Wanli bowl - incised

Started by admin, Dec 17, 2019, 22:56:09

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


(admin - This post by haukech remained unanswered during the recent dB crash. However, image size remaining in the old dB is too small anyway - please post images of around 100 kb for sufficient size and resolution.)

Dear All,
I found this bowl in a local auction a few days ago.
Even if i am not a big fan of bowls i wanted it as i had not seen many of this type. Pictures are from the site, will have more detailed ones of the rim hopefully soon.


Dear All,
Received this message so posting it again.
Unfortunately i dont have other images until i pick it up.


The bottom foot looks to white to me too be from the ming dynasty , I have seen bottoms like this before with the aggressive chatter marks, I will guess early Qing period, let's see what peter says.


Thanks Stan. Maybe transitional. Once i handle it i can for sure share some better pictures.


What are the features that make you think it might be transitional period?

I agree with Stan that the chatter marks are too obvious. In addition, bowls with this type of bottom seldom have that type of top rim shape. But it is old, no doubt. Waiting for your detailed pictures showing also the content of the other 'windows' painted on the side.


A good year to everybody!
Peterp, i had the chance to read over the holidays and found some interesting examples. I was saying Transitional because because i had seen some pierces bowls from the Hatcher Cargo with the same type of panel design (landscapes, trees). The bottom, i have seen similar Wanli pieces. The books range goes from 1600-1620-1640.


Here some detail from the bottom.
An exceprt from a relevant text in my opinion (1997, Chinese Ceramics in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam) included.


Hi, not sure what you want to prove with the book content and the Rijksmuseum. These are a completely different matter from your, in my view. I will keep my answer to more general problems.
You seem to think that the lattice decoration makes it Wanli -- I do not know. But for sure I have seen lattice decorations (through going ones) from the Ming dynasty, before. See picture.

Not sure why you think Rinaldi's item is in any way related to yours. Please see the note posted in "Additional Info".
The items below may not be Kraak, even if they are from the late Ming dynasty.


Basically, what I have doubts about are several things.
1. The shape of the windows, and the decorations in them. I do not know this from Chinese porcelain and cannot say they do not exist, but they are not typical for Kraak, as far as I know.
2. The foot is without a foot rim. This type of base does exist in Ming porcelain, but I still have to see one on Kraak style porcelain... those usually have a foot rim.
3. The chatter marks may or may not be right. While a few late Ming Kraak porcelain does have some, they are usually not as obvious as here. Plus, small Kraak bowl bottoms usually show none at all.

Not sure if this could be Japanese...? The decorations inside the windows look more Japanese style to me, but they might exist on Chinese porcelain too.
Another thing, Japanese copies of Kraak and other Ming style decorations often show excessive chatter marks (and kiln grit).
While chatter marks were normal during certain Ming reigns (only), they were not so towards the end of the Ming dynasty.

To find out for sure about such bowls it may be necessary to find items of exactly the same type.
Personally, I'm ready to learn something new from any reliable source of information.


Thanks for all the feedback Peterp!
The text shared is not from Rinaldi but from Jörg (he suggests to inclide it in kraak but Rinaldi not).
The semi-pierced is mentioned also in some pieces of the Butler collection (High Transitional). Unfortunately it is only mentioned that smaller bowls were common but the items described with pictures refer only to the bigger ones with the usual bottom for their size. As one can see from your pictures of the reticulated bowls, the imagery is quite the same. Ruyi similars on the lower level, diapers to the middle and a line of flower (prunus?) to the top.
I was told that similar pieces do appear in the Bejing Museum collection but unfortunately I did not succeed in finding these. About the inner decoration, the peachspray that looks very Chinese to me though. And is typical Kraak style in my opinion. Again, could be also different. Lets see what we will learn based on new examples.


Hi again, I would like to clarify one thing that some in this forum do agree with. To identify or date something we need to have multiple factors that agree (about five) with the supposed age, origin, etc.
Decoration, whether carved, painted or otherwise is only one of these. Some of these factors have more weight than others, but even if only one actually disagrees with age or origin, even when multiple others agree, then this does not work, which means the authentication or dating result must be negative.
Many of us (most probably, including me) at the beginning looked at similar decorations and tried to decide based on this.
A more intermediate approach is based on shape, base, glaze color tone, pigments used, and painting style. Decoration comes last because it can most easily be copied.

In the case of this bowl it would be necessary to confirm that base without foot rim, and the chatter marks, would have existed in the period you are looking at. Often it is not an easy matter. This often takes time, sometimes years to verify...the answer may come by itself at times.  :-)


Noted! Agree with the logic. In general we are on the same line. Hope that with time as usual new insight will make things clearer, finally thats the challange and beauty of this hobby.


At most it could be early Qing dynasty