glaze, and its thickness, not to age. Gloss is more likely encountered in the Ming and Qing dynasties. I always say a glaze can reflect light but should not mirror objects or people. That is too shiny.

>2.- Yes, even an item that is over 1000 years old can look like new.
Here too, don't take that as a new rule thinking that a 'new' look can be ignored. Only few items look new after so long a time. Again, gloss is not equal to age, or the lack of it. It depends on the quality of the vitreous glaze.

>4.- Not because I have never seen one, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Careful with that too, that is true to some point, but some fakes have shapes that actually did never exist. They are just new creations.

>5.- Also, sometimes, when the weather is nice and the starts align, you can find an imperial ware at >your local thrifty shop.
Hehe, as a first condition you need to be knowledgeable to recognize something of value, a. Then comes luck, you need a lot too. But you probably are aware that were valuable are most likely gone before they are in the thrift shop. Owners often sell better items to antique dealers before they appear on the shelves in the thrift shop. That is how some antique dealers get their wares.

Just always consider multiple features in few to authenticity or dating, and keep an open mind for any possible non-standard variations of porcelain features.

[ssbill]

I bought it. I emailed a sothebys senior  specialist with more photos. They say it looks credible and likely to be a yuan tripod censer and they would like to inspect it  to sell  it at their september auction. I guess the stars aligned and the weather was good.

[Stan]

Good job SSbill!!!!