Japanese porcelain mark help, and Buddha face

I searched a lot yesterday, trying to figure out the mark on this. Is it a fake mark? On Goth, I read something about 6 character one row marks in a horizontal line, are likely fake. But, I'm reading this mark as vertical....or am I orientating it the wrong direction? I can't find any 6 character vertical marks that look like this one. Any ideas? I tried to draw what I see, but some of it could be wrong....it's very small for my eyes to see it well.
Stands about 6" high with lid.

 

Cast iron Buddha face wall hanging mask. It has a mark, but darned if I can make out any of it It doesn't look like it has much age, but I don't know. I see a few similar on ebay, and they aren't really selling. So, maybe it's a modern made in china mark? Thanks for your time.

 

Thanks Don, I think I looked at kutani marks, but I'll go look again. Nuff helped me find an almost identical jar on the finds thread. Maker unknown, but some good information there about it.
Thanks again

 

The top mark may be Chinese. I think it is comprised of 3 characters. I have included a pic of the 3 characters separated. I haven't found a mark on Gotheborg with the same 3 characters, but have found each mark as part of other marks. Examples: On the following Gotheborg Chinese marks page

Hardly a 1/4th of the way down the page:
Section: "Guangxu Nian Zao (1875-1908)," #194/209 and #585
Their top mark in the left column is similar, but not sure the same, to your top mark, 1. Their bottom mark in the left column is the same as your bottom mark, 3.

A bit more down the page:
Section: "Hall's / Buyer's names", #440
Their top mark, left column, is the same as your top mark, 1. It come up to a peak with 3 horizontal lines through it and has that divided box under it.

About 1/3rd down the page:
Section: "Kangxi (For genuine marks of the period, see Qing dynasty page)", #s: 574, 336, 797, 732, etc...
Just about all the bottom marks in the left column are the same as your bottom mark, 3.

About 1/2 way down page:
Section: "Qianlong Nian Zhi - Qianlong Period Make," all the top marks on the far right look the same as your middle mark, 2.

--- Susan

 

Wow Susan thank you for your time and all that wonderful, thorough help! I'm sorry I didn't thank you sooner, I went on a little weekend getaway. I'm just on my first cup of coffee, and will check out all your info when I'm more awake, lol

 

Tyeldom3,

Even without looking at the marks, your item is clearly Japanese and not Chinese.

The characters are: 大日本 = Dai Nippon (Great Japan). The last character is: 製 = sei (made by, made at or made in).

Your makers basically translate as: Made in Great Japan

I gave you this rough translation within the Finds Thread.

 

It can be very confusing when trying to ID Asian items and their markings. Trust me, I know! I've been at it for almost 3 years now and still have many troubles. It's one of, if not the hardest and most challenging fields I've ever been involved with.

For instance... the item below I purchased a few weeks ago is marked with "Chinese-style" marks on base that read: Da Ming Chenghua Nian Zhi. Now just because this item is marked with Chinese-style marks of the Ming Dynasty, doesn't make it Chinese made and/or of the Ming Period.

One should never look at the mark first when trying to ID an Asian item. You have to look at the work (item itself) first to determine the style (Chinese, Japanese, Korean etc.) and the makings last. Just as with fine art (paintings, prints and drawings). One should NEVER focus on a signature first, then the work to help establish and ID.

I wish I had more time to explain, but unfortunately I have to go for now (day job calls).

 

Don,

You are 100% correct and thanks for posting the above.

Some of the best pieces of ceramics and fine art I have ever found didn't even have marks and/or signatures.

Here's what I've done over these past couple of years that helps me develop and "eye" for the what is or isn't as far as Asian ceramics....

Once I've found and established that the piece was/is authentic and of the period (be they in perfect condition or damaged) I saved them. I have one good piece dating from as late as the Republic (1912 - 1949) Period, to as old as the Song/Yuan (960 - 1368) Period. Don't get me wrong, books and going to museums is a very, very good way to help you develop or train your eye, but IMO, there's NOTHING like handling the piece (again, damaged pieces or not). You get to examine the item up close and personal and this helps train your eye on what characteristics to look for. There's a certain thickness, color depth and sheen (similar to that rainbow effect of oil & water mixed) that all of these old antique pieces have that the modern fakes and/or fakers just cannot grasp.

 

Those bottles reminded me of this piece I purchased awhile ago for $0.50

 

That's great information Don and Nuff, thank you for sharing. I think I have some of those bottles around here somewhere, and now I want to dig em out and see what they look like.
I understand what you all are saying, I can compare that to some Madeira linens that I was always curious about. I was on the hunt for a couple of years, trying to find real Madeira linen. There are a lot of knock-offs of it out there, and that's all I was finding in my hunts. One day at a church sale I bought a big box of linens, and found a bunch of beautiful napkins in there. When I held them, and looked them over, I just knew they were Madeira, and it wasn't until I was able to see them in real life that I understood the quality.
Thank you

 

Hi, I have a vase with the same mark. Did you ever find out if it was Japanese and if so, do you know area made and when?
Thanks,
JohnnyK

 

@tyeldom3 ...........
ur help needed on a 6 year old thread.........

 

J

I just noticed this real old post got a reply, so thought I'd jump in too...

This is 春光製 = Chunguang
Homecoming "Shunko Made" Seto Haruto Kato Blurred color Kinmori Butterfly and flower painted. Japanese

 

Thanks for your reply, @Couch Potato Wannabe -- We have not seen the original poster here in about a year... she used to be a regular. I think your reply will help @JohnnyK and also others!

 

'tis okay, I realised it was an older post and was surprised I was even linked into it in the first place, given its age. Though I hoped it may help someone.

 

I noticed that you realized the post was older... I wasn't being critical, at all. I just mentioned that the original poster hadn't been back but that your post could help somebody else!

 

Posts in this site seem to stay around forever! New members sometimes reply to threads that are five years old or more! And I do hope that @tyeldom3 (original poster) drops by some time.