GailC wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 8:42 pmThank you. That pot looks very similar and I believe the chop is the same..m. wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 7:13 pmGailC That is a nice pot. I'm guessing it is a pre-factory production (ROC to 50s), but wait for the opinion of others. In any case a good score.
Here is a similar one: https://www.facebook.com/singaporeyixin ... 6676554252
I was in contact with a lady from china.and she was able to tell me a little about it.
The characters are “清都入妙透,花影而寒深。岩如作。”
It’s a poem by 岩如 (Yan Ru) (1900-1957), he was a famous calligrapher and sculptor often employed by the tea pot makers, in this case, 赵松亭 (Zhao Song Ting), and Yan Ru often carved a poem that described the scenic graph on the pot, roughly translates as “something crystal clear and fantastic, flower shadow and coldness”.
Yixing
That would have been sad news for me if it had not been for the announcement about a future international version, since I only just managed to regain access to my ancient and quasi-frozen facebook account a few days ago and had not yet gotten around to finding out how to purchase his book...
I wonder if there has been enough of a growth in international demand for Yixing pots to prompt this news (and I assume that there are no plans to re-agitate the 'Volume 1' book, which I understand never happened).
Andrew
I wonder if there has been enough of a growth in international demand for Yixing pots to prompt this news (and I assume that there are no plans to re-agitate the 'Volume 1' book, which I understand never happened).
Andrew
From my observation, the market is a tiny niche. It is a niche in Asia and it is an even smaller niche internationally - might also be due to lack of documentation, so a book certainly helps.
Vol. 1 and 3 are definitely not being put together by Lu. Last I heard, others seem to be on that - but as far as I know not by people who are as upright and without further motives as him... Sadly most books on teapots serve mostly as sales catalogues of private collections, including the fakes that people knowingly or unknowingly acquired. The older the teaware, the worse it gets.
Anyways, I hope they find the substantial budget to produce a book like this in the same quality as the first edition. Obviously, good printing and truth in colour is essential for a reference book.
@Bok: thank you for the information, as always.
Perhaps someone should find a way to distribute a 'glossator's edition' of the less reputable publications. Confirmation of fakes seems to be just as important as confirmation of authentic examples. Unfortunately, there'd be no money in such a work, I suppose...
Andrew
Perhaps someone should find a way to distribute a 'glossator's edition' of the less reputable publications. Confirmation of fakes seems to be just as important as confirmation of authentic examples. Unfortunately, there'd be no money in such a work, I suppose...
Andrew
Two recent acquisitions joining the big pot clan, supposedly Cultural Revolution era pots (70s). Do feel free to point out any red flags with these, no feelings will be hurt and it's not like I'm beyond getting duped. Especially interested to hear what @OCTO thinks, as I understand he has quite a bit of experience with this era…
The smaller one had me a bit suspicious, as I’ve read that the golf ball / honey comb filter is less common in this era (though OCTO has mentioned that he's seen them in pots from as early as the 60s).
The pots hold approximately 260 and 700 ml.
The smaller one had me a bit suspicious, as I’ve read that the golf ball / honey comb filter is less common in this era (though OCTO has mentioned that he's seen them in pots from as early as the 60s).
The pots hold approximately 260 and 700 ml.
@Balthazar Nice! Looks correct to me, but might be green label era. Both 7 holes and golf ball filters are quite common. The golf ball is sometimes red clay even when the rest is QSN (but not always, i think).
Both do not look convincing to me. Shapes look off.Balthazar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:40 pmTwo recent acquisitions joining the big pot clan, supposedly Cultural Revolution era pots (70s). Do feel free to point out any red flags with these, no feelings will be hurt and it's not like I'm beyond getting duped. Especially interested to hear what OCTO thinks, as I understand he has quite a bit of experience with this era…
The smaller one had me a bit suspicious, as I’ve read that the golf ball / honey comb filter is less common in this era (though OCTO has mentioned that he's seen them in pots from as early as the 60s).
@Balthazar... I'm still learning just like everyone else. Both pots are without a doubt nice pots. There are a few observations that are conflicting and supports the supposed timestamp given to the pot (Cultural Revolution era). I will breakdown my very limited observations to the individual pots.Balthazar wrote: ↑Mon Sep 05, 2022 2:40 pmTwo recent acquisitions joining the big pot clan, supposedly Cultural Revolution era pots (70s). Do feel free to point out any red flags with these, no feelings will be hurt and it's not like I'm beyond getting duped. Especially interested to hear what OCTO thinks, as I understand he has quite a bit of experience with this era…
The smaller one had me a bit suspicious, as I’ve read that the golf ball / honey comb filter is less common in this era (though OCTO has mentioned that he's seen them in pots from as early as the 60s).
The pots hold approximately 260 and 700 ml.
The Papaya Pot is pretty decently made, but while the body of the pot is pretty decent, the lid appears to have been made by a totally different pair of hands or it came from another papaya pot. If you take a look at the underside of the lid, there is a small rectangular shape which appears to be an attempt to stamp the artist name. This is commonly found in the 60s or very rarely early 70s during CR era as any names round on any pot will have detrimental outcomes for the artist. The snout and handle is nicely executed. Though the single leaf where the handle meets the body of the pot is not as what I would have desired.
The Han Gentlemen pot is my favourite shape. It's one of the most common shape design you will find in that era. The clay on the body of the pot is IMO, nicer than the Papaya, though it's not a fair comparison as one is ZiNi, the other is QSN. But again, the lid on the HanJun is not in proportion to the body, hence I would speculate, similar to the Papaya Pot, the lid came from another pot of similar design. Down to the workmanship, the bridge on the lid is perfectly executed, but on the other hand, I'm not in favour of how the snout and handle turned out. It doesn't reflect similar craftsmanship from what is exhibited on the lid. I'm leaning more towards F2 rather than green label F1.
In conclusion, I would IMO conclude that both pots are what we call PeiGai Hu 配盖壶 , which literally means a matched lid pot. It does not affect the usability of the pot nor the age, for all you know, they might have come from different years, almost impossible to identify without proper references. It only matters in the collector-sphere .
My little 2cents.
Cheers!!
This thread has been buried for almost a month, did we stop buying yixing? haha
I have been toying with this 80s pigeon zini pot.
I have been toying with this 80s pigeon zini pot.
- Attachments
-
- thumbnail_IMG_3533.jpg (262.6 KiB) Viewed 1929 times
-
- thumbnail_IMG_3534.jpg (254.7 KiB) Viewed 1929 times
-
- thumbnail_IMG_3535.jpg (229.87 KiB) Viewed 1929 times
Haha, certainly not...
Here’s a little 60ml Zhuni I recently repaired.
- Attachments
-
- BD711C92-B6D0-474D-9477-635A007A402D.jpeg (149.83 KiB) Viewed 1925 times