Pelo que entendi são da dinastia Ming mas não sei de que século são nem o valor neste estado. Uma delas tem uma esbeicadela e a outra falta a tampa.
Hi everyone,
I’m hoping some of the experts here can help me identify this Chinese porcelain vase.
I found it several years ago, and I’ve been researching it ever since. I’ve compared it to examples from museum collections, auction catalogs, and published references, but I’m still unsure of its age and origin.
Here are a few details:
Blue-and-white decoration with iron-red accents.
Dragon motif with a garlic-head bottle form.
Unglazed foot with a reddish clay body.
No obvious reign mark.
I’m not looking for an appraisal—I’m mainly interested in learning:
What period does it appear to be from?
Does the decoration resemble a particular kiln, dynasty, or style?
Are there specific details that support or contradict a Ming, Transitional, Qing, or later date?
Is there anything about the foot, glaze, or painting that stands out to experienced collectors?
I’ve included photographs of the entire vase, close-ups of the decoration, and the foot. If there are additional photos that would help, please let me know and I’ll upload them.
I appreciate any opinions or educational insight. Thanks in advance for taking the time to look.
TL;DR: A pair of blue-and-white wave cups with a non standard imperial Yongzheng mark just sold at a European auction for €300,000 against a €4,000 estimate. The internet community is deeply divided. Did a buyer find a multi-million-euro Imperial "Tribute" loophole, or did they buy a heavily romanticized narrative?
To outsiders, the market for Chinese imperial porcelain appears to be a strict science of aesthetics, chemistry, and reign marks. To seasoned collectors, however, it is an ocean where the "water is unimaginably deep" (水很深).
A recent high-stakes bidding war over a pair of wave-and-bat cups at a European auction perfectly illustrates this reality. Originally estimated at a modest €4,000, the lot exploded to a staggering €300,000 hammer price.
This extreme price variance forces us into an open, highly debatable territory of connoisseurship: Did the buyers unearth a misunderstood 18th-century transitional treasure, or did they pay a record-breaking premium for a brilliant narrative?
The Case Against Authenticity:
The Imperial Standard
The design of the cups features an iconic imperial motif: underglaze blue sea waves and crashing rocks paired with overglaze iron-red bats (Shou Shan Fu Hai - 寿山福海).
When evaluating these cups against an authenticated benchmark—such as Lot 3003 from the Beijing Hanhai 2016 Autumn Auction (a certified Yongzheng Mark and Period bowl that sold for RMB 1,368,000)—reproducible stylistic discrepancies immediately emerge:
The Calligraphic Hand:
The six-character mark on the Beijing Hanhai bowl flows with the fluid stability of a designated court calligrapher. On the €300,000 pair, characters like Nian (年) and Zheng (正) are geometrically rigid, showing the microscopic hesitations of a copyist tracing a template.The Physics of Cobalt: The authentic benchmark features smoothly layered, translucent, cloud-like cobalt washes. The disputed cups show aggressive "pooling" where dark cobalt forms heavy, unnatural blotches.
The Asymmetric Rings:
The double rings framing the mark on the disputed pair narrow on one side and widen on the other, indicating a wheel wobble that would normally cause an official imperial supervisor to reject and smash the piece instantly.
Because modern laboratory tests like XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) and Thermoluminescence (TL) are fundamentally incapable of drawing a precise timeline for ceramics under 500 years old due to overlapping margins of error, the scientific baseline remains completely silent. The final verdict rests entirely on human argumentation.
The Case For Authenticity:
The Tang Ying and "Tribute" Variables
How do the buyers justify a €300,000 bid against these apparent flaws? They bypass the rigid "Palace Style" parameters entirely and lean into the highly nuanced history of Tribute Porcelain (Gong Ci - 贡瓷).
The Early Tang Ying Management Period (Post-1728): Tang Ying was sent to Jingdezhen in 1728 by the Yongzheng Emperor. During his earliest years as an assistant manager, the imperial kilns underwent radical administrative shifts. Proponents of the cups argue that early-reign Yongzheng wares regularly exhibited erratic calligraphy and variable cobalt quality as kiln masters attempted to replicate archaic Ming dynasty "heaping and piling" effects.
High-Official Presentation Wares:
The buyers' primary hypothesis is that these cups were not regular bureaucratic orders. Instead, they argue the pair represents a private commission by high-ranking regional leaders or wealthy salt merchants meant as an imperial gift. Because these presentation pieces were executed outside the direct oversight of the palace's strict calligraphic checkers, subtle formatting errors were tolerated.
Food for Thought:
The Limits of Expertise, "Minyao," and the Image Trap
This brings us to a critical, systemic issue in the antique porcelain world that every collector must ponder: What happens when a piece steps outside the textbook definitions, and how do we actually judge it?
While official imperial kilns (Guanyao 官窑) followed strict, documented blueprints, China was home to thousands of regional, provincial, and private kilns known as Folk or Private Kilns (Minyao 民窑). Relying strictly on "expert experience" to judge a true Minyao piece is incredibly difficult—if not downright impossible—unless it is a highly common, "open door" (一眼真) object of daily use by regular citizens. For high-end, customized luxury wares produced by these thousands of private kilns, there are simply no standard textbooks or referenced museum pieces to look at. An expert, no matter how seasoned, may be looking at a unique commission they have quite literally never seen before in their lifetime.
Compounding this difficulty is our modern reliance on digital auction catalogs. In this field, it is a fatal mistake to rely solely on high-resolution images to pass judgment on complex items. Unless an object is a textbook, glaringly obvious "open door" piece, a photograph cannot capture the true essence of porcelain. Digital lenses heavily distort the subtle color gradients of underglaze blue, alter the perceived depth of a glaze, and flatten the tactile weight and three-dimensional texture of the porcelain paste.
True connoisseurship requires a literal "hands-on" (上手 - shangshou) examination. A piece that looks flat or clumsy on a computer screen might reveal spectacular, silky, jade-like "mutton-fat" maturity and historical presence when rotated in the palm of an expert's hand.When an object is under 500 years old, science remains silent, images deceive, and historical templates for private kilns do not exist. This is exactly why some items require a collaborative panel of multiple experts debating back and forth to reach a subjective, democratic final determination.
Conclusion
The debate over these cups encapsulates why the Chinese porcelain market is so uniquely high-stakes. One camp sees a highly skilled early-20th-century Republic artisan fabricating a copy from an imperial blueprint. The other camp sees a rare, non-standardized milestone of 18th-century tribute history.
I trust both camps have people who flew out and examined the piece in person. Especially the buyers, who almost certainly sent their representative experts to check them out. Otherwise, they would not have chased the price all the way to a staggering €300,000.
So, I leave it to the community to think: When two world-class experts hold the exact same piece of porcelain in their hands, under the exact same magnifying loupe, and come away with two completely different histories—how deep is the water really? Is a €300,000 hammer price the cost of owning an elite, unrecognized masterpiece, or is it the ultimate price for buying a beautiful, unprovable theory?
What do you guys think? Would you have backed the conservative expert view, or would you have gambled on the buyers' "tribute ware" panel?
Hey everyone,
I picked this up at a garage sale for $10 and I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is.
Here are the details:
Size: About 15.5 inches across and 2.5 inches deep.
Front: Painted scene with figures in traditional dress.
Back: There are four blue characters (Chinese i think?) painted.
Sticker: It also has an old sticker that says "National Museum Philippines," a sun logo, "P 5.00," and a red stamp that looks like "RP 0097145."
My main questions: Can anyone translate the characters on the bottom? Does anyone know if that museum sticker means it was officially registered as an antique at some point? Any rough estimates on age, origin, or what it might be worth?
Thanks in advance!
Can anyone tell me about this bowl? It is 11.75 wide. My mom bought it at a garage sale over 40 years ago. Any insights appreciated!
Pickup from a local sale, any information is greatly appreciated
Well, I ended up with almost 25 more pounds of broken pottery after a recent trip to Verde Island. Sunscreen stick for scale. Some of you may remember last year’s post, where I got 25+ lbs of the stuff from a local fisherman:
Or
I dropped by the same fisherman’s hut this year and he had another bag collected from the beach. Last year he asked 1k pesos (around $16) but I guess this year he knew I wanted it, so he jacked the price up… to 2k pesos. Still a bargain, even if I have no idea what I’m going to do with what by now is probably 70 lbs of the stuff. Yet again I’m going to need a second piece of luggage to bring all of this back home.
Last year (and in years past) I reached out to the Philippines National Museum in Manila, but they indicated they had no interest in it. Presumably because they excavated the shipwreck a few decades ago and have plenty (including whole pieces, the ship’s keel, etc). I think I’m going to contact some of the museums around my home town and see if they have any interest instead. Lord knows I have enough to make a few displays.
Bert briefly backstory on the wreck (that I’ve pieced together). On August 9, 1621 the Spanish Galleon Nuestra Señora de la Vida (“Our Lady of Life”) captained by Captain General Fernando Centeno Maldonaldo was shipwrecked off the coast of Verde Island, only a few days out of Manila. Not due to bad weather, but because of pilot error. Apparently it was a calm day and he just hit a coral reef. The passengers lost all of their belongings and hung the pilot by the neck until dead on the beach. The ship was carrying gold and silk with several dozens of tons of consumer-grade porcelain as ballast. It’s washed up on the shore ever since, even to this day. Although whole pieces are very rare - usually they only wash up after large storms (and even then, not often).
I have no idea of a date of production for this lovely plate i found today whilst going through the charity shops, but though the striking pink colour and phoenix i guess was amazing.
So if anyone could provide any information would be amazing! Thanking you all in advance and its all appreciated
I have gotten this from my late grandfather, and I am wondering what this is. I have searched on the internet but I seem to cant find anything similar. If anyone has an idea i’d love to know the age and origin of this thing
I bought this mug from a yard sale and I’m hoping to be able to drink out of it. Trying to find out more to see if it’s safe to do so!
It looks pretty modern to me and Google Translate thinks the Hanzi says “Jingdezhen” but that didn’t help me identify who made this or when.
From a different post on here I think the brown marks may be kiln marks but I’m not sure if that’s safe to put a hot liquid in it.
Any help is appreciated!
Is this a real Qianlong how much can it be sold
H 12 cm D 14cm
Can anyone give me information on this stamp of my newly acquired Chinese eggshell porcelain bowl? Thank you!
Today, I’m excited to share two unique pairs of scholar's objects from my personal collection, each made from entirely different materials. If you follow my collection, you’ll know I have a weak spot for highly unusual, smaller scholar's objects. The main reason I love collecting smaller items is because they are so easy to store, display, and carry around with me.
Pair 1: A Pair of Bronze "Reclining Brocade-Clad Children" Paperweights / Brush Rests
This first pair consists of two bronze paperweights featuring reclining children in finely detailed robes. These are multi-functional scholar's objects that represent the very peak of literati studio culture from the Ming and Qing dynasties. Here is my breakdown of these pieces:
Core Classification & Dating:
Ming/Qing Scholar's Paperweights (Yachi): Unlike the more primitive styles seen in the Liao and Jin dynasties, this pair showcases the pinnacle of Central Plains craftsmanship from the late Ming to early Qing period (Most of experts think they are from Ming or Qing). The realistic anatomy, delicate facial expressions, and intricate textile patterns perfectly align with the "refined, elegant, and unique" aesthetic favored by scholars of that era.
Dual Functionality: Their substantial weight makes them perfect paperweights (zhenzhi), while the natural curvature created by their upturned feet allows them to function as stable brush rests. This multi-purpose design highlights the ingenuity of ancient artisans. (Note: I found a similar single piece online where the collector dated it to the Liao dynasty. What do you all think?)
Peak Craftsmanship:
Fine Engraving & Refined Bronze: The backs and sides are completely covered in hand-engraved coin patterns and floral vignettes. The layers of "brocade" patterns are incredibly dense yet perfectly organized, showing masterful metalwork.
Heirloom Patina (Heiqigu): The bronze is heavy and highly refined. Over centuries of natural oxidation and handling by scholars, the surface has developed a warm, lustrous, deep purplish-brown patina.
Aesthetic Value & Manufacturing Logic:
Post-Cast Hand-Chiseling: The two children have distinctly different smiles and pattern alignments. This "variation within uniformity" is typical of high-end Ming/Qing bronzeware. While cast from a master model, all the fine details—the facial expressions, hair strands, and brocade patterns—were chiseled and chased entirely by hand after leaving the mold, giving each piece its unique soul.
Dynamic Posture: Their upturned feet and arched backs break up the rigid coldness of the metal, making them feel alive on a desk.
Collection Highlights:
A Surviving Pair: Small, delicate items like these are easily separated over time. The online collector I mentioned only managed to find one. Finding a perfectly matching, pristine pair like this is exceptionally rare. Their animation, crisp detailing, and deep patina make them true masterworks of the scholar's studio.
Summary in one sentence: A matching pair of incredibly rare, masterfully crafted Ming/Qing bronze paperweights/brush rests in the form of auspicious children.
Pair 2: A Pair of Blue and White Porcelain "Auspicious Beast" Brush Rests
This second pair consists of blue and white porcelain brush rests shaped like auspicious beasts. They are highly original, full of folk-art charm, and incredibly rare. I have been collecting for over 30 years and have yet to find another matching pair. Here are my observations:
Core Classification & Manufacturing Logic:
Freehand-Sculpted (Niesu) One-of-a-Kind Wares: These are entirely hand-shaped from raw clay rather than press-molded. The organic, asymmetric differences in their leg thickness, body shapes, and head tilts prove they were sculpted freehand. The underglaze blue brushstrokes were also painted freehand, creating the varying densities in the dot and thunder patterns.
Incredible Rarity: The fact that no similar pieces can be found online suggests that their decorative style (like the geometric patterns on the legs) does not follow standard imperial or major commercial kiln styles. They were likely a passion project or a custom order from a private folk kiln.
Artistic Features:
Sophisticated Naivety: The dragon/beast form is captured with minimalist yet expressive brushstrokes. The head looks charmingly innocent, and the curve of the spine perfectly balances artistic beauty with the practical function of holding brushes.
Folk Art Aesthetics: The dotted patterns on the body contrast beautifully with the geometric thunder patterns (leiwen) on the legs, carrying the raw vitality of traditional folk art. This "spirit over exact form" style represents the peak of folk kiln (minyao) artistry.
Age and Condition:
Centuries of Aging: The natural crackle (ice-split glaze) on the surface, the deep staining where the glaze meets the clay body, and the dry, oxidized "flashing" (iron red) on the unglazed bases all point to the late Qing dynasty or earlier (Most experts think they are from middle to late qing of a local kiln). What is your opinion?
Miraculous Survival: For a fragile, everyday scholar's item to survive turbulent history intact—and as a matching pair—is a stroke of absolute luck for any collector.
If any fellow collectors have found similar brush rests or have any insights on these two pairs, I would love to see them and start a discussion!
Can someone tell me about this piece
One is just under 9” and other is 9”. They feel lumpy when I rub my hands along them.