Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Any Jewelry, post: 9610559, member: 2844&quot;]I think it is a charming bowl, and the style is Kangxi.</p><p>You fell in love with it and paid the price you thought was right for it, that is more important than anything else.</p><p><br /></p><p>Obviously I don&#039;t have it in hand, but looking at the photos, I see some points which also lead me to believe it isn&#039;t of the period.</p><p>These are my observations, for what it&#039;s worth:</p><p><br /></p><p>1) The glaze looks too shiny for a Kangxi piece. Such a shiny glaze is mid 19th century at the earliest, imo.</p><p>Kangxi white glaze usually has a blueish tinge, which this hasn&#039;t. But I must say, that isn&#039;t written in stone, so this is just a remark, not a point.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>4) The holes in the glaze don&#039;t look like burst bubbles, but like they were pricked with a needle. This is one of the &#039;aging&#039; techniques Chinese fakers use.</p><p><br /></p><p>Again, I don&#039;t have it in hand, just looking at the photos.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in