Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Francisco G Kempton, post: 4372550, member: 22714&quot;]Essentially these superficial generic kutani marks have no provenance, cannot be ascribed or attributed to any particular artist or company and most importantly location. They are delibertly done in a style imitating kutani with the intention to sell them across many tourist locations to get a quick sale from unsuspecting tourists.</p><p><br /></p><p>To anyone saying i slapped this guy in the face by saying they were junk, it is not true, I immediately simply stated (and it was not even addressed the OP but in general for the sake of the thread) that the tea set was better described as a style of Kutani. That is all i had said. I even tried to research the backmark to try justify it as real kutani, so I thank you all for the suggestions but I did exactly as suggested.</p><p><br /></p><p>What i have done was reacted to the OP&#039;s bad attitude by incremently&nbsp; gradually became more honest in my opinion to the point where i stated the tea set was junk. An opinion that I felt became justified. I never became personal or insulting but i did form a negative opinion of the tea set. </p><p><br /></p><p>Kutanjunk is a term used on Antiquers and I use it sparingly.</p><p><br /></p><p>He is well aware posting an item for scrutiny, that people will make an effort to try give a best answer to what the item is, and that is undoubtably what everyone would prefer. There is a big difference to just leaving a rude comment like &#039;it is junk&#039; with no explanation which if that had happened i would absolutely apologise. I really did not do this.</p><p><br /></p><p>Bulldogs pretense that he just wants a superficial response is not honest&nbsp; and undermines the effort we put into researching and analysing backmarks and ceramics styles, production and popularity, and it&#039;s that attitude that sparked me to call the tea set Junk and now there is a victim. An injured party.</p><p><br /></p><p>The injured party has no respect for the research. Chinese ceramics have many revivial pieces from the 19th century, you have to be able to accept that something is not an original Kangxi but a later revival. it is not what you want to hear but you have to accept that is what it is. Then there is bad copies that are not worthy to be called revival and this is where the problem begins. It is not an uncommon argument. These bad quality modern mass produced items that are &#039;passing off&#039; or making a pretense should be at the very least bear mention to the fact they are more a style of decoration rather than the genuine thing otherwise we are aiding and abetting the misrepresentation.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in