Meissen sugar container

Will appreciate your valuable comment on timeperiod and price.
Sugar container. 90mm high, 75mm diam

 

Not an expert but the quality doesn't seem to be there to me to be a real Meissen. The gilding is very sloppy and the bottom looks new.

 

Agree with Miscstuff, this looks like one of the myriad of copies made in the Austro/Bohemian/Czech region in the early 20th century, probably 1900-1930's.

 

Agree with Miscstuff and Ce BCA, the quality is not there for true Meissen.

 

The mark appears to be correct for Meissen. Is it possible that the porcelain is Meissen and the decorating is by someone else? The bottom doesn't look new to me. The painting does look a little rough for Meissen. For example, the straight lines on this piece are not crisply straight and uniform in width. I have seen Meissen pieces in this type of style. It is just that the painting on the Meissen pieces was higher quality.

 

is anyone concerned about the scratches in the mark? Like it was a factory second?

 

Not so common for this period, and it's far more likely to be a copy piece. The Meissen mark is very easy to fake, and there are far more blue cross sword pieces on the market that are copies and/or fakes than the real thing. The painting and gilding look very rushed on this piece.

Looking at it in detail, it may be that there was another factory mark underneath and the copyist scrubbed it off and painted a Meissen mark before re-firing with the decoration and top glaze. There seems to be a halo of lighter ceramic under the mark. That certainly used to happen as well.

 

does not look authentic from where I'm sitting.........

 

Looks a lot like the "From 1815" mark to me. Correct me if my assumption is not correct, but aren't the Meissen marks put on by hand, meaning there are some variations in the marks. They are generally the same, but because they are done by hand there will be naturally some variation. Or, are they put on by machine? Maybe the contemporary Meissen pieces have marks put on by machine. I don't know.

I know there are marks that are similar to Meissen like Achille Bloch (AB) or Robert Eckert, but those have obvious differences. I have attached examples of those "Not Meissen" marks.

 

Yes this is correct, their authenticated marks list just means those styles are authentic to the factory and those like the Bloch mark are not. There is significant variation in how the authentic marks are reproduced on the porcelain. There are many, many copy marks which are the same as the authenticated list which is why the item itself is far more important to authentication than the mark.

 

would a black light (UV) reveal that the glaze was tampered with in the vicinity of the mark?

 

Think you could be correct .... higher resolution pics. Love all your commen ts

 

Based on what I read in Robert E. Rontgen's book, The Book of Meissen, I think the porcelain piece was created as a blank at Meissen, was deemed second or third in quality, and somehow made it into the decorator market back then, and was decorated. Rontgen's book uses an example almost like this one.

In Chapter 8 about imitations, on Page 227, a photo shows the bottom of a plate and how a Meissen mark with scratched lines was ground down to try to hide the second scratched lines. Then, on Page 108, a photo of the same piece from Page 227 is shown, described as "Cup and saucer with outside painting, late 19th century."

While the painting of the cup and saucer on Page 108 are not exactly like the painting of the piece in this thread, the style is the same. I have seen it referred to as Wattaeu ... painted panels of romantic scenes with people.

So, based on Robert E. Rontgen's book, my vote is that the porcelain is made by Meissen, was a second or third in quality, was legally or illegally obtained by a decorating studio, and was painted by a decorating studio (not Meissen) in the late 19th century.

 

I think what supports the theory of a Meissen blank is that there looks to be an impressed mark "L 39" or something which lends credence to the idea that it originated with Meissen. The scratches seem to be dead giveaway that it was a second; no one in their right mind would scratch over the mark deliberately.

Also the halo that Ce B calls it, would that be evidence of some sort of grinding tool? that's also a good catch.

 

You are correct. There were great observations throughout the thread including your comments. This is a great website for brainstorming.

 

Most interesting. Thanks.

 

Thanks to 'Antiquers' for the positive facility you offer to the world and the participants. I looked again with a magnifying glass ....
The number mentioned by 'sunday silence' is L39 (no space) and the 'L' is a smaller font that the '39'.
Refering to Meissen marks above: The end of the upper part is SLIGHTLY thicker or pointed and the end of the lower wider part has a definate dot sort of like the 'from 1815' on the chart.
Stay healthy (looks like the Ivermectin helps me (81 yrs old) - we dont have vaccination yet in SAfrica).

 

Antiquers will appreciate your comment. Mark looks like 'from 1815'. Cup 42mm high and 70mm diam. Saucer (huge) 125mm diam and 30mm high. Number unreadable ... 47? Have a set of 6. Mocca or tea? Inhereted . Thanks

 

The pattern is known as 'Meissen Onion Pattern' - however from what I can see in the images this piece doesn't seem to have the finesse of Meissen work, the lack of shading in the pattern and the foot ring on the saucer don't sit right. This pattern was widely faked and copied. Have a look on reputable sites like Bonhams and Sothebys and on Bada/Lapada dealers on 1stdibs etc to compare yours. No point looking on ebay/etsy as everyone lists their items with a blue sword mark as Meissen on there!

 

Thanks, also for the 'have a look on'.