清乾隆 料仿琥珀光素鼻煙壺 《乾隆年製》款

Hugh M. Moss Ltd，香港，1993年

Robert Kleiner，《Chinese Snuff Bottles in the Collection of Mary and George Bloch》，大英博物館，倫敦，1995年
《Chinese Snuff Bottles in the Collection of Mary and George Bloch》，以色列博物館，耶路撒冷，1997年

Hugh Moss、Victor Graham 及曾嘉寶，《A Treasury of Chinese Snuff Bottles: The Mary and George Bloch Collection》，卷5，香港，2002年，編號749

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."

Crizzled amber-brown glass of this kind is so typical of early imperial glassworks production, dating back to the years shortly after 1696, that but for its size and the reign mark, this bottle might have been dated to the Kangxi period. The reasons for believing it to be from the very early Qianlong reign are much the same as were given for Sale 1, lot 89. If it is indeed from the early Qianlong period, it is one of the earliest known magnums, or full-hand snuff bottles. No known Kangxi or Yongzheng bottles could be considered magnums, while many can be dated to the late eighteenth century and thereafter. Of the few magnums that can be dated with confidence, some are from the late Qianlong reign. This example, however, probably dates from the first part of the reign, and there are reasonably large nephrite bottles from the Suzhou School of Zhiting that may well be from either the early or middle parts of the reign. From this one may conclude that the magnum developed gradually from the early Qianlong period onwards, becoming a standard alternative by the second half of the reign.

While the formalisation of the seal-script mark differs from Sale 1, lot 89, the two may have been carved by the same hand. The skilled calligraphers employed in the inscription workshops may have spent very little time doing any other type of carving work.