Featured Chinese vase, auction win, thoughts?

.

 

That's a small bottle of wine.

 

The mark in the photo that means it is a modern repro. I initially thought it was an original turn of the century piece, so I was disappointed to discover it was a modern repro. My comment wasn't designed to offend anyone, and looking back at it I can't see anything offensive about it. It was a lament. Someone else has made a far more spicy comment in this thread and has been lauded for it. The vase is impressive and beautifully decorated but I will always be far more in awe of one that was created in the original period. I would take a guess that most people feel the same.

 

Yeah-- I just didn't know if that was a particularly famous mark or something. I was asking innocently-- no accusation!

Thanks

 

Sorry. Your use of an exclamation mark upset me

 

I have to assume you don’t drink 65 year old cognac, my bad . Sorry we don’t drink coca-Cola soda here but maybe a soda can size of sparkling water will put it in perspective. I fail to understand why you would think I would try to deceive people that way.(see photo)

Sorry for your disappointment. Prior to my bid I had no idea. One lousy blurry photo is all. Yet when I picked it up, for the price I paid, I was not disappointed. Mostly I buy to resell and this pittance will see a greater return for me. Antiques which I choose to retain for my personal treasures are not for sale. A repo as you claim this is often times having an apocryphal reign mark to deceive its prey. They are often muddied up to look old and ancient as well. United Wilson plays no such games. They have a modern day website and produces both low-end and high-end pieces from what I can see. This is in the style of, and for someone to believe nothing made today has any value is preposterous. It is by no means a reproduction, and for those that wish to believe so, that is on them in their learning process. If and when you should see this for sale by me it will be clearly marked and described. It is one of the reasons I comes here to learn. The other reason is for belonging to a great group of people.

You have offended no one, and my intent here is to reveal only my perspective. As alway, everyone’s knowledge and opinions are appreciated by me. Forgive my tongue in cheek from time to time. I can be a brat.

 

Bisquit Cognac: https://www.bisquitdubouche.com/

 

ah yes, still in business today, established in 1819, yet my bottle label is from the 60’s. Go figure…. Just a small piece of delight.

https://www.oldliquorcompany.com/product/bisquit-dubouche/

 

Huh. United Wilson got its bad rep from seemingly making items meant to deceive, but that may have been unjustified. However, many sellers have purported UW items to be genuine antiques and that's where the problem lies. Your vase with metal mounts is quite lovely in itself, but the question remains is it decorative, or is it collectible? Not denigrating decorative, because sometimes those type of wares command good prices. Mottadeh is a company that comes to mind, and I sold some pieces of theirs on ebay many moons ago and got a good return.

 

I think it’s unquestionably decorative, not collectible and that is how it will remain for a hundred year. I won’t be around to judge its collectibility at that latter time. I kind of knew that after just a few helpful post & messages yesterday.

dubious sellers along with ignorant ones will always be questionable. But UW never made such a claim.


‘and yet it seems ok for them… 1824?
“They started making porcelain reproductions of the Ming plates[17] around the end of World War II, as the amount of porcelain available to import declined.[7][14][15] The move made Mottahedeh & Co. one of the earliest companies to make such reproductions.[18] As a pioneer in the field at a time when many museums frowned upon reproductions, Mottahedeh advocated heavily in favor of them, saying "If we didn't reprint books, look at how much we'd lose in history ... The same is true of porcelain. If we didn't remake them, we'd lose all those designs."[19] She also described the reproductions as "democratizing" porcelain.”

 

Thanks for this post -- I had incorrectly spelled Mottahedeh. Like everything else there is a variety of quality in reproduction. Mottahedeh seems to be very good quality. I don't see anything wrong with making good reproductions as long as the intent is not to mislead. Caveat emptor remains the golden rule for buying.

 

It’s a great looking thing. Someone will be thrilled to have it in their home I’m sure. Interesting that they went through all the trouble of putting “ormolu” mounts on it the way Europeans would have done to a similar piece in the 18th or 19th century. I’m sure it wasn’t cheap to buy new and I’m sure you’ll well on it. I would have bought it too.

 

I think mmarco102 needs to send me that vase and ya'll need to stop talking about it.

 

Thank you. Well I might just have to charge you an arm and a leg after all this.

I do understand where some of the negativity comes from as there is a lot of ehh UW items out there. This just isn’t one of them.

Even this one doesn’t come close to my vase yet sold for 233% above estimate of the so called experts.