A customer who recently visited our online store challenged the attribution of this handsome blue and white charger as Chinese. The question was a fair one. East Asian porcelains have been traded, copied, adapted, and influenced by one another for centuries, and attribution is often more complicated than many collectors realize.
Because identification is not always clear-cut, I thought it worthwhile to explain why I believe the preponderance of evidence favors a Chinese origin for this particular charger.
The Spur Mark Question
The criticism centered around the presence of spur marks on the underside of the charger. Spur marks are small scars left by kiln supports used during the firing process. Because such marks are frequently encountered on Japanese porcelain, some collectors regard them as evidence of Japanese manufacture.
That observation is not unreasonable, but it should not be elevated into an absolute rule.
The difficulty with relying solely upon spur marks is that Chinese potters also employed kiln supports. In other words, spur marks are not uniquely Japanese.
Historical evidence confirms this point. The British Museum describes a nineteenth-century Qing dynasty Chinese porcelain brush washer as having "six tiny spur marks on the base." Likewise, earlier Chinese ceramics, including celebrated Song dynasty wares, frequently exhibit spur marks created during firing. These examples demonstrate that spur marks were part of the Chinese ceramic tradition and remained in use long after the medieval period.
Consequently, while spur marks may indicate traditional firing methods, they cannot by themselves determine whether a piece was made in China or Japan.
A Multi-Factor Approach
One of the most common mistakes made by collectors is the tendency to rely upon a single characteristic. In reality, proper attribution requires examining multiple independent categories of evidence.
For porcelain, five of the most useful categories are:
- Paste (the porcelain body itself)
- Glaze
- Decoration and iconography
- Enamels and color technology
- Foot rim and base construction
Additional factors such as form, weight, and provenance may also be relevant.
The Glaze
The glaze of the charger exhibits a subtle blue-green cast rather than a stark white appearance. Such tones are frequently encountered on Chinese porcelains and are particularly familiar to students of Qing dynasty ceramics.
Glaze color alone cannot establish origin, but it contributes another piece of evidence consistent with Chinese manufacture.
Decoration and Iconography
The decorative program also leans toward a Chinese interpretation.
The charger depicts a mythical beast among peonies and flowering branches. Peonies occupy a central place within Chinese decorative arts and have long been associated with prosperity, honor, and abundance. Likewise, mythical creatures such as qilin and related auspicious beasts appear regularly throughout Chinese decorative traditions.
Japanese decorators certainly borrowed Chinese motifs, just as Chinese decorators occasionally adopted foreign influences. Nevertheless, the overall visual vocabulary of this charger feels more Chinese than Japanese in conception.
It is important to note that iconography should never be considered in isolation. However, when viewed alongside the glaze, form, and construction of the piece, the decoration strengthens the case for a Chinese attribution.
The Form
Shape is often overlooked by beginning collectors, yet specialists frequently place significant weight upon it.
This charger possesses a broad, shallow profile with gently rising walls, a relatively low foot ring, and a thin everted rim. Such proportions are entirely comfortable within the tradition of large Chinese display chargers.
While form alone cannot establish provenance, the overall silhouette supports rather than contradicts a Chinese attribution.
The Foot Rim and Paste
The foot rim and porcelain body provide additional clues.
The exposed foot exhibits natural wear, accumulated staining, and hand-finished characteristics consistent with age. The porcelain body displays minor firing imperfections and small inclusions typical of traditional production methods.
None of these observations independently prove Chinese manufacture. However, neither do they provide compelling evidence for a specifically Japanese origin.
In other words, the foot and paste are generally consistent with what one would expect to encounter on a nineteenth-century Chinese charger.
The Cobalt Blue Decoration
The underglaze cobalt decoration is perhaps the least decisive category.
Both Chinese and Japanese potters employed cobalt blue extensively, and similar tonal ranges may be encountered in wares from either country. The cobalt therefore should be regarded as largely neutral evidence in this particular discussion.
Could It Be Japanese for the Chinese Market?
One possibility worth mentioning is that the charger could reflect cross-cultural influence.
Chinese and Japanese ceramic traditions influenced one another for centuries. Decorative motifs, shapes, and production techniques regularly crossed national boundaries through trade and imitation.
While it is theoretically possible that a Japanese workshop produced a charger intended to appeal to Chinese tastes, there is currently no direct evidence supporting that conclusion in this case. The hypothesis remains possible but speculative.
Conclusion
I am not making any adamant claims regarding provenance, nor do I believe certainty is always attainable in the antiques trade.
What can be said is that attribution should be based upon the cumulative weight of evidence rather than any single characteristic. The spur marks, glaze, decoration, form, foot construction, and overall appearance must all be considered together.
When viewed through that broader lens, the balance of evidence appears to favor a Chinese attribution.
Reasonable collectors may disagree, and additional information may yet emerge. That is one of the pleasures of studying antiques. The objective is not simply to reach a conclusion, but to understand the process by which conclusions are reached.
References
- British Museum. Qing dynasty porcelain brush washer. Museum description notes "six tiny spur marks on the base." Nineteenth century, China. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_PDF-A-406
- British Museum. Ru ware dish. Museum description notes three spur marks on glazed base. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1936-1019-1
- Christie's. Northern Song Ru ware dish. Description discusses firing on supporting spurs that left characteristic marks on the base. https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-2361077
- Gotheborg.com. Reference material discussing Qing dynasty firing supports and spur marks on Chinese porcelain. https://www.gotheborg.com/glossary/spurmarks.shtml
The charger discussed in this article is currently available through our Etsy shop.
