Imperial mark pheonix small plate

[smak]

Hi All,

I just purchased this, it kinda looks good to me but I do have some doubts.

What do you guys think?

[peterp]

This is a known Qing dynasty decoration, but I also have some doubts. One is the rim shape, then the decoration underneath the plate rim. Such rim shapes were relatively rare on domestic porcelain, and the decoration underneath could be common for the Kangxi, or in red even in the Jiaqing reign, but not the Qianlong reign.  Normally it would be twigs, however.
Is the foot rim straight up? I wonder if it could be Jiaqing or even Daoguang, in such a case.
Not sure if this has a worm-back foot rim, but if it has, it is suspicious. This was a very common product.

[smak]

Thanks Peterp! When do you think this was made then?

[peterp]

My apology, I retract what I said regarding rim shape. I found examples in my older books of private kilns which show the same rim shape and decoration pattern. They were marked as being from the Qianlong and Daoguang periods, respectively. So, it seems the period of the mark could about be right. However, if the foot rim is straight it still should be Jiaqing-Daoguang, rather than Qianlong. The Qianlong mark was also used in the early Jiaqing reign.
Any age or usage signs, fleabites on the plate rim, etc.?

[smak]

Hi Peter,

I just got this plate today! There are some fleatbites on the plate, please see pictures!

[smak]

More

[smak]

Hi Peter,

Previously you mentioned this was a pretty common plate, who were these plates made for? Was this for commoners?

Many Thanks,
Smak

[peterp]

Yes, made for the common people, at a private kiln. The quality of imperial items is not easily missed.  BTW, that is not an 'imperial' mark. It is just a zhuanti mark which was predominant in the Qianlong reign, even on private kiln wares. Only the worm back is not common on private kiln wares. But sometimes they do have this too. The decoration quality of such wares is much lower than that of those made at the imperial kiln.