Featured Real deal? Qing Yung Cheng (Yong Zheng) bowl

Believe the mark indicates the above. Shallow bowl, 8 5/8" diameter. Red decoration seems a bit sloppy to be real. Somewhat of a pebbly surface. Maybe Republic period? Any value with rim chip/bad repair? Only have $2.55 in it so all good if only a learning piece.

 

I think you are correct about the age, the glaze and clay body and color look like pieces from the republic period. The cobalt also looks republic, I think in Yong Zheng you would see some of the artificial heaping and piling of the cobalt to match the effect of the coarser ground cobalt from the Ming period.

This plate I purchased at the Cow Palace antique show in south San Francisco a little over 30 years ago was represented as Republic period, I paid less than $200 for it at the time I think.

 

A fancy floral like that would be worth a bit more now, methinks.

 

Often called "chintz."

 

The UK version, for sure, but this is prettier. You can generally see the background color on chinzware and you can't on this.

 

The signature is also not exact, that is another red flag, the signature on the left is period and a period piece should have an almost identical signature.

 

I wonder if it is even newer than Republic Period.

Tagging our new Chinese member @Ke.Ma . His expertise is Ming and Qing porcelain, but he may be able to help with this one anyway.

 

Hi verybrad.
To my knowledge this plate is most likely a newly made one.
The red color is under glaze right? Under glaze blue and red porcelain is very hard to make and is really expensive on the antique market. So the chance of $2.55 for one is really low. And other reasons I find it not good are:
1. The blue color is too flat, without layers. The attached pic is a under glaze blue and red vase in the forbidden city museum. You can clearly see several different layers of blue color, to show different parts of the painting.

2. The red part is image of passionflower, which is not a common pattern shown on porcelain. Moreover I think the pattern is overly simplified. The image under is a vase made in "Qian Long", you can tell the pattern is similar on the outside but inside there should be a small lotus pattern.
3. The double blue circle outside the mark. The color on the inner/outer circle is almost the same, imaging painting with a quill and ink, that's not really possible.
4. There's no trace of use on the foot ring. The brown color should be some glue pasted to protect the porcelain body(the foot should be unglazed). After hundreds years' of use some of the glue should be off and showing white body. Of course if it was never used then that's another case.

Over all I don't think it's made in Qing dynasty.
Concerning the Republic period(we call it 567 since mostly it's in 1950-1970s), I'm not sure. To my knowledge most item made that period were Famille rose items or blue/white items. Blue and red under glaze items were not mass produced since the low chance of success.
Nowadays (after 80s) with electric kilns more of these products appear.
So I think it is more likely to be made within 50 years.

I'm a newbie in antique and is learning, I might be wrong.
Hope these helps.

 

[QUOTE="Over all I don't think it's made in Qing dynasty.
Concerning the Republic period(we call it 567 since mostly it's in 1950-1970s), I'm not sure. To my knowledge most item made that period were Famille rose items or blue/white items. Blue and red under glaze items were not mass produced since the low chance of success.
Nowadays (after 80s) with electric kilns more of these products appear.
So I think it is more likely to be made within 50 years.

I'm a newbie in antique and is learning, I might be wrong.
Hope these helps.[/QUOTE]

Oh I got it wrong, Republic era means 1912-1949 right? then mostly not.
I thought it is PRC era, haha.

 

I thought so too, but I don't know much about recently made porcelain.

Right.

 

Thank you for the detailed response. The photos provided are also very helpful. I bought this for a few reasons, hoping to learn something in the process. First off, it was cheap . All kinds of items end up in thrift stores, so you never know. Second, it bore a previous label from an antique dealer. I know that doesn't necessarily mean anything but it could be a clue. Lastly, I thought the bottom ring looked as if it could have legitimate age. It is the only unglazed part and I took the brown coloration to be age related. I see so many modern Chinese porcelain pieces that are clearly new and this one looked a bit different.

Whether or not I buy any more Chinese ceramics in the future remains to be seen. I do always look twice if I come across something. Hopefully, I am gaining some knowledge and can spot a good find if I run across one. Also, hopefully, this exchange has been helpful to others who read this board. Afterall, this is why we are all here.

 

You're welcome.
It is really hard to find a bargain on Chinese ceramics nowadays. Most (I'd say above 60%) of the items on the market are fake. There're many people just focus on making them.
If you're interested in old Chinese ceramics I'd suggest find some credible antique dealers who have deal with those items for years and start with common and cheap ones first.

Regarding to the bottom ring. Since the color of it is mostly the same, I assume it is a different kind of glaze(mostly used during early to mid Qing dynasty) to protect the foot(bottom ring). The trace of use I talked about is like the pic below:

The top surface of the glaze after years of use will fall and expose the white body.