清末 / 民國 粉彩折枝花卉綬帶葫蘆鼻煙壺 《古月軒製》款

Agatha Aronson 收藏，1988年
Joseph Baruch Silver 收藏
Clare Lawrence
Hugh Moss (HK) Ltd，1992年

Robert Kleiner、楊伯達及 Clarence F. Shangraw，《盈寸纖研 ─ 瑪麗及佐治伯樂鼻煙壺珍藏》，香港藝術館，香港，1994年，編號148
新加坡國家博物館，新加坡，1994-5年
Robert Kleiner，《Chinese Snuff Bottles in the Collection of Mary and George Bloch》，大英博物館，倫敦，1995年，編號206
《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6，香港，2007年，編號1436

The mouthrim has a small repaired flake of approx. 0.3 cm. There are some occasional pinholes and glaze pulls, including two just below the lip and another one half way down the upper part of the gourd. There are also some shallow chips to the red berries and typical wear to the enamels especially to the raised areas.
"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 interesting question raised by this bottle if one accepts it as late is when the Guyue xuan name was first taken in vain. Genuine Guyue xuan wares were produced between 1767 and 1799 but would probably have ceased with the death of the Qianlong emperor. The building itself was lost to reconstruction in the early nineteenth century and seems to have slipped from memory, since by the late nineteenth century writers viewed the wares and their mark as a mystery. When the mark came back into use, it could not have been to commemorate the forgotten building or revive an understood tradition, but simply to counterfeit what was known to be an old mark and take advantage of the new interest in it. What this indicates is that wares bearing the mark to date must be old, dating from 1767–1799, or fairly recent, from the late-Qing or Republican periods; they are unlikely to date from the intervening period between 1799 and, say, 1860.