I like to poke around on the discussion boards located here and here on the Asian Art Forum website where there are very lively discussions on a range of topics from jade, to porcelain to even furniture. Great place to learn! Which is why I thought this recent thread on Ming cloisonne was worth re-posting here. Thanks to the people who contributed their opinions. (I have removed the email address to prevent spamming – check the original thread here.)
Subject:Ming cloisonne for your discussion
Posted By: kk Mon, Mar 01, 2010Early Ming,
Mid Ming,
late Ming
or a late Qing Dyns copy.
Please give reason(s) to back up your opinion.
Subject:Re: Ming cloisonne for your discussion
Posted By:LEE Tue, Mar 02, 2010
Hi KK, the following criteria I use to evaluate ming cloisonne. 1) Ming and early ching pieces should have a cast bronze body. Late Ching- Republic pieces have solder lines that you can spot on the rim, where hammered wrought copper body have been soldered together . Most Ming pieces are gilded. late Ching pieces are seldom gilded 2) the bronze wire used for ming cloisone were cast than cut and have different diameter along the same wire or between different wires and you often get split wires, probably during firing. Ching wires are more even in size as wrought wires were used. 3) the surface of the ming cloisone is pitted and have black spots because solder was used to stick the wire to the bronze body. During firing this melts and comes to the surface. Ching cloisonne used organic glue to fuse the wire to the bronze, so there are fewer black spots and pits. 4) The surface of Ching cloisone are finished relatively smooth while the Ming are more satin finished. 5) the Ming cloisone have the basic white, green, yellow, red, blue and the pink is a mixture of red and white. The colors are seldom mixed in the individual cloisone. In the Ching cloisone there are real pink and there may be more than 1 color in a wire enclosure. 6) the design and style of course is different between ming and ching except for the late ching period when they tried to replicate the ming pieces to supply the antique market. Based on the criteria I suspect this plate could be late Ching.
Subject:Re: Ming cloisonne for your discussion
Posted By: kk Wed, Mar 03, 2010
Thanks Lee.
The above piece is not a casting piece,but a construction from sheet metal. It is surprisingly thin, not heavy at all and has not gilding. The rim is wrap with thin metal weld together. The surface has a lot of pits, not smooth as later works.This is not a museum piece, all opinions are welcome.This following group is Ming cloisonne from museum collections and major auction houses.
17th century
Subject:Re: Ming cloisonne for your discussion
Posted By: kkThis following group is a little more difficult.
Christies said this vase is 19th century. Very unusual colors for 19th century.
Ming period from Christies
Subject:Re: Ming cloisonne for your discussion
Posted By: kk
Here are two Qing Copies of Ming style censers.
Both marks “Fangming” Which may translate as “copies of Ming style, or “Ming style workshop”. They are obviously not intend to be fakes. It is not clear when they are made. Some people said 19th Century some said earlier.
 |
 |
 |
Subject:Re: Ming cloisonne for your discussion
Posted By: kk
Tony,
What is your point? The Ebay pieces are really same as the the initial dish in this thread??? Did you see the same bright colors: grass green, bright yellow in my dish? Even the “lotus flower” design is completely off from the about examples. On the other hand, it is not difficult to see the similarity between the Xudeng dish from national palace museum and my dish: same color enamels very similar designs in flowers and horses.
Subject:Re: Ming cloisonne for your discussion
Posted By: Robert
Kk, the last two pieces you posted are actually Japanese_made, NOT Chinese. The first of the last two pieces is a Chinese-influenced, Japanese-made Ming copy of a “mandarin hat” vessel. The stamp on both items is Japanese.
Subject:Re: Ming cloisonne for your discussion
Posted By: Robert Grady
Not Ming or Qing but representative of Japanese KAJI primitive work (1850) Edo period.
Is it an eBay knock-off? I wouldn’t know without handling it. But at least I know it is NOT Chinese.
Subject:Re: Ming cloisonne for your discussion
Posted By: kkRobert, I am not sure what you try to said.
What is Japanese KAJI primitive work? I can’t find this term anywhere?
I did not have any picture of a “mandarin hat” vessel here. Which piece are you talking about? The first of the last two pieces is a censer.
The Characters in the marks of the last two picture( censers) are Chinese Characters, so as the hat designs.
Please show me a Japanese pieces has the same type of enamels colors and similar design. No unrelated piece from ebay please.
thanks.
Subject:Re: Ming cloisonne for your discussion
Posted By: Robert Grady
Kk, the first cloisonne piece you show is either a “primative” 1850 Edo period bowl(read:made in Japan), or it is a cheap knock-off of a “primative” cloisonne Edo bowl. It looks like the latter because after looking at it some more it seems a little too “primative”. “Primative” in the sense that this is typically some of Japan’s early cloisonne work.
The last two pieces of cloisonne in your pics are definitely Japanese made to mimic Ming cloisonne. The mark is Japanese, not Chinese. It is well known to any serious collector of cloisonne that the Japanese made plenty of “Da Ming” copies so marked and your last two pics happen to be two examples of it.
That is a documented Japanese mark.Okay, since a censer can be classified as a vessel, the pieces are Japanese censers made in the style of a “mandarin hat”, or should it be “mandarin’s hat” with a faux Ming mark.
Why do you think the bowl in your first pic is Chinese?
Subject:Re: Ming cloisonne for your discussion
Posted By: kkRebort,
What is Japanese KAJI primitive work? I can’t find this term “KAJI Work” anywhere? What is KAJI Work?
You said this is a typically Japanese cloisonne work. Then why don’t you show me a other Japaneses cloisonne piece in the SAME type of enamels colors and SIMILAR lotus follower design.No unrelated piece from ebay please.
You said the mark is a documented Japanese mark. Please tell us the name of the book has this mark.
You may compare my initial dish to this Ming Xudeng period (1426-1435) from national palace museum in Taipei. They both have very similar horse and flower designs same color enamels.
Subject:Re: Ming cloisonne replica
Posted By: kkPeking people,
I don’t think you can find my dish in PanChaiYuan Market.
Here is one bowl from from the famous fake antique market PanChaiYuan. Please See the difference in style and colors and enamels.
This content comes from The specialists guide to Chinese antiques located at http://www.antique-chinese-furniture.com/blog/ For more articles please visit The specialists guide to Chinese antiques - A unique insiders peek at the world of Chinese antiques & reproductions, Asian culture, exotic decor and oriental-inspired design from the far east.
