Fake or authentic?

Hey,

In my previous post, I failed to add more pictures, so I'm creating a new thread.

Long story short, I bought this figure from an antique shop in Sri Lanka (don't know anything about its reputation). One thing I know is that a few brass vases I bought were truly old.

Some people (not experts in antiques) say it could be brand new, but one collector and art dealer on another forum claimed the patina and everything look genuine.

Here are all the pictures I took in two links:
https://imgur.com/a/CaLvNwH
https://imgur.com/a/YRCL9D3

The dealer I bought it from said the figure is about 50-75 years old.

What do you think?

 

I think that we are not fond of opening unknown links from new members in 2022.

I also think that
' one collector & an art dealer ' are in fact also ....some people , not experts...

oh, and 50 years old........is what ..late 60's.... not so antique then..

 

Sorry about the links. This site is quite credible and known for this specific purpose, so I thought that would do it I just couldn't upload my photos because all of them are over 1 mb.

 

Testing:

 

There may be other ways, but I just posted that photo from imgur using the BBCode option

Just copy the BBCode for each image and click the BBCode icon in your post here (paper and open end wrench icon).

 

I don't know how old it is, but it's not an antique. It appears to have been finished first with shellac, then with either varnish or polyurethane, or some other type of clear sealer that gummed up the original finish. This gunky all-over finish makes it appear either older, or different, than simply what it is.

Please post the photos here, no one wants to go off site to look at pictures, thanks.
@danrun

 

And if you have difficulty posting the pictures, just ask. One way to resize is to mail them to yourself; you can select an option for "medium-sized;" and there are other ways to reduce size.
And members have lots of experience helping others upload their pics.

 

As @antidiem has noted, the patina on your carving looks suspicious. When gilding a wooden carving, the surface is first prepared with a fine, smooth coating that is receptive to the gilding. In Asian objects, this layer is typically black or red in color. If the gilding is worn away over time, this colored layer will be exposed underneath the remaining gilding. On your piece, the patina seems to be manipulated in such a way that the dark areas look curdled on top of the surface. The surface "wear" is also rather consistent over the whole figure, which is not a natural way for age to occur. Compare yours with another example, which has a more natural appearance of age.




https://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/building-garden/statues/standing-buddha-from-ceylon/id-f_294951/

 

Thank you, 2many, you are exactly correct and your thoughtful explanation brings it home.

 

[sorry, double posted]

 

Thank you for your support guys. Really appreciated it! I managed to upload some close-ups here. Can it be "restored"? Because the wood on the bottom and in the gap between the feet looks really aged.

 

[sorry, double posted]

 

The hole in the top of the Buddha's head probably held a flame shaped "ushnisha" - a bump on his head symbolizing his expanded wisdom. "The flame-shaped ushnisha (a symbol of the Buddha's expanded knowledge) atop the Buddha's head is a distinctive south Indian feature that spread from India to Sri Lanka, Burma (Myanmar), and Thailand." https://www.asiasocietymuseum.com/region_object.asp?RegionID=1&CountryID=1&ChapterID=7&ObjectID=520


https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/75414

These two examples of 18th century Sri Lankan Buddhas were recently repatriated:

https://www.un.int/srilanka/news/ne...rict Attorney Cyrus,Thursday, 26th March 2021.

The wood on the bottom of your Buddha does not look old, to my eye. It looks like a relatively soft, porous wood that has had a coating applied.

 

Wow, that's so interesting! Thank you for sharing this. Too bad this one lost her headdress.