清十八 / 十九世紀 白玉雕「年年有餘」雙連鼻煙壺

Arts of China，香港，1986年

Hugh Moss、Victor Graham 及曾嘉寶，《A Treasury of Chinese Snuff Bottles: The Mary and George Bloch Collection》，卷1，香港，1996年，編號53

Two barely visible chips on the fish fins, not significant. Natural flaw lines. 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."

The twin-fish subject is very common in Chinese art, and it also appears in snuff bottles where the two are combined in a single bottle form. The symbolism is perhaps more intriguingly expressed, however, and certainly the sculptural possibilities greater, if the two fish form separate bottles.

This may have been a bottle for a couple who both took snuff, in which case perhaps the same snuff would have filled each side and the two halves became ‘his and hers’ snuff bottles.

Perhaps a more intriguing feature of this bottle than its usage, however, is found in the distinctive detailing of the scales which links it to Sale 6, lot 101, suggesting that they are by the same hand, which seems confirmed by other stylistic features. The bottle in Sale 6 has imaginative and obviously intentional gaps left in certain areas of the body between areas of incised scales. Exactly the same phenomenon is found here and, at first glance, the intentionally blank areas might be taken for natural wear. This clever and thoughtful feature suggests the reflection of light off the fish’s scales under water and thus stands for the water. This transforms a ‘dead’ still life into a living subject and makes an immense difference to the feeling of the bottle in the mind, if not in the hand.

For two artists to dream up the same subtle feature is unlikely, and it is so understated in both bottles that it is unlikely to have caused so great a stir in eighteenth-century Chinese lapidary circles that other artists followed the same idea. The view that the two are by the same hand seems endorsed by other stylistic features. Both bottles depict fish that have distinctly snuff-bottle mouths. Each is perfectly round and has a narrow rim around it, which acts as a lip both for the bottle and the fish. Each is superbly carved and each has superbly detailed, flowing fins made up of a very well incised and finished series of lines. The lateral fins are also very similar in shape and style, and the choice of material and the soft polish are in harmony with each other. Both bottles are also well hollowed but without any attempt at virtuoso hollowing.

The discrepancy in wear is an interesting caution against reading too much into this single feature. The most likely date for the two bottles is from the mid- to late Qianlong period, and yet this example, judged from the wear alone, seems to have had perhaps a century more use than the other. Nephrite is soft enough to be smoothed quite considerably by handling over a period of time, and since the handling is roughly consistent regardless of who is doing it, all that matters is the number of handling-hours involved. These two bottles demonstrate beyond a doubt that two bottles from the same artist and therefore from the same general period are capable of ending up with a radically different number of handling-hours in their imaginary snuffer’s log book.