Need more pictures as @OCTO said. We can make a guess from just the one picture, but it will be much more uncertain.Andrew S wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:01 amWhile we're on the topic of 60s hong ni... fake, real, or unclear?
Sorry to subject you to a test, Bok, and likewise to anyone else who responds...
It's mine, so I can take more photos in better light if it assists.
I'll try not to t subject people here to too many more tests like this... Only one more test after this one. Apologies in advance...
Andrew
Yixing
They are not. I tried to be as forthcoming about that as I could, but I see I didn't spell that out specifically. I hope I haven't broken any forum rules. I'm happy to edit the photos out of my post and replace with a textual description for future readers if that's the case. They are images I was leaning on for trying to understand what xiao hongni looks like (clearly I need to be even more cautious).steanze wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:15 pmAre these your pots?bliss wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 3:35 amSuper interesting, thanks Bok!
The following two images are from two different sources claiming the clay to be hongni from around the 60s. I will remain silent on where I got the images from, so as not to start a flame war.
Now I'm wondering, does that mean what I'm seeing in these pictures is not mica? Or does it look like mica to others, implying a different provenance than 60s yixing?
In the first picture, I guess it could be wear that shows the inside of some particles that usually just add to the pear-skin like effect? I've seen such things around the lid rim on pots where there may have been sanding or just natural wear.
It's alright. I don't plan to express opinions about whether teapots from other owners are authentic or not without the permission of the owner. Unless they're blatant fakes and the owner is trying to scam people selling them for $$$$.bliss wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:01 pm
They are not. I tried to be as forthcoming about that as I could, but I see I didn't spell that out specifically. I hope I haven't broken any forum rules. I'm happy to edit the photos out of my post and replace with a textual description for future readers if that's the case. They are images I was leaning on for trying to understand what xiao hongni looks like (clearly I need to be even more cautious).
@OCTO, @Bok and @steanze: as requested...
I have no reason to doubt the pot's authenticity, but would be grateful to learn more about hong ni in general, so all comments are welcome.
It's going onto a yan cha diet.
Andrew
I have no reason to doubt the pot's authenticity, but would be grateful to learn more about hong ni in general, so all comments are welcome.
It's going onto a yan cha diet.
Andrew
- Attachments
-
- _MG_7118.jpg (230.03 KiB) Viewed 3362 times
-
- _MG_7117.jpg (189.53 KiB) Viewed 3362 times
-
- _MG_7115.jpg (274.1 KiB) Viewed 3362 times
-
- _MG_7113.jpg (192.98 KiB) Viewed 3362 times
From what I can see it looks authentic to me. Had a hunch it was a Biandeng from your previous picture, my favourite shape
It's certainly a nice shape for yan cha, and it feels nice to use. I'm surprised that we don't see more of them out there. I have nothing against conventional shui ping pots, though...
The clay has a very clay-like feel to it, if that makes any sense. Perhaps I'll post an update in a few months' time after it's enjoyed a bit more tea.
I was also wondering where all the pre-Factory 1 hong ni went. It seems rare to see anything other than zhu ni, zi ni and the occasional duan ni pots from the LQER period. I can understand why Factory 1 didn't want to use zhu ni, but I don't know why hong ni doesn't appear to have been used more often in the LQER period.
I do recall someone suggesting that zhu ni becomes hong ni if it's left around for too long, but I don't know if that's a widely-held view...
Andrew
The clay has a very clay-like feel to it, if that makes any sense. Perhaps I'll post an update in a few months' time after it's enjoyed a bit more tea.
I was also wondering where all the pre-Factory 1 hong ni went. It seems rare to see anything other than zhu ni, zi ni and the occasional duan ni pots from the LQER period. I can understand why Factory 1 didn't want to use zhu ni, but I don't know why hong ni doesn't appear to have been used more often in the LQER period.
I do recall someone suggesting that zhu ni becomes hong ni if it's left around for too long, but I don't know if that's a widely-held view...
Andrew
@Andrew S Interesting that you raise that point, I have wondered that myself many, many times… literally almost everything red pre-factory is Zhuni. Hongi is very rare. I have yet to find anyone to give me a reasonable explanation for it. ROC seems to have a little more of it, but Qing seems very rare. Maybe something to do with clay processing?
Biandeng from the 60s is seen less in the West, as the shape is rarer, so they just do not make it out of Asia that often. If they pop up, they are usually a lot more expensive than the boring standard Shuipings.
You’ll find it to pick up a lovely shine in no time, I’ll need to dig out mine and take some new pictures… I got a 1958 Biandeng I sent to staple return soon, I’ll post it when it’s back in my hands.
Biandeng from the 60s is seen less in the West, as the shape is rarer, so they just do not make it out of Asia that often. If they pop up, they are usually a lot more expensive than the boring standard Shuipings.
You’ll find it to pick up a lovely shine in no time, I’ll need to dig out mine and take some new pictures… I got a 1958 Biandeng I sent to staple return soon, I’ll post it when it’s back in my hands.
I've remembered where I read that thing about zhu ni becoming hong ni: https://www.teachat.com/viewtopic.php?t=20125#p267824
The rest of that discussion has a few tantalising references to pre-factory hong ni, but it seems like a complex topic.
Perhaps hong ni was more useful for blending with zhu ni than as a clay in its own right, until Factory 1 needed an easier clay for mass-production.
I'd be interested to hear what other people have to say.
Andrew
The rest of that discussion has a few tantalising references to pre-factory hong ni, but it seems like a complex topic.
Perhaps hong ni was more useful for blending with zhu ni than as a clay in its own right, until Factory 1 needed an easier clay for mass-production.
I'd be interested to hear what other people have to say.
Andrew
-
Chadrinkincat
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:16 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
- Contact:
Nice pot @Andrew S
Is this one from ZAG? They have been stocking some nicer stuff lately.
Speaking of zhuni, really wish I had the cash and willingness to buy this beautiful pot. Nice carving + ting ji stamp prob makes this one even more $$$$.
http://zishaartgallery.com/product/4杯钢帽朱泥水平壶-za0249/
Is this one from ZAG? They have been stocking some nicer stuff lately.
Speaking of zhuni, really wish I had the cash and willingness to buy this beautiful pot. Nice carving + ting ji stamp prob makes this one even more $$$$.
http://zishaartgallery.com/product/4杯钢帽朱泥水平壶-za0249/
I'd always read back on these old discussions with caution. People change their mind as they learn more about things.Andrew S wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 3:41 amI've remembered where I read that thing about zhu ni becoming hong ni: https://www.teachat.com/viewtopic.php?t=20125#p267824
The rest of that discussion has a few tantalising references to pre-factory hong ni, but it seems like a complex topic.
Perhaps hong ni was more useful for blending with zhu ni than as a clay in its own right, until Factory 1 needed an easier clay for mass-production.
I'd be interested to hear what other people have to say.
Andrew
What KZ probably means there is that the ore turns from yellow to red.
Iron oxide has three natural colors in clays, ore: red / yellow / black (hematite / iron hydroxide / magnetite)
A loose definition of hongni can be ore that is red after firing, due to high natural iron oxide content.
Based on this definition yixing clay have two kinds of hongni: yellow ore hongni and red ore hongni. Red ore hongni seem to be more rare and is closer to zini in geological characteristics (more solid, rock like). While yellow ore hongni is basically Nenni, zhuni, Xiao hongni, zhushani, shihuang. The main difference between these are the distribution of particle size in the ore which determines how chalky, malleable "soft" the ore is, and the iron content. Nenni having the lowest iron ore content and shihuang the highest.
Probably why there is no hongni pots in ROC, but "zhuni" teapots is because they didn't only specific raw ores, but a mix of the aforementioned yellow iron ores rich clays. Mostly probably mixing shihuang into Xiao Hongni / Nenni / zhushani.
If you've seen zhuni teapots before firing, then you can see that the teapot is a bright yellow color. But it'll turn into orangish and even later, reddish orange color, due to oxidation, because the yellow iron state isn't stable.
That;s correct @Chadrinkincat; hence why I had no concerns about its authenticity, but was just curious to see what people thought about its clay. It seems to show what Bok mentioned about how there should be no mica spots during this period, though I appreciate that that wouldn't be sufficient of itself to date a pot.
I haven't owned any hong ni pots until I got this one (I was satisfied with zi ni and zhu ni for a while), so I decided to justify getting it as my first one. Now that I've got it, I don't feel any urgent need to acquire any later-period hong ni pots (though of course, that could change one day). I've just got to restrain myself from getting any more 60s pots for a while.
They've got a sibling of my pot on their website, but the 50s and 60s pots that have gone up do look nice (including that zhu ni). They are certainly more interesting to look at than the nei zi wai hong pots...
Andrew
I haven't owned any hong ni pots until I got this one (I was satisfied with zi ni and zhu ni for a while), so I decided to justify getting it as my first one. Now that I've got it, I don't feel any urgent need to acquire any later-period hong ni pots (though of course, that could change one day). I've just got to restrain myself from getting any more 60s pots for a while.
They've got a sibling of my pot on their website, but the 50s and 60s pots that have gone up do look nice (including that zhu ni). They are certainly more interesting to look at than the nei zi wai hong pots...
Andrew
@Youzi that sounds like a pretty solid analysis to me!
Also explains the wide array of different colour shades in antique Zhuni. It’s known that back then they could not and did not use pure Zhuni, but always blended it to a certain extent.
Also explains the wide array of different colour shades in antique Zhuni. It’s known that back then they could not and did not use pure Zhuni, but always blended it to a certain extent.
@Andrew S once you got a 60s Hongni there really is no good reason to get any from a later period. Clay-wise speaking. Of course another shape or size might tempt you.
Neiziwaihong from pre-factory times can be really nice... haha
It’s not for nothing that this technique appeared in Factory 1. It did not come out of nowhere, it’s the sloppy continuation of a once masterful executed finish.
Neiziwaihong from pre-factory times can be really nice... haha
It’s not for nothing that this technique appeared in Factory 1. It did not come out of nowhere, it’s the sloppy continuation of a once masterful executed finish.
-
Chadrinkincat
- Posts: 902
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:16 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
- Contact:
Straight to the good stuff.
