An Inscribed Chalcedony 'Carp Watching the Moon' Snuff Bottle Seal Mark and Period of Tongzhi

Gerd Lester.
Pauline Lester.
Sotheby’s New York, 17th March 1997, lot 188.

Moss et al., 1996-2009, vol. 2, no. 315.

Minor chip to the inner lip. Otherwise good condition.
"In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

This extraordinary documentary snuff bottle is one of the landmarks of chalcedony carving in the field because of its Tongzhi reign mark. Only two known chalcedony bottles bear this mark and both are in this collection. The other is the Suzhou carving, Sale 6, lot 186. (Readers who consult the printed full Bloch catalogue, Treasury of Chinese Snuff Bottles, should be advised that the commentary to the present bottle referred to the Suzhou bottle as no. 192; it is actually no. 379.) Each is also unique for being the only example of their respective groups to bear any sort of credible reign mark. Relief-carved Official School bottles were apparently not originally reign-marked, and even the plain, undecorated examples with Qianlong marks usually acquired them only in the past few decades. Here, however, as with the reign-marked Suzhou bottle, there can be no doubt that the reign-mark was inscribed at the time the bottle was made, forming part of the original design, since it is carved into a relief cartouche specifically designed for the mark.

The shape is unremarkable for the Official School and could have been made at least a century earlier. The type of design is within the range of earlier Official School bottles, although neither subject appears in this design on any known earlier works, and the carp leaping at the moon is not a standard theme. The technical control of the execution falls below the standards set by the finest of earlier Official School works, and the cutting and finishing where the relief meets the ground plane show signs of carelessness or a lack of ability, and the relief carving itself is not totally under control. Many an earlier Official School bottle could equally be criticised for similar failings, however.

Potentially more indicative of nineteenth-century work is the relative laziness with which the foot was treated. The foot is a recessed convex oval where the greatest extent of the convexity approximately equates to the level of the flat foot rim, meaning that the foot can easily be defined by no more than a sloping trough around the inner foot rim. It is also somewhat carelessly formed, although nothing like as poorly made as some from the school. Otherwise, however, the foot rim is even, confident and with a neat, flat rim.

What is extraordinary, and a salutary lesson in relying too much on the extent and quality of hollowing to determine age, is that the hollowing that follows closely the outer profile is extremely well carved and finished. The only hint of the process left to view is a trace of the initial annular drill-holes cut at a diagonal angle from neck to the furthest extent of the base hollowing, where two circular depressions are still visible. The hollowing here would do credit to any Official School bottle from a century earlier.

The conclusion one may draw is that as late as the Tongzhi era, if the demand warranted excellent hollowing, the skills were there to provide it. Where the artists followed a slightly lower standard, artistically and technically, it was probably because they were seldom called upon to do their best. It might have needed a sustained demand for higher quality to encourage them to raise standards again, and this does not seem to have occurred, not, that is, until the modern period, when rising values have prompted fakers to begin to develop the skills employed on the finest of old snuff bottles.

The big question, of course, remains whether this is an imperial bottle or not. A mark of this kind on a Qianlong product would imply that it was. By the late Qing period, however, protocol was often usurped. Later, as the ability of the central government to control affairs withered in the face of foreign depredations and domestic rebellions, it is not so certain that a five-clawed dragon, the colour yellow, or an imperial reign mark necessarily implied an imperial product. It is possible that the mark, placed in a rather strange manner as part of the decoration rather than on the foot of the bottle or as an adjunct to an imperial inscription, is no more than an indication of the period in which it was made.

Admittedly, the calligraphy of the reign mark is rather poorly written and is obviously not done by a literate calligrapher accustomed to this arcane script; nevertheless, this may indicate nothing more than the falling standards we find widely in the applied arts during the nineteenth century. That aside, by prevailing standards of the late Qing dynasty, the bottle is very impressive.