Click On Globe To View Forum Visitors From Around The World

About This Forum

This snuff bottle community forum is dedicated to the novice, more experienced, and expert collectors. Topics are intended to cover all aspects and types of bottle collecting. To include trials, tribulations, identifying, researching, and much more.

Among other things, donations help keep the forum free from Google type advertisements, and also make it possible to purchases additional photo hosting MB space.

Forum Bottle in the Spotlight

Charll shared this beautiful Xianfeng (1851-1861) dated bottle depicting NeZha combating the Dragon King amongst a rolling sea of blue and eight mythical sea creatures.


Chinese Snuff Bottle Discussion Forum 中國鼻煙壺討論論壇
January 30, 2023, 11:56:11 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home Help Search Contact Login Register  

My latest four overlay bottles plus others

Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: My latest four overlay bottles plus others  (Read 147 times)
Bob
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2022, 07:26:32 pm »

Dear Giovanni, Please accept my apology. I never intended to start a debate over the authenticity of your bottle. Your bottle is very nicely done. I've seen others with the inverted character, most notably bottle #211 in THE BLAIR BEQUEST Chinese Snuff Bottles from the Princeton University Art Museum. It is a porcelain bottle with a dating of 1790-1880, but described as probably coming from the earlier part of that range. The description says that two other identical bottles with the same "loosely written reign mark' and called Qianlong period, one from the Bernice Straus Hasterlik collection sold at Sotheby's in 1996 and 1997. The back of the book has pictures of the base marks. Again I'm sorry.    Bob
« Last Edit: December 03, 2022, 07:36:51 pm by Bob » Report Spam   Logged

Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush
Private Boards
Hero Member
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 3848



« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2022, 01:40:38 am »

Dear Bob,
Absolutely no need of apologize. I never thought that it was in your intention to move critics to the bottle, just curiosity, I also have about the mark.
Thank you very much for mentioning that book, I have ordered it for reference.
Kind regards
Giovanni
Report Spam   Logged

Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush
Private Boards
Hero Member
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 3848



« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2022, 06:03:11 am »

Dear John,
thank you very much. Thanks to your notes, I had a closer look at the bottle sold by Christies, and further thoughts about it. You said that that bottle is a genuine one. Here are my remarks:
First thing: because of the pierced decoration, that bottle is purely decorative, not usable. Were purely decorative bottles made in the ancient times? I do not know, but it sounds strange to me.
Second point: I am attaching here two pictures of a comparison side by side, being Barron’s bottle on the left. It is evident the more detailed molding of y bottle, besides the detailed painting. Note the three dimensionality of the faces (eyes, lip, nose), the detail of the decoration of the dresses, etc. Look at the face of the woman on the right upper corner of the second picture, it is the same of the boys.
Third thing: the black enamel is really black on Barron’s bottle, and dark grey on my bottle. Now, in Chinese porcelain field, it is known that the black is grey until the very late 19th century, and the very black is later. The other enamels too on Barron’s bottle, the iron red, the pink, the grey, are later. The gold too is strange.
Plus a personal note: I always avoid bottles with a porcelain lid.
Well, all that said, Barron’s bottle is dated 1820 – 1870 by Christies. Considering all the above, I agree: genuine but at the end of that dating, and most probably some decades later than that.
In any case, Imperial or not, 18th or 19th century, it is evident for the above reasons that my bottle is older than that one.
Kind regards
Giovanni


* Side A.jpg (381.89 KB, 1800x655 - viewed 14 times.)

* Side B.jpg (382.67 KB, 1800x614 - viewed 11 times.)
Report Spam   Logged

Joey
Private Boards
Hero Member
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 10608


« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2022, 02:32:58 pm »

Dear Giovanni,

    Porcelain snuff bottles with pierced decoration ALWAYS have a solid internal bottle.
The only bottle I've ever seen without was one carved in soapstone, and used as a bottle-
shaped pomander. It later had a stopper w/spoon matched to it, and was sold as a
snuff bottle, though clearly unusable as one.
A similar one, illustrated as #646 in Bob Stevens, is described as having an inner [solid
walled {Joey}] bottle.
I now think that yours is ca. 1840-1855 or 1865-1875, and the Barron one, ca.1875-1900.
And neither is Imperial.
But I agree that yours looks better.
Best,
Joey
Report Spam   Logged

Joey Silver, collecting snuff bottles since Feb.1970

bambooforrest
Private Boards
Hero Member
***
Posts: 652


« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2022, 08:11:58 am »

Giovanni, Joey is correct on the reticulated bottles. The enclosed picture is from a large group of Jiaqing examples. I think I misspoke on the Barron bottle. It has poor moulding and painting and is newer than your bottle, perhaps 20th century. I am trying to find a period example but they are hard to come across....John


* POR BLUE DRAGON (2).JPG (180.99 KB, 414x800 - viewed 7 times.)
Report Spam   Logged

John O'Hara

Fiveroosters aka clayandbrush
Private Boards
Hero Member
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 3848



« Reply #25 on: December 05, 2022, 11:27:56 am »

Dear Joey and John,
Thank you. I knew that there are reticulated bottles with the double wall, I have one myself. I thought that the Barron bottle was just reticulated because the inner chamber was not visible through the holes. It must have been matter of lighting in taking the pictures.
Dear Joey, I do not think that there are only 10 or 20 years of difference between my bottle and the Barron one. The different type of enamels is pointing toward a wider time span.
It would be very interesting to know more about those details of the mark, because it is true, as said by John, that there are not much old references, and of the few ones that I have seen the mark is not so well drawn.
About such differences within the mark, the detail mentioned by Bob is not only found as “2” or “5”, but also like a question mark, missing the short horizontal line at the base of the “2”. I have already seen it on some examples.
Kind regards
Giovanni
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal