Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gonzoadler
At first: I didnīt meant your answer with my post. You donīt have my opinion, but you argued differentiated.
And to the other points: If sb. is an expert he should argue like an expert. That means that he should underpin his opinion comprehensible. Simple meanings and not verifiable statements are not comprehensible. I made comparisons with other Chinese silver pieces and I can find identical or similar elements in many cases. There are a lot more pieces in the internet. And all this silver pieces are dated to the end of Qing dynasty by more or less famous auction houses. Because of that I think this daggers have the same age. Maybe a bit later than Qing, but not so much. That could be wrong, but persons with another opinion can only convince me with comprehensible statements and facts. I canīt read that until now.
Regards
|
Thank you for the well thought out response. I think the term 'expert' is also one a bit overused and often misplaced. Most highly knowledgeable authorities typically consider themselves well informed but always open to new discoveries and ideas and are anxious to keep learning .
Again, I would point out that comments made on auction houses were not meant as 'accusations' but simply pointing out that their descriptions are not always entirely accurate. Probably the most reliable are those which use cited references from well researched books and well established authorities on the examples being described.
I very much like the examples you are posting of these most attractive pieces, and the comparisons of the various elements included in the work are most intriguing. One of the most well known facts about artisans in China, as Philip well noted in his earlier posts, is that they are able to produce most convincing items remarkably faithful to their original and traditional prototypes. These artisans are also highly skilled at artificial aging of items. It is a daunting task to accurately date items of early forms which have been produced as souvenirs as that industry has existed for quite some time. The early examples of late 19th century are 'antiques' in their own right even if not authentic as to the genuine examples often represented.
While the 'Qing' dynasty denominator is somewhat impressive sounding, it is a somewhat vague descriptive term. Virtually most Chinese material culture items seem to be 'Qing' (1644-1911) unless otherwise specified.
Most internet resources concerning antiquities and arms are typically considered 'benchmarks' for further research as far as investigating examples, and obviously making determinations from photos is, using your term, 'speculative'. Accurate determinations beyond that require hands on handling and close examination of the item.
Well noted on the use of 'MADE IN .......' markings on items, which is nothing more than a modern commercial stamp, and has nothing to do with identification of antiquities. The notation of this most obviously modern marking is typically meant in a pejorative sense.