Is this tea set kutani?

Well, Merry Xmas and Happy Hols to all.

 

These are Kutani style, that is all I politely initially said with no ill intent.

I get a response !!!

I assume Bulldog doesnt want to waste too much time on this. I got that point, but he could quickly articulate his issue. Since if he was not interested in discussing anything other than to hear the word Kutani. Then he need not come back and post !!! as if it is not a very rude thing to do.

Why not articulate whatever it was that annoyed you. I think i was perfectly articulate and made my point. I did not want you to walk away feeling validated that the tea set was kutani and could be sold as Kutani or vintage kutani, just because someone said the mark on the base is as simulacrum of the kutani mark, which it is,but that does not make the tea set Kutani.

If you werent interested then walk away.

 

I would say as a general rule, it is much better to say something like "Decorative value only" rather than "junk". That is a bit like a slap in the face, and the OP isn't responsible for the decline of an industry, or the fact that the object might contain lead.

 

I only asked one question and it was answered by Mat. It was a simple question.
Just sayin

 

Ditto.

In general, no item is worth starting a war over.

 

Essentially these superficial generic kutani marks have no provenance, cannot be ascribed or attributed to any particular artist or company and most importantly location. They are delibertly done in a style imitating kutani with the intention to sell them across many tourist locations to get a quick sale from unsuspecting tourists.

To anyone saying i slapped this guy in the face by saying they were junk, it is not true, I immediately simply stated (and it was not even addressed the OP but in general for the sake of the thread) that the tea set was better described as a style of Kutani. That is all i had said. I even tried to research the backmark to try justify it as real kutani, so I thank you all for the suggestions but I did exactly as suggested.

What i have done was reacted to the OP's bad attitude by incremently gradually became more honest in my opinion to the point where i stated the tea set was junk. An opinion that I felt became justified. I never became personal or insulting but i did form a negative opinion of the tea set.

Kutanjunk is a term used on Antiquers and I use it sparingly.

He is well aware posting an item for scrutiny, that people will make an effort to try give a best answer to what the item is, and that is undoubtably what everyone would prefer. There is a big difference to just leaving a rude comment like 'it is junk' with no explanation which if that had happened i would absolutely apologise. I really did not do this.

Bulldogs pretense that he just wants a superficial response is not honest and undermines the effort we put into researching and analysing backmarks and ceramics styles, production and popularity, and it's that attitude that sparked me to call the tea set Junk and now there is a victim. An injured party.

The injured party has no respect for the research. Chinese ceramics have many revivial pieces from the 19th century, you have to be able to accept that something is not an original Kangxi but a later revival. it is not what you want to hear but you have to accept that is what it is. Then there is bad copies that are not worthy to be called revival and this is where the problem begins. It is not an uncommon argument. These bad quality modern mass produced items that are 'passing off' or making a pretense should be at the very least bear mention to the fact they are more a style of decoration rather than the genuine thing otherwise we are aiding and abetting the misrepresentation.

 

Used on Antiquers? Only once on the entire site and that is in your current post. Are you referring to another site with the same name? This is the kind of post that bothers me.

 

If you are proven wrong will you have the courtesy to apologise.

 

Francisco, there is no need to take matters this far.

I haven't found any other mention of it on Antiquers before yours either.

You complain that Mikey has no respect for the research we put in. If you read his other threads, you will see that he does respect that research and is always grateful for the help he receives, as long as it is given in a civil manner.

I also respect your knowledge, but think it is best for you to stop this crusade before your emotions cause you to make more statements that aren't based on fact.

 

Wrong about what?

 

Bakers isn't wrong, unless you have information we don't have access to:
https://www.antiquers.com/search/103439411/?q=kutanjunk&o=date

 

About everything you said in your post, that the term has never been used in antiquers. Will you apolgise if I prove it is a term that has been used on antiquers.

 

Francisco, are you going to post a link to a post prior to yours with the word Kutanjunk, or are you going to play silly games.

 

OK, I posted the link to the search results, I should think that is enough.
Since nothing has been posted to prove the search results wrong, I will regard certain claims as unfounded. That is enough, I will leave this thread now.

 

I am waiting for Bakersgma to to state her position. I have the link here. I am dealying posting it until Bakersgma decides to either withdraw or take responsibility for what she has stated, if indeed it is untrue. I can post the link anytime if u like. In fact the very short thread I have the link for is a thread Bakersgma posted on multiple times. So i am surprised she can say something she ought to know is untrue.

 

Just tried searching again and still can't find what you claim. Post it now, please.

 

https://www.antiquers.com/threads/is-this-set-real-kutani-or-cheaptani.12599/

 

And sure enough the specific word Kutanjunk does not appear there and that was 5 years ago. I'm done with this silly game. You are now on Ignore. Bye!

 

Good riddance.

 

Don't know why it had to take so long for you to come up with your so-called evidence, Francisco, that is games playing in my book.

So it clearly wasn't "a term used on Antiquers", as you claimed, but part of only one single tongue-in-cheek question an OP used about his own items.
Really Francisco, do you honestly want people to take you seriously when you do silly things like that?

Still no respect I see. You really have a lot to learn.