logo for chinese-antique-porcelain.com
Home
Blog / Forum
Glossary
.............................. Ancient China Trade
Image Gallery
Marks
Authentication
Cyclic Calendar
Chinese Calendar
History timeline
Ming-Qing Emperors
Major Collections
Porcelain Age Signs
Reproductions
Fake Antiques
Buying Antiques
Value of Antiques
............................... E-Book
Porcelain Care
China Repair
............................... Chinese Zodiac
Chinese Tea Culture
Search
Sitemap
............................... Privacy Policy
Contact
About

[?] Subscribe To This Site

XML RSS
Add to Google
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My MSN
Subscribe with Bloglines

LEFT for chinese-antique-porcelain.com

FURTHER QIANLONG SEAL COMPARISONS WITH OBSOLETE CHARACTER,(qiao)

by Andrew

Hi Peter,
I read again your interesting article on the false expert assumptions in the case of genuine Qianlong seals...I tried to find the link again but am lost!
Peter, could you analyse this mark for me as I think it reinforces similarities in other qianlong seal forms you encountered in the past, which have been denounced as FAKE, by one so called expert etc.
AN idea of which water character seal version on this mark & any other thoughts you have, would be greatly appreciated,
yours sincerely,Andrew.

Comments for
FURTHER QIANLONG SEAL COMPARISONS WITH OBSOLETE CHARACTER,(qiao)

Click here to add your own comments

Nov 21, 2011
 My emperial seal
by: Allen

My Chinese friend told me this mark on this enameled palace size bowl was made for royal family, and the value of such item is higher than non-royal qianlong mark. Is that true?
p1.la-img.com/1174/26694/10272739_8_l.jpg

I doubt that the mark at above link is what your friend thinks, namely an imperial mark. Just that there is a character in the mark that means it was made for the palace does not mean the item is genuine imperial ware. It could be an apocryphal mark on a later item.
Qianling imperial marks were mostly in blue and very carefully handwritten in Zhuanti characters, not stamped.

Peter
Aug 08, 2011
 Andrew still the novice I think.
by: Andrew

Hi Peter,
thanks again for the clarification.
I really only possess one book on Oriental ceramics by Hobson & the rest of my info(not knowledge) I try to accept in good faith from the internet, my only accessible source of info.
I guess I have to figure which bits of info are credible & which are not.
Apart from that there is always the local auction house where caveat emptor reigns supreme & I am there sometimes in those dark murky waters.
Thankyou for your acknowledgement of me, but really I have a long way to go, but believe being limited in many capacities, one can only go so far.
yours sincerely,
Andrew.
PS: looking forward to your insight in the images of the vase I posted, hope I,m not too far off the mark, any reaction most welcome from you as always.
Aug 08, 2011
 marks etc.
by: peter

Hi Andrew,
Please don't get confused by the .... "reign mark". Some people seem to call this a "period mark", but the Chinese literally means "year recording mark".

As the reign name was used for year notation in ancient times, the reign in which was supposedly made was written by some private kilns and almost always by the imperial (official) kiln in the mark. That marks are called reign marks does not mean the items are imperial or made for the court.

If something is "of a reign" (or of the period) it means the item was supposedly made during the reign which the marks states, not later (unless it is an apocryphal mark). It does not say, however, whether it is a private kiln or imperial item.
Usually the "imperial" is added just for that purpose, to clarify that it was made in the imperial kiln.

I don't know if I explained that sufficiently clear, I hope I did, but just let me know if it is still confusing; I will elaborate ...
Aug 08, 2011
 REPLY TO PETER
by: Andrew

Reply to Peter,
about this iron red seal mark....sorry Peter, you are right, I had 2 webpages open & mixed the comms.
earlyming.com is the site I was looking at as you say, and it was there that I was able to find comparable Qianlong reign marks in similar seal forms as mine, that in fact are genuine older Qianlong reign period marks.
Reading about this information then, could you answer me what is the difference between an Imperial Qianlong reign seal mark & a genuine Qianlong reign seal mark, termed as such,by earlyming.com, as in the case of the seal mark with backward 5....is the difference that one is of the period only, but not Imperial as well?
I will add some images of the particular vase concerned.
humbly yours,
Andrew, still the novice.

No need for that "novice", Andrew. I know that you know considerable more than many other collectors.
Peter
Aug 07, 2011
 Qianlong mark
by: peter

Hi Andrew,
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but maybe you followed a link on the site to earlyming.com?

Basically, this one is possible as a Qianlong period mark, in my view, but the mark cannot be from imperial ware.
The third character 'qian' (middle top) has a left and a right part, and on the bottom of the left part you can see a character part that looks like a '2'. While this way of writing is possible, with imperial wares this small part looks like a '5' (mirror image of the former). I was told this is ALWAYS the case. Apart from that I cannot comment anything on this mark.
This being from a minyao (or private kiln), the variations in marks is much larger than imperial marks. There are sometimes abbreviations in strokes, etc., thus with private kilns it is difficult to judge from that if it is a period item.

Most Qianlong marks are in blue, handwritten, but there are a few in red too. There are even stamped red seal marks, but they seem to be rare also. There are always exceptions to the rule.

Better upload images of the item to make sure what or from when it is.

Click here to add your own comments

footer for antique Chinese porcelain page