Commenting is deactivated.

Please post all new topics and queries to the
Discussion Forum

WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ONE PETER!

by Andrew

Hello again Peter,
I think you are doing a terrific job in assisting the many of thousands of people who want to know more about what they have...you advice is invaluable, thank you again.
I came across this very small unassuming bowl, which was for sale, rather by accident,as it was grouped with other modern crockery in a shop.
The price was a pittance, perhaps reflecting it's assumed unimportance,but I bought it anyway & on the long 5 hour drive back home from hospital I started to think about this little piece & wondered could it really be a genuine piece of GUAN-type ceramic produced all those years ago, by the ancient potters.
I don't think I could be that lucky! because these types of pieces are RARE, if not more than likely a REPRODUCTION.
I would greatly appreciate if you could help me to know when this piece might have been made,considering the piece has no discernable foot!..very unusual & unlike any other images of similar type glazed ware I have encountered on the web.
I know that REPROS are getting so much better, but I am puzzled with making a determination on this one as I have not been able to see, eyes on at least, on a real GUAN -TYPE specimen from the Northern districts, late Song Dynasty, or from the more numerous ware from the later Southern districts.
Anyway, heres a layman's description of the glaze type on my piece.
Under a 10 x loop the glaze is thick,highly opaque ,white/grey in colour & has a sparse, generally even scattering, of larger isolated gas bubbles near the glaze surface & numerous black spots & blips visible at various depths in the glaze.
The surface of the glaze appears to be highly compact with a ripple type, of orange peel texture with a smooth semi gloss lustre in light, spotted liberally with silvery black spots & moon eye craters on the surface.
The crackling appears induced & coloured with a black fading to grey, being the only colour.
The glaze edges & high areas of the piece appear to have a visible iron red staining, which is not affected by an acetone scrub.
The bowl has an old age crack running up one side,which appears yellowed & the bowl leaks a little water somewhere from underneath, but the exit crack is not visible with my loop.
The bowl is conical with a flat smooth footless base.
The paste is stoneware with some coarse grit,but I am not able to deduce the thickness of the stoneware accurately,however, the side walls & base seem uniform in throwing thickness so I measured the side wall to be approximately 5 mm.s thick with the total glaze encasement....whether this stoneware can be regarded as thickly or thinly potted, I have no idea,but read somewhere that it might be important to id in dating authentic period pieces.
The interior of the base has an obvious ridged spiral, perhaps made by the potter's finger.
Could this piece be a brush pot?
Would love some more of your knowledge & observations.
regards,Andrew.

Comments for WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ONE PETER!

Click here to add your own comments

Feb 21, 2012
 pock-mark of water damage
by: T.L

I would like to know about pock-mark of water damage
in old ceramic.
Feb 16, 2012
 continued comments
by: peter

>and lastly,the beautiful Song period Jun glazed >wares are described as being made of clay of a >purple colour...does this mean it is also >porcelain, as you make no distinction between >stoneware & porcelain as to Chinese, you mention

Chinese distinguishes mainly between pottery and porcelain. There was no "stoneware" term before, although the material may have existed. Please read the definition I gave for porcelain on the site, being aware that there were clay mixes using kaolin partially, and low-fired kaolin wares did also exist. The definition is somewhat simplified and strict. Not all clays fit into either of the two categories.
Stoneware is a term that has come from Europe. The classification of wares is different in China and as far as I know there was no systematic use of stoneware, although some kilns did produce items corresponding to this.

I don't know whether the early Jun wares were pottery items or not. The current position is that at least the later wares were porcelain. I don't know of any purple color clay other than that of Yixing.

You should be aware that the Jun kiln system was huge. As far as I know there were at least 500 individual kilns spreading from Inner Mongolia (southern Mongolia) to the north of the Chang Jian (Yangtze river) covering a period of hundreds of years. Its size is probably also the reason that it is included in the so-called eight great kiln system of the Song dynasty (see https://www.chinese-antique-porcelain.com/song-dynasty.html). It is very likely that some produced always, or early on, wares which were pottery with a glaze. Generally said, kilns were always located near locations were clay could be mined and wood or coal could be sourced for firing.
I have only a limited knowledge of such Song/Yuan wares. Those with the higher collecting value seem to be those centering on the original Jun kiln. Today fakes of Jun ware proliferate.

BTW, in your first submission you mentioned Ge as "imperial kiln". As far as i know none of the kilns except perhaps "Guan" can be considered an imperial kiln. In the Song dynasty the court ordered porcelain, that is specific types of porcelain to be made especially for the palace, from various different kilns. There was no distinction between imperial and private kilns at the time, it seems...
Feb 16, 2012
 brush washer
by: peter

Andrew,
I don't really know that much about Ge or Guan or the other wares of the five famous kilns of the Song dynasty. They are rare and extremely costly, and few ...

>could you elaborate on this please, keeping my >brushwasher in focus?

Your brush washer has a flat bottom and is different from the items I have seen. So, I cannot refer to your brush washer's bottom in view to those. It is only that flat bottoms are a possibility and appear now and then.

Generally said, as far as I remember most Ge and Fangge wares have a narrow foot rim. It is the coloration of the rim and its vicinity that makes the old and new ones different. With the old ones the foot rim seems to be mostly narrow and black or blackish. This is because iron oxide was applied, which makes it look that way after firing.
Many newer ones don't have this dark color. It is just difficult to describe. Even for someone like me with little experience in that field, they give a feeling of "oldness" that none of the newer creations can replicate.
It is tis coloration that is frequently different in Ming and Qing Fangge wares, and makes them look newer.

BTW, the old one is "Ge" while the Ming and Qing ones should be called "Fangge", not vice versa. Actually, the Chinese call it "Fangge glaze" (not porcelain) for Ming, Qing and later items, because the glaze was imitated, not necessarily the Ge porcelain items themselves. Thus the Fangge glaze can refer to a Qing item (body) with a crackled glaze (e.g. any crackled glaze).
Feb 16, 2012
 FURTHER QUESTION ABOUT "CRACKLE WARE BY PETER"
by: ANDREW

Thanks for sharing again, Peter.

if I may,in Crackle Ware by Peter, you say... "mostly it is the bottom that is different"...could you elaborate on this please, keeping my brushwasher in focus?

also, what are the most noticeable differences that you have come across, in the bases from Ming/Qing period Ge ware when compared to genuine old fangge ware?

and lastly,the beautiful Song period Jun glazed wares are described as being made of clay of a purple colour...does this mean it is also porcelain, as you make no distinction between stoneware & porcelain as to Chinese, you mention they are the "same"?
regards,Andrew
Feb 14, 2012
 GE
by: peter

Hi Andrew.

How is it possible,for the few, RARE Song Period described Ge pieces, catalogued & sold for huge sums of money at major auction, if no mention is made of any conclusive testing?
How are they proved genuine & of the period as there were no marked wares from this time, apart from numbers...WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS?

The answer is provenance. If they come from a renowned collector or collection, and the experts find no problem with the item, they will sell them as genuine. Some items sold may be fake that escape the expert's eyes, but the top auction houses will try to avoid fakes. The smaller the auction house the more fakes you will find, because they are less able to avoid all fakes. Auction houses want to make commissions and thus will handle an item without proof, if there is no problem found, otherwise, as long as there is provenance (and the commission could be substantial!). Buyers have the opportunity to inspect all items in person before the auction, and may have to decide by themselves if an item is genuine.

Items are generally thought to be genuine when they have a proven owner's record, or were excavated from a soil strata (tombs) belonging to a specific period, or are found in other circumstances that are considered safe.
See why auction houses love provenance? They want to compensate with provenance for the lack of expert knowledge and substantial scientific proof.
I heard that Bonhams has started cooperating with an university for doing spectrometric analysis on a larger number of items in future. The way to go in my view, in this world of fakes...

Would it be prudent to scratch a small area of the base of my pot, to determine the actual colour of the stoneware?
Hypothetically, as I really could not afford it anyway, would further scientific analysis on my pot be worth investigating?
Would I be imposing, if I was to ask you, which characteristics of my GE-style pot, point to a late Qing,or early Republic period date attribution?

Is "pot" that what I think is a brush washer? I don't think it is necessary to go so far. Usually, with this type of item it is accepted that it is porcelain. We have no difference between stoneware and porcelain in Chinese ceramics, not really. And, I don't think that proving your item to be genuine late Qing via scientific testing would be worthwhile, financially. Fangge wares are generally not that highly priced as the real Ge wares.

Some additional information. "Ge" means elder brother; there is also a ware called "Di" (younger brother). They were brothers. Di kiln is better known as Longquan kiln.

If you read about the scarcity of Song Ge wares, you should rad about Ru wares, the epitome in this respect.

Feb 14, 2012
 REPLY TO PETER RE GE-TYPE POT
by: Andrew

Hello Peter,
and thanks again for your swift & much valued response.
I did some more online reading & in most instances, the first true Ge wares, that survived, were composed of an iron grey colour stoneware, with a glazed base with identifiable spur/stilt marks...these pieces,about 100 or so, were judged to be from the later Imperial kiln/s established in the Southern provinces of China.

It is believed that the first true Ge-ware from the original Imperial kiln were made in the Northern province of China & none exist intact today.Apparently the originating Imperial kiln was destroyed by an invading army.

However, I also read that shard remains & archaic Chinese writings, confirm that the very first Ge wares were made from more than one type of stoneware, a buff colour was mentioned as well. Also that some of the ware was footless.

All this is fascinating reading for me, but how much is accurate we can never really know,as I have found, much, online factual information,when compared side by side,is not of consensus, & can be open to varied interpretation!

I have also read that sophisticated lab testing carried out on catalogued museum pieces with attributed periods of production,have produced tabulated information on crystalline properties & bubble structures of these attributed pieces.

I conclude from this, that at least a structural reference is available to either include or exclude other pieces that could be forwarded for a comparative, result analysis..or a destructive TLS test to date wares.

How is it possible,for the few, RARE Song Period described Ge pieces, catalogued & sold for huge sums of money at major auction, if no mention is made of any conclusive testing?
How are they proved genuine & of the period as there were no marked wares from this time, apart from numbers...WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS?

Would it be prudent to scratch a small area of the base of my pot, to determine the actual colour of the stoneware?
Hypothetically, as I really could not afford it anyway,would further scientific analysis on my pot be worth investigating?
Would I be imposing, if I was to ask you, which characteristics of my GE-style pot, point to a late Qing,or early Republic period date attribution?
knowledge humbly accepted,
Andrew.
Feb 13, 2012
 crackle ware
by: peter

Hi Andrew,
Looks like a good find. However, this would be Ge ware, I think.
Guan has basically a plain glaze, with a few items having rather large crackles. Everything with small crackles is considered to be either Ge ware, or the later Fangge ware (meaning items with a "similar glaze like Ge ware", but not in the sense of a fake item; just as something with a similar glaze that was made later). This includes the Ming and Qing dynasties.
This could be a brush washer. The spiral rib would be good for stroking a brush against, to get the ink flowing off the hairs into the water.

I don't know enough about Ge wares to date them. At least not more than you... :-)
I have seen a few genuine Fangge wares from the Qing dynasty, and lots of new fakes. I have a few here. As of now I do not know for sure how to tell the the real ones from the fakes, although when I see an old one, this is recognizable. Mostly it is the bottom that is different. I know others are having this problem too.

My guess would be yours is from the time of the late Qing dynasty to perhaps the early republic, but I am not very sure about this.

Click here to add your own comments

Return to Ask a Question or Contribute - archived 2012.

search by keyword