The Cloisonné Conundrum
Hugh Moss March 2021
In the recent online on-line book co-authored with Stuart Sargent (The Water Pine and Stone Retreat Collection of Snuff Bottles 水松石山房鼻煙壺珍藏 Part One 第一部, Imperial Influence over the Snuff-Bottle Arts 宮廷風趣、技藝在鼻煙壺美術中所起的作用) we touched upon the confusion caused by high-quality production of cloisonné snuff bottles made in Beijing as part of the arts and crafts renaissance that began in the mid-1950s. Also at that time, large numbers of old snuff bottles were being marketed along with them. The reason was the same: an urgent need for foreign currency to fund the new communist government’s ambitious plans to consolidate the revolution and ensure its longevity. Large quantities of antiques considered of little cultural importance were sold off along with newly made wares, notably at a massive export and import fair held in Canton twice a year since 1957. From the 1950s through to the 1970s all snuff bottles were considered of little cultural value. Only subsequently did the prejudice associating size with significance allow them to be judged on their merits as Qing art, prohibiting some from export. What was not exported ended up in warehouses that often provided a source for government controlled auction houses. One sale of snuff bottles from this source coincided with the visit to Beijing by members of the International Chinese Snuff Bottle Society in October 1996.
The belated attempt to regulate the one-way flow of snuff bottles from China coincided with severely diminished supply; the stable door had been bolted long after most of the horses has left. The main exception being those kept relatively safe in museum collections.
Many cloisonné bottles were amongst the old bottles being sold including, apparently, some that may have come from Qing imperial store-houses. When ordering from distant production facilities, the Qing court tended to order in batches. There was a constant need for snuff bottles to distribute as gifts, whether on their own merits or as fancy containers for gifts of snuff. Such distributions were mind-bogglingly extensive, often involving hundreds of bottles for a single occasion such as imperial banquets or annual festivals, including the emperor’s birthday. So it was not uncommon for large orders of a particular type to be sent to the court, many of which ended up in imperial storehouses. This may have been the source of a group of bottles, some with Qianlong reign marks that became confused with what was being made for a decade or more from the late 1950s.
In the export tsunami, old and new bottles became conflated, not unnaturally since much of the new production was based on old models and much of it with spurious Qianlong reign marks. It has taken half a century to recognize the problem and begin to resolve the confusion without the baggage of lingering preconceptions. There are some documentary clues as to what was produced where, including some evidence of production centers, but inevitably the most useful evidence resides in the clues provided by the extant body of wares itself.
It is likely that the earliest cloisonné workshop to produce snuff bottles was at the palace, in Beijing. As we noted in Part One of our online book, there is considerable confusion as to the early history of the palace workshops, but we can be reasonably certain that enameling began in the mid Kangxi period and that cloisonné was first produced there perhaps a little prior to 1681, followed by glass-making in late 1696, and painted enamels on glass and metal a little thereafter, the first by 1705, the second probably simultaneously but definitely prior to 1715.
The archives of the palace workshops start with the first year of Yongzheng and facsimiles have been published up until the end of Jiaqing, 1820 (fifty-five volumes). Therein are recorded the production of numerous cloisonné pieces, including snuff bottles. The workshop was apparently closed right at the end of the eighteenth century in a spate of consolidations and cost efficiencies as a result of weakening imperial finances. Rose Kerr has suggested that the production of enamelled metal ceased at the court in 1789 (Kerr FR, p. 54 and p. 55) but the interpretation of the records is ambiguous because of confusion as to which of the enamelling arts is being dealt with (cloisonné, or painted enamels on metal and glass).1 The painted enamel workshop that produced wares on metal certainly continued into the early Jiaqing period, as we know from both extant examples and from the record of 1813.2 It seems more likely that if an enamel workshop was closed in 1789 it was the cloisonné workshop.
I was first alerted to the need to take a fresh look at the problem by the scholar and musicologist, Grant Chang (Chang Gang 常罡), who suggested that a good deal of what we previously thought to be communist product is in fact genuine as marked, but produced other than at the palace workshops –ideas he later published.3 From the published fifty-five volume facsimile edition of the workshop archives, from which I have also benefitted extensively, and in discussions with scholars at the Palace Museum over other relevant sources, he identified various regional cloisonné factories other than those at the palace. We were aware of one at Guangzhou that regularly supplied the palace, following imperial style, and of multiple private factories in Beijing in the mid- to late-Qing, but he added others that might have produced wares both privately and for the court, including one at Yangzhou. He also reported that Jiujiang, the administrative office for the imperial kilns at Jingdezhen either produced or administered some other southern workshops although whether any cloisonné was actually produced there is unclear. We know from tribute records that in the eighteenth century large quantities of cloisonné produced at Guangzhou were regularly sent as tribute, but it is possible that imperial orders were processed through Jiujiang, as was the case for imperial ceramics from Jingdezhen. He also cogently pointed out that we must always be aware than as valuable as the archives are, they are limited in scope. In short they are a valuable resource to record what was made at the imperial workshops or ordered from a distant facility, but the absence of any such record does not mean something wasn’t. More recently another reference to Jiujiang as a source of, or administrative centre for the production of cloisonné has surfaced. In 1776, the Supervisor of Jiujiang, Quan Dejin, presented twenty cloisonné archer’s rings to the Qianlong emperor.4
Apart from our knowledge of production centres, we also have the extant body of works, which of course, includes far more wares than just snuff bottles. The task ahead is to sort the different styles involved into groups and see if we can find any clues as to which group was made over what period and where. We are on the strongest ground in dealing with Imperial courtly cloisonné style. It is clearly evident as it evolved through the first half of the Qing dynasty, and is reflected accurately in snuff bottle production. Apart from minor local idiosyncrasies in its interpretation at Guangzhou, that too is stylistically derived from Beijing style, so the two may not be entirely distinguishable.
While some elements of imperial style are carried over into a great deal of the group we are trying to understand, such as formalized floral patterns and other border details, some other subjects are distinctively different. More to the point, I am unaware of anything that might connect the group stylistically to wares other than snuff bottles to offer any clues as to where they were made.
Of the bottles that are linked formally and stylistically as a group, some bear the four-character mark 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’), in either regular or, occasionally, seal-script; others the designation 景泰藍Jingtai lan (‘Blue of [the Ming] Jingtai [reign]’). The Jingtai reign (1449-1457) was short, but thereafter this term was used as a generic name for cloisonné wares in general. The rest have no marks at all. Making just one type of cloisonné ware at some distant facility might be an indication of imperial demand, even for those without reign marks since the court tended to order in bulk, and for specific reasons, and the ongoing and massive distribution of bottles would have created a considerable demand causing a distant workshop to concentrate mainly on meeting it. However, we must also allow that snuff bottles might also have been made by the same workshop for commercial consumption and that, for whatever reason, production did not noticeable extend to other wares. There are too many forms, designs and stylistic foibles repeated across the whole group to reasonably allow that they were all made at one place, albeit over perhaps an extended period and for a varied clientele.
We can attribute some of the Qianlong reign-marked wares to the eighteenth century, and probably the last three decades, but production probably continued for private consumption thereafter, but for how long is unknown. There is nothing that would firmly identify production in the late-nineteenth or early twentieth century. I have tentatively dated the bottles illustrated here, but it is possible that both style and quality remained constant over a longer period. We have a precedent for longevity of style with the Zhiting School of jade and agate carving at Suzhou which produced stylistically similar wares for well over a century.
Grant Chang and I differ on the dating of the various groups of extant bottles, as is inevitable with such widespread production over more than two centuries. Some of those he dates to the Kangxi and Yongzheng reigns I believe are later, while many that he claims as different nineteenth and twentieth-century output may need further consideration, and some may be earlier than he suggests. This is inevitable with an initial attempt to sort out a large group of wares. We tend to judge expertise as an inclusive domain, but strength in academic research into the records need not necessarily match strengths in applying that knowledge to extant wares, and, of course, vice versa. The two tend to rely on different skill-sets that may even be, to some extent, antithetical.
We can separate Beijing imperial style throughout the eighteenth century and into the early nineteenth easily enough, and its reflection in Guangzhou wares. We can also recognize a range of private commercial wares, some certainly from Beijing, from the mid-Qing into the Republic period.5 As yet, however, all we can guess about the present group is that they may have been produced at Yangzhou, or somewhere in South China, including possibly a workshop in Guangzhou. We currently have no idea how many separate workshops might have produced cloisonné in either place.
The Communist Arts and Crafts Renaissance 1955-1970s
In the 1960s I was receiving large numbers of photographs of snuff bottles for sale from the Beijing Arts and Crafts Corporation, the outlet for both modern and old arts and crafts. Liberty, the luxury department store in London, also bought a range of new arts and crafts from the same source, which I checked regularly. They also stocked a variety of both old and new cloisonné bottles assuming they were all new, as did I. There is one small group, however, where no such confusion exists.
The late Arthur Gadsby, one of the Hong Kong pioneers among snuff-bottle collectors of the mid-twentieth century blessed with a discerning eye and excellent taste and judgement, visited the Canton Fair himself, and in 1963 bought a group of brand-new bottles, sold as such, directly from the Export Corporation (see figs. 1 – 6). He kept them as examples, and shortly before he died passed them to me to help with my investigation. As so often I am indebted to the generosity of friends in the snuff-bottle world. Arthur was well aware of the modern production with spurious Qianlong reign mark, so he had selected unmarked examples that made no pretense at being from the Qianlong reign.
Fig. 1 Purchased by Arthur Gadsby as newly made in 1963. Water Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 2 Purchased by Arthur Gadsby as newly made in 1963. Water Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 3 Purchased by Arthur Gadsby as newly made in 1963. Water Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 4 Purchased by Arthur Gadsby as newly made in 1963. Water Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 5 Purchased by Arthur Gadsby as newly made in 1963. Water Pine and Stone Retreat collection
.jpg)
Fig. 6 Purchased by Arthur Gadsby as newly made in 1963. Water Pine and Stone Retreat collection
The technical quality of this small group is excellent. While in Bejing in the Spring of 1974, courtesy of Adolph Silver, an economist who advised Zhou Enlai for many years and arranged the visit and accompanied me ensuring an extraordinary level of government co-operation. While primarily there to interview Ye Bengqi, I also met other artists being trained in the arts and crafts workshop and was able to learn about the process, not only of the arts involved, but the system of staffing the workshops. Successful applicants for these posts were strictly limited and vacant places vastly oversubscribed. For the artistically inclined it represented a life of relative luxury and a promising future as opposed to alternative jobs to which they might be assigned. The result, later confirmed by Wang Xisan, was that artistic students learned very quickly in order to impress their teachers, and keep their sinecures. In many cases, as with Wang Xisan and Liu Shouben, they soon came to transcend the skills of their teachers. This happened across the workshops and technical excellence burgeoned with the newly arrived students. Some of the decorative skills in carving and painting and other arts became so detailed and outrageous that it reached back in feeling to the finest of ‘devils work’ (seen as too fine for human hands) done at the palace workshop of the Qianlong reign. Aesthetic taste might be questioned in some instances, but technical quality and skills among the new interns quickly developed to outstanding levels.
A feature of the post-1955 cloisonné wares was the gilding. As a rule it was neither substantial nor, it seems, of high carat gold. This is to be expected: in producing wares to raise liquid assets from exports, there was little point in expending unnecessary quantities of liquid assets.
A third obvious conclusion is that the workshops found their inspiration in the eighteenth century not only in the ubiquitous formalized floral designs and borders used, but also in the two different types of cloisonné, either with the cloisons fully filled or only partially-filled, leaving a recessed plane which was then gilded over a roughened surface. Both can be found in mid-Qing production for the court.
Comparing shapes, metalwork, style and quality, and such features as whether or not interiors are enameled, types of integral metal ‘cork’ and spoon units, and stoppers, we can include others in the group, such as the partially filled examples of figs. 7 and 8. The first has a blue enameled inner foot, but the second has a four-character, seal-script reign 乾隆年製Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong reign’) and it is of a type that, as far as I am aware, was never used during the Qing dynasty: it is die-stamped. With soft metal, this is an obvious and easy way to have a calligraphically careful reign mark repeated time and time again without the need of a trained calligrapher. Comparing a range of a dozen of these die-stamped examples, they are obviously all from the same die, and in one case, whoever applied it, missed the first time, realized it was off center, stopped and then did it again in the right place, leaving the less emphatic impression still visible – just visible, for instance, in fig. 9, which Chang illustrated (no. 84) and dated to the late Qing period.
Fig. 7 Partially-filled cloisonné with die-stamped Qianlong reign mark. 1955-1970s. Private collection
Fig. 8 Partially-filled cloisonné. Unmarked. Probably 1955-1970s. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 9 Partially-filled cloisonné bottle with die-stamped Qianlong reign mark. 1955-1970s. Ex. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 10. Die-stamped Qianlong reign mark. 1955-1970s. Private collection
An obvious feature of many of the finest of the post-1950s group is their extraordinary technical complexity. In so many cases ancient formalized floral designs are taken down in scale to incredible intricate levels, requiring not only a good deal of skill, but more manufacturing time as well. This alone would raise a question about the hundreds we had previously assumed were all made in the decade or two of production before cloisonné workers seemed to have moved from making snuff bottles to other wares as China opened up to the world more in the early 1970s and started receiving specific orders for larger pieces, including architectural details to decorate hotels, for instance.
Isolating what we can firmly identify as 1955-1970s give us a range of stylistic clues, from the miniaturization of formalized designs to become more intricate, and the obviously more modern designs where no earlier precedent is either known, or if known, was stylistically quite different, such as with figs. 11 and 12.
Fig. 11. Die-stamped Qianlong reign mark. 1955-1970s. Private collection
Fig. 12. Die-stamped Qianlong reign mark. 1955-1970s. Private collection
Genuine Qianlong Production
Rehabilitation can take a while, but is usually beneficial. In my case it is also satisfying to occasionally re-establish the authenticity of a group rather than the opposite. We are now in a position to reconsider some of the finest cloisonné snuff bottles ever made in terms of technical quality, and establish them as genuine products of the Qianlong reign made for the court, even if we remain ignorant of where they were made or over what period of time, other than those bearing the Qianlong reign mark.
There is a significant clue to dating the group, however. At Beijing in the imperial cloisonné workshop, we know that control of the enamels was a problem well into the Qianlong reign, resulting in a lot of burst air bubbles at the surface. At some time during the reign, however this problem was solved, the range of colours became broader, and finer detail easier to achieve. We may assume therefor that authentic Qianlong wares of high technical quality are more likely to be from the latter part of the reign. It is, of course, possible that some regional center mastered the art before Beijing did, but if they were sending superior cloisonné wares to the court, we must assume that the emperor would either have seconded experts from the distant facility to upgrade palace production, or sent one of his workers to learn their secrets. Another clue to dating is found in the narrow mouths on this group. In establishing fashion for the relationship between mouth and lip at court, we have a range of more readily dateable painted enameled wares on metal. Kangxi bottles favoured a narrow lip and wide mouth, and this continued into the early years of the Qianlong reign, where a narrow metal lip surrounds a relatively wide mouth. A decade or two later, we begin to see the lip growing as the mouth gets smaller, suggesting at Court was beginning to consider a smaller mouth preferable. This was probably an issue with the snuff itself. Connoisseurship of the content was important to snuff takers and a narrower mouth might have been considered preferable to keep the snuff in peak condition. We see this reflected in hardstone bottles with so small a mouth that hollowing might also have become somewhat of a virtuoso performance independent of the original impetus. By the late reign, the last decade or two, we begin to see the mouths on enamels widen a bit in relation to the lip, but from then onwards as an option rather than a rule. Snuffing fashions came and went over the years, resulting in the distinctly wide mouths of many mid-Qing bottles. The vast majority of the entire group we are dealing with here have relatively small mouths, between about 0.5-0.7 cm. as a rule, and certainly on the Qianlong imperially reign-marked examples.
At their best, this group represent the finest of all Qianlong-marked cloisonné wares, unmatched technically by anything else from Qing output. That they inspired post 1955 production in Beijing to reach similar technical levels of excellence is, in large part, responsible for the ensuing confusion.
Among the masterpieces of the group is fig. 13, one of this flattened, double-gourd shape, which originally had similar matching stoppers with elongated flame-shaped finials, although not all have retained them. Such prominent finials are a feature of some early imperial snuff bottles in various materials.
Fig. 13. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
This design of formalized flower heads was popular at court in the Qianlong reign and appears on enamelled wares on porcelain, glass and metal across a broader range than just snuff bottles. The yellow ground is, as usual, an indication of use by the imperial family, and the reign mark is convincingly inscribed with an ‘iron brush’ by a skilled calligrapher. When I published it in Part One of the online publication, I had become convinced of its authenticity after an initial re-assessment in the wake of Grant Chang’s input. We included it and a few more from the series and ‘tentatively’ re-attributed them to the Qianlong period. Today I am confident in removing the ‘tentatively.’ There is one further significant clue in doing so that only came to light while analysing bottles for this article.
The utterly convincing mark is engraved directly into the metal with an iron tool, a seal-carvers ‘iron-brush’ no doubt, but under magnification it is obvious that the depth of the cut reveals nothing but gold, it has not been incised through a thin layer of gilding nor has it been subsequently gilt, the sharp edges and angles left by the tool would have revealed subsequent gilding under high magnification. My initial thought was that it had to be on solid gold, but lighting the interior disproved that immediately, the inner body was not covered in enamel and was obviously copper. While the lip, inner neck, and foot all appeared to be gold, which reacts to enamels slightly differently than copper based alloys, the body was not. Further investigation revealed that the lip and entire foot are solid gold while the body is of copper alloy. It is more complex in construction, but a clever solution to not wasting gold, while giving the impression of a solid gold bottle. The stopper where metal is revealed is also either solid gold, or so heavily gilded, it gives that impression. The wires are also of gold to complete the illusion. Under high magnification some of them seemed at first to be copper-coloured, but this turned out to be surface accretions caused over more than two centuries. There is a very easy way to clean up gold or silver wire on snuff bottles without harming the rest of the surface: a standard eraser rubbed firmly over the wires will clean them without damaging the surrounding material, even with softer wood or lacquer. This is a significant clue, since in the twentieth century they would never have unnecessarily wasted so much gold. In the eighteenth century there were no little torches to easily reveal interiors of snuff bottles with narrow mouths and it is tempting to ponder whether a little scam has come to light two and a half centuries later. By presenting what appeared to be solid gold bottles to the Emperor as tribute without having to go to the expense of using solid gold, it made a better impression at lower cost, or if an imperial order financed by the court, it would leave an opportunity for padding the expense sheet a little. There is a precedent for this in at least some bottles made early in the Qianlong reign in painted enamels on metal. The impression of solid gold is given by using it for raised areas coming through the enamel, foot and lip, while the interior is of copper. Close examination of several more of the finest of this group in three collections reveals varying degrees of the same production method. Another example, of a different shape but with identical design and yellow ground, and a similar reign mark is illustrated by Chang (no. 66).
One problem we face with enamel references is ambiguity of what sort of enamelling is meant. A case in point is with an early reference to a famous enameller in Yangzhou, but without clarifying whether it was to painted or cloisonné enamels. The same is true of enamel workshops history in the Palace where the two can sometimes be confused. There is an intriguing entry in Qinggong neiwufu zaobanchu dang’an zonghui 清宮内務府造辦處檔案總匯 (Compendium of Qing Imperial Workshops Archives), 41:327, that raises an interesting possible connection with our group of cloisonné bottles. It is from 乾隆四十三年七月初八日 (Qianlong 43 [1778], Seventh month, eighth day), and reads：
將粵海関送到廣琺瑯蓋碗一對。廣琺瑯金胎鼻煙壺十二個。廣琺瑯仿磁胎鼻煙壺十件。
Sent from the Guangzhou Customs, received one pair of Guangzhou enamelware covered bowls, twelve Guangzhou enamels on gold ground snuff bottles, and ten Guangzhou replicated porcelain ground snuff bottles.
Painted enamels are not specified: the Chinese simply says Guang falang. Guang is the short-form for Guangzhou, of course, and falang is a generic term for enamel that might mean any form of enamel, although it is used for painted enamels commonly enough even if sometimes hua 畫 is added to be more explicit that it is painted enamel. Covered bowls are sufficiently well known in both painted Guangzhou enamel and cloisonné, and the last item, of enamels copying porcelain designs might also refer to painted enamels. We know of porcelain snuff bottles imitating cloisonné wares, but can only imagine that enamels imitating porcelain would have been white ground with painted designs. But ‘twelve Guangzhou enamels on gold ground snuff bottles’ might just refer to cloisonné on gold grounds. Painted enamels from Guangzhou on gold grounds do not readily spring to mind, although my mind is not as springy as it once was. So it is worth raising the possibility that this entry refers to cloisonné bottles. The Guangzhou Customs Office gathered tribute from various places in the South to present as regular tribute to the court, so might also have received orders to be placed at a cloisonné workshops not actually in Guangzhou.
It is purely speculative, but perhaps this entry refers to a little mild duplicity by a Guangzhou or other southern cloisonné workshop producing wares for the court.
The use of gold varies on the whole group, and it is difficult to determine exactly how much is solid gold and how much heavy gilding. There is evidence on some examples, for instance, that the recessed foot is a solid plate of gold to allow the engraving of the mark, while the surrounding footrim is just heavily gilded. Some appear to have gold wires, others gilded wires, but what is clear is that the finest of them, with the reign marks mostly from the same skilled hand, give the impression of being on solid gold however that is achieved, suggesting they were aimed at the court, for the emperor’s approval. The Qianlong emperor only rarely ordered gold bodied enamels from his own palace workshops but since any gold used would come out of local pockets, it may be that he felt freer ordering gold bodied wares or, of course, if as tribute then it would be more impressive on gold. Obviously, any gilded exposed metal on either inlaid, or painted enamels on metal was intended to simulate a gold ground, but to distinguish the present group, we can refer to them as ‘convincingly simulated’ gold bodies.
Fig. 14. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 14 is a direct equivalent of fig. 13, but with a more traditional formalized floral design on a turquoise blue ground. Another version of this, with a similar original stopper is in the Markovic collection (e-yaji.com no. I.87, where I.88 is of the same form, but without its original stopper and with a different formalized floral layout of the same design). One with its original stopper is illustrated by Chang, no. 30, where no. 45 is of the same shape but with panels of symbolic scholarly accoutrements. Another example with an imperial yellow ground is also in the Marakovic collection (ibid. I.104), with similar use of gold to give the impression of a solid gold body.
Fig. 15 Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Marakovic collection.
Certain distinctive shapes of bottle, lip, footrim details, and stopper, including their standard integrated metal ‘cork’ or, in some cases, protruding rod on which a ‘cork’ of some other material could be anchored, all provide clues to the expected features of the broader group.
Fig. 16. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection.
Fig. 16 is identical in shape to fig. 15 and one of the standard forms. The design is the attributes of the Eight Daoist Immortals, a subject that also occurs on a series of what we assume to be Beijing cloisonné snuff bottles, although the flattened, elongated form that is standard might allow the possibility of a Guangzhou origin (See e-yaji.com, Markovic collection, I.91 for one with an imperial yellow ground, where another is I.90, and one with a turquoise blue ground, I.92). It is worth noting that, Beijing-style bottles were made, they do not quite match either the technical control or the fineness of the design of the present example, which is also of the convincingly simulated gold group.
Fig. 17 Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection.
Fig. 17 is of identical form to the previous examples, in every detail, including the slight, but visually significant flare of the upper neck, echoed immediate above by the opposite flare of the stopper. It introduces the subject of dragon and fenghuang, the imperial emblems, and the dragons have five claws which, during the eighteenth century was, like the substantial use of yellow, a reliable indication of an imperial product. The rather strangely depicted dragon here is typical of this group, and quite unlike any dragons on cloisonné from the palace workshops. It is part of a distinctive, rather naïve, folk-art style that is typical of the entire group where particular creatures and landscapes are involved.
Fig. 18. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection.
The rather simplified style of drawing is necessary for cloisonné wares, as to some extent it is with the similarly constrained stained glass for church windows, but the hint of naivety is also apparent with all non-formalized designs from the group. The style for landscapes and animals is typified in fig. 18, which is also another of the standard shapes. It is somewhat similar to the last, but shorter and a little fatter.
Fig. 19. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection.
Another form for the group has a rectangular body, albeit with rounded corners, with a cylindrical neck – but still with the subtle flare of upper neck and stopper (fig. 19). This is so convincingly simulated as a gold body that it was catalogued as such by the auction house when I acquired it and I thought so too, until I looked inside with a flexible torch. Here again the dragon, in particular, is in the characteristic folk-art style.
Fig. 20. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection.
Another standard shape has four tapering panels, with heavy metal frames, equally heavily gilded (fig. 20). There are several of this form known, some without marks and with much less use of gold than we see here, the difference being that this has the reign mark, the others mostly do not. The slightly broader pictorial space has also allowed for a less constrained version of the dragon.
Fig. 21. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection.
Fig 21 is another formal variation, also with a Qianlong reign mark, where the imperial yellow ground augments the reign mark in confirming a product made for the imperial family or, on rare occasions, those sufficiently honoured by the emperor to allow its use outside the family.
Fig. 22. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Marakovic collection
The compressed pear-shaped form of fig. 22 in yet another formal variation, although if we look at just the upper neck and stopper apart from the restof the shape, we can readily see the identity with other shapes. The same is true of the dragon and fenghuang imperial design. Although the broader panel allows for a different composition to the one we saw in fig. 20, the slightly naïve style remains identical.
Despite a quite different shape, we can also see a similar approach to the neck/stopper area on another of the standard forms for the Qianlong-marked bottles from the group (figs. 23 – 25, the last unmarked). The yellow ground on the unmarked version suggests it may have been for imperial use. A number of unmarked examples have typically popular imperial subjects (dragons and fenghuang, Eight Buddhist emblems, symbolic scholarly objects, and so forth) suggesting the likelihood that, for whatever reason, both reign-marked and unmarked wares were intended for the court and for distribution. This would accord with ceramic production in the Daoguang period, where imperial series of bottles with four-clawed dragons and reign marks are plentiful enough to suggest that they were made specifically to distribute to ennobled commoners, entitled to the use of such a beast.
Fig. 23. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection.
.jpg)
Fig. 24. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Marakovic Collection.
Fig. 25. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Marakovic collection.
Fig. 26. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Marakovic Collection.
Another of the reign-marked versions of this form in the Marakovic collection has the popular scholarly accoutrements design on both sides, along with the yellow ground for the surrounding floral design (fig. 27). Another unmarked example is fig. 28, with the naïve dragon and fenghuang design. On several formal and stylistic groups, including the form represented by figs. 23-25 and 26-28, the use of areas of solid gold combined with heavy gilding appear on the reign-marked versions as well as on some of the unmarked ones. Whereas, as we shall see, once we get into unmarked wares of the extended group, gilding becomes much less of an issue, to the point of being so thin on some as to look more coppery than gold.
Fig. 27. Unmarked, but heavily gilded. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection.
Fig. 28 Engraved mar, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’) Circa 1760-1799. Marakovic Collection
Fig. 29. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 29 is an unmarked version of fig. 20, but one where substantially less gold was used, although it is obviously of the same group. There is a decorative feature here which holds true for most of the pine trees from this group where the scale is large enough to require pine needles. They are made up of a few ‘V’-shaped folds of wire radiating out from a central point where instead of being contained within the wires, the colours are used descriptively, the wires acting as ‘brushstrokes.’
Fig. 30. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 30 is one of the highly imperial bottles without a reign mark. The gilding is reasonably substantial, but without a mark there was no need for a gold plate for the inner foot, nor of any unusually heavy gilding to simulate solid gold. The design is one of the best of these dragon and fenghuang designs, and the formalized floral designs of the surrounds as fine as any. We can only assume the need for top quality, highly imperial designs for distribution where no reign mark was required. With many of the unmarked bottles that are identical in style to the marked ones, I have extended the dating range into the Daoguang period. A great deal of imperial style and quality from the late Qianlong was sustained into the Daoguang.
Fig. 31 Unmarked, circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
The formal relationship of fig. 31 to the reign-marked fig. 19 is obvious, but this is another of the unmarked examples that still uses extensive gold, as does its reign-marked equivalent. The yellow ground would also suggest that it was made for the court.
Fig. 32. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
The rather naïve designs of landscapes with deer, cranes, pines, and other elements is amongst the most common for the group, and the majority make no pretence at being gold, often to the point of being so thinly gilded most of it has since worn off. There is on many of these a convincing range of wear from use, although many, presumably those from imperial storehouses, remain barely used at all. Another feature worth checking with copper bottles is their oxidisation to a surface green colour and, in some cases to malachite-like encrustation forming clear of the original flat surface. Ancient bronze buried for millennia can have quite prominent malachite and azurite surface encrustation of this type, and the more encrusted, the more likely the indication of age. The surface discolouration, however can be quite rapid, as with a copper roof which can turn green from exposure to rain and damp fairly rapidly. Examination of a broad range of interiors for this and other cloisonné groups reveals that the green oxidization is common enough on known Qing wares, but is also found as a thin layer on some of the post-1955 group, but not as thick encrustation. Damp inside a copper bottle for fifty years is quite likely to turn an interior green – to the point where in some cases it is mistaken for an enamelled interior. Encrustation in relief, however, takes longer as a rule, and if found suggests an earlier product. A significant number of the broad group we are dealing with have such encrustation.
Fig. 33. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 33 is obviously based on the double gourds of figs. 13 and 14, but without the prominent finials, otherwise the level of technical quality is the same with reasonably thick gilding. The popular scene of crane and pine tree is also much more artistic than many of the others suggesting a level of care here that may have been less necessary on others.
Fig. 34 Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Conjoined, or double bottles are a common feature of imperial production at the eighteenth century court, with several remaining in the imperial collection to this day. It is not surprising to see the combination of the imperial favourite of a double-gourd transformed into a conjoined version and several exist with the present group, usually unmarked. Fig 34 is one with a standard, formalized lotus design so typical of courtly decoration, while fig. 35 is a rare version combining the concept of millefleurs with that of the formalised pattern of flower-heads of fig. 13.
Fig. 35. Unmarked Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 36. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Another conjoined form offsets two compressed bottles of various forms, some of which are, again, common enough from imperial production in the eighteenth century. It is found on imperial porcelain bottles of the late eighteenth century. The subject here, however, is not common, introducing fan-tailed goldfish, swallows, chicks and ducks in rather cartoon-like depictions. It is easy to understand how subjects like this might seem more likely as twentieth-century than mid Qing, until we compare more standard designs like imperial dragons and fenghuang, but subject matter apart, the naive impulse is similar.
Fig. 37. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat Collection
Another clue as to dating comes with a series of cylindrical and tapering ovoid forms with a circular, horizontal cross-section, such as figs. 37, 39, 40, 42 and 43. Cylindrical bottles similar to the popular mid- to late-Qing ceramic forms, first appear noticeably at the palace workshops of the second half of the Qianlong reign, and become increasingly popular as Jingdezhen began supplying snuff bottles to the court and to a growing non-imperial clientele in the second half of the Qing dynasty. The design of an egret and a duck amidst lotus on fig. 37 introduces another subject.
Fig. 38. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
One of the most unusual designs on a bottle from the group boasts only fenghuang as the main subject in two unusual compositions, within unusually elaborate frames, although elaborate frames are a feature of many of the group. Here the frame is also symbolically significant as although the fenghuang dominates the panels, the frames are made up of kui dragons confronting, two on each side, thus completing the usual combination of the dragon and fenghuang. It is on another popular imperial form from the mid-Qing, the rounded rectangular form so often found on jade, crystal, coral and other hardstone bottles with Imperial origins or at least influence.
.jpg)
Fig. 39. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Marakovic Collection
The formalized design of flower heads is repeated on fig. 39, although of course, never the same twice with such complexity of elements where what matters is the meaning of the design not its specific composition. This is one of the more impressive versions with its extraordinary elaboration of technical detail and artistic layout. The devotion to detail is telling of an otherwise anonymous Qing dynasty snuff bottle. The point being, of course that consigned to relative aesthetic oblivion by our misunderstanding, and without a mark they may appear anonymous now but would not have been at the time. They would have been recognized as significant in two possible ways. Either as unmarked gifts from the emperor; or as a response for a private market to imperial style and quality. On various established forms for the group, figs. 40 – 43 illustrate further examples of standard, folk-art designs. It is tempting to ponder what relationship to similarly shaped Yixing bottles we can date to the mid-Qing fig. 41 reflects. It is so close in form, panel-shape, and decorative concept to the Yixing group by the Slip Master, and the series of dogs-and-doves bottles we associate with the Daoguang period, that it raises the question of how long this group of cloisonné wares continued and in which direction the influence, if real, flowed. It seems reasonable to allow that a late Qianlong cloisonné factory continued producing wares, regardless of patronage, for a further century, perhaps more, but our criteria for creating a chronology of unmarked wares becomes increasingly difficult. It is perhaps significant that none bears any reign-mark later than Qianlong.
Fig. 40. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 41. Unmarked. Private collection
Fig. 42. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 43. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Psychology can be introduced as a part of connoisseurship here. As I have been working on this problem for some years now, although only devotedly very recently, the change in attribution and dating obviously brings about a change in perception. Once I realized that those with the use of heavy gold and superbly written Qianlong reign marks were genuine, their appeal, of course was as vastly enhanced as is the opposite, when a cherished presumed authentic work is revealed to be fake. But working on the unmarked wares more closely, I suddenly find qualities in them that as a perceived modern group were less effective. Once the shift is made to recognizing them as early and important, their group identity shifts to a recognition of individual merit. Figs. 44 and 45 are good examples to illustrate this. Once perceived as no more than modern examples of a well-known imperial design we could recognize the technical merit, but it left us unconvinced of importance. Once we look upon them with fresh eyes, their authenticity and rightful place in snuff bottle history revealed, they become more vital and of far greater interest.
Fig. 44. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 45. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Another possible clue to dating of the unmarked wares suggests their continuation into the nineteenth century. A few of them are known of a strange, conjoined, double bottle form with fluted profile (figs. 46 and 47) that otherwise is only found in porcelain bottles that can be dated to around the mid-nineteenth century, perhaps 1830-1870. Which way the influence flowed, however, is uncertain. There is a series of porcelain bottles from the Daoguang period that we can establish with some confidence as being taken from an imperial hardstone design from the late Qianlong palace workshops (those with spider-like mask handles and flared, perforated footrims). We may be dealing here with another example of an earlier imperial form being adopted at Jingdezhen a few decades later, but it is worth noting.
Fig. 46. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 47 Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Circa 1760-1850. Private collection
There is one more part of the group which bears differently written Qianlong reign marks, either engraved four character marks, but in a different, slightly less cursive and elegant regular script, or in seal script. The first is represented by figs. 48, 49 and 50, with the first being an unusual and spectacular example with the ground colour unique for cloisonné enamel snuff bottles. All three may have been written by the same mark writer, and probably were, but the second two have another intriguingly different feature, rare for the group as a whole. While the cartoon-like design on one clearly links the two to the broader group, the surrounding design on each is a solid colour with the entire design in wire. This is a known cloisonné technique, popular at some private workshops in the Qing dynasty, but for this group unusual. In all three cases, the marks are credible even if different in style from the better-written engraved marks. Chang illustrates a similar bottle as no. 88 and ascribes it to the late Qing. In at least two other cases I found bottles of this group where unconvincing marks had been added to unmarked bottles, made obvious by the poor calligraphy, and under magnification, details of patina – one of them is even written from left to right, which would be highly unlikely in the late Qianlong period. Fake reign marks added to old bottles are a common enough phenomenon. We find it with the large numbers of plain glass bottles excavated from tombs in the Beijing area over the last half century. Some of them were then enhanced with recently added Qianlong marks by Beijing dealers to make them more saleable, but the marks remain unconvincing.
Fig. 48. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 49. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Probably 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 50. Engraved mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Probably Circa 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
The seal-script mark appears on far fewer examples – see figs. 51 and 52, but in both cases they are credible. Both are clearly identified as part of the group by form and design. The second of them introducing yet another popular shape for the whole range.
Fig. 51. Seal script mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Private collection
Fig. 52. Seal script mark, 乾隆年製 Qianlong nian zhi (‘Made during the Qianlong period’). Circa 1760-1799. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
One last sub-group has a cast, relief mark in seal script reading 景泰藍 Jingtai lan (literally ‘Blue of the Jingtai reign’ but a generic term for cloisonné), which would have been an unlikely mark for Communist-era production, since it was aimed at collectors who valued the Qianlong mark and would not have readily understood the Jingtai lan mark (figs. 53-55). It would, however, have been pertinent throughout the Qing dynasty, and appears on Qing wares, many obviously eighteenth century and some, still in the imperial collection and obviously from the Qianlong period. They are very obviously from the same broad group as is made clear by forms, stoppers, and designs. The last of which is a timely reminder that the fringes of one group may often link to fringes of another, allowing that however much we may care to categorize and separate, the snuff-bottle arts may not necessarily follow our Cartesian impulse. The shape, stopper, and mask handles – although these are rare on the group, all allow the last, fig. 56 to be included as well, even though, independently we might not consider it.
One final though about where they were manufactured may be drawn, albeit speculatively, from the general rarity of mask and ring handles on them. Beijing snuff bottles tended to favour them whereas regional styles did not, at least, not to the same extent, so perhaps this is another indication that we are dealing with a regional group.
.jpg)
Fig. 53. Seal-script 景泰藍 Jingtai lan (‘Jingtai blue’). Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 54. Seal-script 景泰藍 Jingtai lan (‘Jingtai blue’). Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 55. Seal-script 景泰藍 Jingtai lan (‘Jingtai blue’). Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Fig. 56. Unmarked. Circa 1760-1850. Water, Pine and Stone Retreat collection
Grant Chang illustrates one of this distinctive form with mask handles as no. 61, and it bears a credible Qianlong reign mark, and he dates it to that reign.
There is still a good deal of potential for further investigation for this group, and we are far from accurately dating all cloisonné snuff bottles, but their re-assessment does answer an insistent question that has been hanging over cloisonné wares for a long time: why were there so few Qianlong-marked cloisonné snuff bottles? By re-assessing this group, we re-establish a sensible balance.
We might end on a warning note about a more recent spanner in the works of connoisseurship. In the past two decades we have seen a gathering storm of modern fakes of cloisonné wares in general, including large numbers of snuff bottles. These continue to flood auction houses worldwide, but their very proliferation makes it easier to identify them and separate them from earlier wares. In any case, they are beyond the scope of this article and the discerning will be able to identify them from their proliferation in the past decade or so.
Hugh Moss
At the Water, Pine and Stone Retreat, March 2021.