Kangxi Mark and Period Orange Flambe Bowl | ||
| betweenthelens's loves237 of 1614 |  |  |
kyratango loves this.
vintagelamp loves this.
truthordare loves this.
Mrstyndall loves this.
SEAN68 loves this.
betweenthelens loves this.
mikelv85 loves this.
dlpetersen loves this.
iggy loves this.aura loves this.Caperkid loves this.
jscott0363 loves this.
ho2cultcha loves this.
Anik loves this.
fortapache loves this.Tigra loves this.Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate
Posted 7 years ago
ho2cultcha
(5051 items)
i think this is a very rare Kangxi bowl - signed. I love the damage to it, because it's the only way i could ever afford it. i'd love to learn more about it if anyone knows these. Thank you!
Help us close this case. Add your knowledge below.
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
Ahh, that glaze. Special.
thanks racer!
I love the color!
And the form, of course!
The copper red ceramics from Ming/Qing dynasty are not something for beginner. I think this one is a fake but the foot rim looks OK. Why? Because if it was real, this sort of piece are called ??, which are under-glazed copper red porcelains. This one is over-glazed. Why the foot rim looks OK? Because it Could be repaired and re-glazed with genuine foot from a damaged piece.
That's my two cents. An similar auction record can be found here
http://auction.artron.net/paimai-art0014390020/
i dont know what is , i am guessing an sort of granula flambe , the mark is rather delicate , it is not a one stroke signing, i am guessing late qing maybe early republic ?, i wonder if this is sprayed i love this very much
thank you apostata. what does the mark say?
da qing kangxi nian zhi , looks difficult but actually it is simple , because the mid under got 4 dots
i ruled it out to real kangxi , because of the bottom glazing , and there aren,t much monocores and if there they are mostly tangluo xi ( water bassins ) this form monocolor is not known to me, IMO it is not a peachbloom glazing and this is an sort of granula glazing and not an official form , it is not dry copper glaze
this type of bowls i think appear from late guanghu to yesterday
i think the really the very got an denser glazing, hard to assess the corrion , because an part is likely overflow but IMO it got some age
this is the academic discussion i extrapolated ( 4 character and 6 chartaer mark ) not real meticolous but to get an idea
discussion between the experts Lei RuiChun and Bill Hewick ( take care it is extrapolated!!)
Apocryphal Kangxi are not prior to Daoguang and even then they are rear , IMO but i am not the expert in general not prior to Guanghu ( kangxi revival blue white)
apocryohal Yongzheng and Qianlong not prior to Guanghu
addendum IMO important because people are railroading all the time for considerate amounts of money
Apocryphal Jiaging Daogung Xianfeng reig marks not before Guanghu period but mostly always early republic
apocrophal tongzhi and guanghu are after 1960, so to buy guanghu mark porcelain , you can only assess by the glazing and the tonality
well thats was a lot of babbling
now something very practical , because the most late 4 character kangxi marks appears an awfull lot
ALL 4 CHARACTER KANGZHI NIAN ZHI ( remember 4 dots that,s all)marks written inside double cirkels or without double cirkels are fin the siecle
and most of the time the assessment it is complete bull s...
correction the really late pieces r got an denser glazing
correction fin the siecle OR LATER !!
assessment is right but the dating is wrong according Zhang Liren , an chinese expert its later , the opinions of the experts are stuck ,