Commenting is deactivated.

Please post all new topics and queries to the
Discussion Forum


by Andrew

I have a rather beautiful blue bowl with writing inside arranged in 8 verses each verse being of six characters.
Would really love some info on this bowl, particularly if it's modern or not.
Have included 2 pictures, one of the mark & a close up of one of the verses.
Will be very grateful for any input.


Click here to add your own comments

Oct 03, 2010
by: peter

Hi Andrew,
This is my personal opinion. You asked about the mark, not about the piece itself.
My opinion wasn't based on the mark as the mark should always be the last thing looked at. There have always been spurious marks as those of earlier reigns were often copied on later porcelain, since at least the Qing dynasty.

I feel that the foot rim itself is not right for the Ming dynasty. The glaze inside the rim and crackling also give rise to some doubts. But nobody's knowledge is perfect and I suggest you always ask for a second opinion.

Can tell me what you think that this item is?

Oct 02, 2010
by: Anonymous

Thanks Peter,
could you tell me why you think this mark seems to be a fake?
Someone emailed me & told me that according to the chinese ceramics author Stephen Bushell in his book 'oriental ceramic art',first published in 1896...that the Xuande mark, quote "occasionally the last four characters(in plain form), are found impressed with a squre seal to the base"...suggesting that the normal four character mark was even then, known to have been used.
I have identified ten characteristic features of this piece which fit it into those features found on Xuande porcelain of the period...even down to the Mohammadan blue glaze, however I have know knowledge of Chinese writings...could the translation of the inscriptions aid dating or is this piece a fake & not worth investigating any further?
Your further comments would be very much appreciated.
regards, Andrew.

Oct 02, 2010
by: peter

Hello Andrew,
The mark says "Made in the Xuande years". That would be a Ming dynasty reign, but this seems to be a spurious mark. The bowl cannot be from the Ming dynasty.

Click here to add your own comments

Return to Ask a question or contribute - archived 2011.

search by keyword