A DOUBLE-OVERLAY GLASS ‘POMEGRANATE’ SNUFF BOTTLE QING DYNASTY, 18TH – 19TH CENTURY

skilfully overlaid, depicting a bat and gnarled leafy branches

Sotheby's London, 24th and 28th April 1987, lot 759.
The Mary and George Bloch Collection.

Hugh Moss, Victor Graham and Ka Bo Tsang, A Treasury of Chinese Snuff Bottles: The Mary and George Bloch Collection, vol. 5, Hong Kong, 2002, no. 1006.

Note: stopper illustrated in Treasury 5, has been repllaced by a coral 'twig'. A tiny chip to the tip on one of the green naturalistic points surrounding the lip. A further chip missing from uppermost tip of the long leafy branch.
"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."

The concept and general colour scheme of this bottle fit more comfortably into the double-overlay style of the mid-Qing period than into the fruit-form group that includes lot 1172 in this sale; there, the hot glass was pulled to accentuate the bottom of the fruit there, and the surface was of a soufflé glass that is not standard to courtly overlay carvings. This pomegranate seems to be the result of a double-overlay carver creating a variation on a standard form for unusual effects.

Possibly from the late Qianlong period, this is as likely to date from the first few decades of the nineteenth century. When it was last published, Kleiner attributed it to the Daoguang period, which seems entirely reasonable, but given the recent evidence of wares made in the latter part of the Qianlong period, it could be a decade or two earlier.