18th CENTURY KANGXI PORCELAIN BOWL (?)

I don't usually venture into the realm of porcelain and glassware, but this piece just sang to me.



I bought this from a local dealer of Asian antiquities. He's been doing this for years, and has sold all kinds of Chinese and other Oriental antiques - mostly porcelain and glassware, but also other Asiatic-related things. He's well-known locally, and I've seen him around at various antiques fairs and markets for years. So I felt pretty safe buying something from him.

He said this bowl was from the era of Emperor Kangxi (1661 - 1722), which would make it 300+ years old, whichever way you slice it.

It's in amazing condition. No chips, cracks, dings, hairlines...there's minor wear to the base, and some light inconsistency with the paint and glaze, from just...300 years of being handled...but nothing that's seriously noticeable.

All things considered, I paid about $100 for it. He originally wanted thousands, but the price kept dropping and dropping and dropping...after about 3-4 months, he finally gave in and sold it to me.

My question is - is this really 300 years old?? I'm beginning to think it may be too good to be true.

I have little doubt that it is very old...but three centuries? Even if it's only one century, I'd still love it - I don't normally buy blue-and-white, but this one was just so detailed, I adored it - but the sheer length of age is making me wonder.

In case it matters, the bowl measures 3in high by 7in across the top of the rim.

 

I think this is your answer right here.

 

Ce BCA-Could you hazard an accurate date on this piece ?

 

It's a lot easier when handling in person, but this looks like late 19th century work to me.

 

He originally wanted an obscene amount of money for it - I think somewhere in the region of $1,500+. That dropped to around $750, then about $400.

This was all about 4 months ago, when he first had it for sale. By the time I bought it last week, the price had crashed to just $95.00, so I grabbed it. I'd been looking at it all that time - really wanted to buy it because I just loved how intricate it was - but obviously I wasn't going to blow $700 on something, no matter how pretty it was.

 

It's a lovely bowl, but like the other posters, I have my doubts that it is 300 years old. I can't tell if that is the orchid mark or the artemesia leaf mark. It's a pretty thing nonetheless.

 

I think it could be an earlier piece,but not 300 years old. It is a very pretty thing regardless.

 

It is lovely. No idea about how old it is, except that it seems to have some age on it; i.e., not extremely new.

 

I think it is a charming bowl, and the style is Kangxi.
You fell in love with it and paid the price you thought was right for it, that is more important than anything else.

Obviously I don't have it in hand, but looking at the photos, I see some points which also lead me to believe it isn't of the period.
These are my observations, for what it's worth:

1) The glaze looks too shiny for a Kangxi piece. Such a shiny glaze is mid 19th century at the earliest, imo.
Kangxi white glaze usually has a blueish tinge, which this hasn't. But I must say, that isn't written in stone, so this is just a remark, not a point.

2) The mark, while a mark used in the Kangxi period, is painted/written without a thicker and more saturated end to any of the lines. Think of Chinese calligraphy, those line ends where the brush was pushed down to create a thick end with a more intense colour. You see the same on antique Chinese marks.

3) The same lack of thickness and saturation on the double rings on the base. On a Kangxi piece you would expect to see at least one ring with such a saturation point, where they finished painting the ring.

4) The holes in the glaze don't look like burst bubbles, but like they were pricked with a needle. This is one of the 'aging' techniques Chinese fakers use.

Again, I don't have it in hand, just looking at the photos.

 

how could you ever trust someone who says his item is worth thousands....and lets it go for a 100 bucks..???

 

Because this guy has been doing this stuff for decades. He's a regular at high-end antiques fairs around town.

As for @Any Jewelry - the glaze is not consistent all the way around. There is a about a 1/4-sized area of the bowl (on the outside) where it's more matte rather than glossy, where it was either badly applied or has simply worn off (can glaze do that?).

Even if it's only 100 years old or whatever, I feel I paid a reasonable price for it. Apart from wear, it's not damaged.