Deceptively simple in design, this elegant vase is striking for its graceful proportions, fine potting and smooth glaze. Freely incised to the base with the guan (official) character, this vase is a rare product of the Dingzhou kilns in Hebei province. Lü Chenglong from the Palace Museum in Beijing notes that all white porcelains bearing the 'guan' mark are the products of the Ding kiln, except for a very small group that belongs to the Xing kiln. Lü further suggests that the ‘guan’ mark is an indication of quality; these porcelains were produced above certain standards in order to be selected for the court use (see Lü Chenglong, ed., Dingyaoyaji gugongbowuyuan zhencang ji chutu dingyao ciqi huicui / Selection of Ding Ware. The Palace Museum’s Collection and Archaeological Excavation, Beijing, 2012, pp 13 and 18).

White-glazed wares inscribed with the character guan (official) or the characters xin guan (new official), have been recovered from datable tombs ranging from the Tang dynasty through the Song period. The earliest known site that contained vessels inscribed in this manner is the tomb of the high official Qian Kuan (d. 895), in Lin'an county, Zhejiang province, while other examples inscribed with this character have been discovered at sites in Beijing, Liaoning, and Hebei province, illustrated in Ding ci yishu / The Art of Ding Porcelain, Shijiazhuang, 2002, pp 164-169. While in this period kilns producing ceramics for the court were neither strictly controlled nor solely restricted to imperial commissions, from the middle of the Tang dynasty through the Five Dynasties period, court officials were sent to supervise porcelain production and taxation at the Ding kilns (see The Decorated Porcelains of Dingzhou: White Ding Wares from the Collection of the National Palace Museum Special Exhibition, National Palace Museum, Taipei, 2014, p. 19).

Related Ding vases of this form with the guan mark appear to be very rare. A closely related example formerly in the Charles B. Hoyt Collection, attributed to the Five Dynasties to early Northern Song period, was bequeathed to the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (acc. no. 50.875). Another example of the same type, unearthed from a Liao dynasty tomb in Zhuluke, Jianping, Liaoning province, now in the Liaoning Provincial Museum, Shenyang, is illustrated in Feng Yongqian, ‘Liaoningsheng Jianping and Xinmin de sanzuo liaomu [Three Liao dynasty tombs in Jianping and Xinmin, Liaoning province]’, Kaogu, 1960, no. 2, pl. 3:2. Li Huibing suggests that vase is not a Liao porcelain, but a product of the Ding kiln, made for the Liao market (see Li Huibing, ‘Guanyu ‘guan’‘xinguan’kuanbaici chandi wenti de tantao [Discussion on the place of manufacture for the white porcelains with ‘guan’ or ‘xinguan’ mark]’, Wenwu, no. 12, 1984, Beijing, p. 63). Li also notes that one of the characteristics of early Ding wares is that the porcelains often have kiln grits adhering to the base (ibid., p. 59).

Another very similar vase with the guan mark, sold by Yamanaka & Co. to the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City in 1940, is published on the Museum’s website (acc. no. 40-3/2) and illustrated in Sekai tōji zenshū / Ceramic Art of the World, vol. 12, Tokyo, 1977, col. pl. 1. The Museum attributes the vase to the Liao dynasty, but does not specify the location of its production. Its close similarity to the aforementioned Ding vases now in Boston Museum of Fine Arts and the Liaoning Provincial Museum, however, indicates the Nelson-Atkins vase is likely of the same origin.

Very few vases of this type have appeared at auction. Compare a slightly smaller example of the same form but with decorative fillets encircling the shoulder, similarly inscribed to the base with the guan character, sold recently in our Hong Kong rooms, 8th October 2019, lot 3002; another unmarked vase of a slightly smaller size, sold at Christie's Hong Kong, 30th April - 2nd May 1995, lot 635; and a third smaller example with a ribbed neck, sold at Christie's Hong Kong, 31st May 2016, lot 3110.

本品盤口瓶，器形簡潔優雅，比例勻稱自然，釉色純淨明潤，胎體細膩精純，為河北省定州窰之佳例，尤為稀珍，底見「官」字款，更表明其為供宮廷所使用。據北京故宮博物院呂成龍先生論述，署「官」及「新官」的白瓷基本皆為定窰產品，可能僅有極少量的為邢窰產品。呂氏另述「官」或「新官」款當為標誌，表示此類瓷器經官方認可達到了一定標準，可供宮廷所用（詳見呂成龍編，《定瓷雅集•故宮博物院珍藏及出土定窰瓷器薈萃》，北京，2012年，頁13及18）。 署「官」或「新官」款的白釉瓷器於唐代至宋代墓葬皆有出土。最早發現此類刻款瓷器的遺址是浙江省臨安縣錢寬墓。除此外，北京、遼寧、河北等地也曾發現其他刻有此款的作例（《定瓷藝術》，石家莊，2002年，頁164至169）。在這一時期，雖官窰生產既沒有受到嚴格控制，也不僅限於供御，但從中唐到五代時期，定窰均設有窰務官員，負責監督燒造及稅收（參見《定州花瓷：院藏定窰系白瓷特展》，台北，2014年，頁19）。

相類定窰白釉「官」款盤口瓶例存世甚罕。可參考一近例，斷代五代至北宋初，原為Charles Bain Hoyt收藏，後遺贈於波士頓美術館（館藏編號50.875）。另見一例，出土於遼寧省建平縣硃碌科遼墓，時代相當北宋初期，現藏瀋陽遼寧省博物館，載於馮永謙，〈遼寧省建平、新民的三座遼墓〉，《考古》，1960年，期2，圖版3:2。據李輝柄先生論述，此瓶例雖出土遼墓，但非遼瓷，當為定窰按遼的式樣所燒造，詳見李輝柄，〈關於「官」「新官」款白瓷產地問題的探討〉，《文物》，期12，北京，1984年，頁63，文中李氏另記早期定窰的一個特徵為底部近釉處往往粘有石英砂粒，頁59。

除此外，另見一同類盤口瓶例，亦署「官」款，1940年由山中商會售至坎薩斯城的納爾遜-阿特金斯藝術博物館，載於其博物館網站（館藏編號40-3/2），亦曾出版於《世界陶磁全集》，卷12，1977年，東京，彩圖版1。該瓶博物館斷代為遼，未定具體窰口，然而其與上述波士頓美術館所藏及建平出土的定窰盤口瓶例極為相似，故應屬於同一窰口所產之品。

同類定窰盤口瓶現身拍場者極為少見。可參考一近例，底亦劃「官」款，唯肩部飾弦紋，售於香港蘇富比2019年10月8日，編號3002。亦見一例，尺寸略小，無款，由香港佳士得拍出，1995年4月30至5月2日，編號635。再見一例，尺寸較小，頸為竹節式，售於香港佳士得2016年5月31日，編號3110。