AN EMERALD-GREEN GLASS 'FLORAL DESIGN' SNUFF BOTTLE MARK AND PERIOD OF QIANLONG

together with a watercolour illustration by Peter Suart

Collection of Arthur Loveless.
Collection of Elisabeth and Ladislas Kardos.
Sotheby’s New York, 1st July 1985, lot 36.
Collection of Janos Szekeres.
Sotheby’s New York, 5th June 1987, lot 42.

Chinese Snuff Bottles. An Exhibition from British Columbia Collectors, Vancouver Centennial Museum, Vancouver, 1977.
Robert Kleiner, Boda Yang, and Clarence F. Shangraw, Chinese Snuff Bottles: A Miniature Art from the Collection of George and Mary Bloch, Hong Kong Museum of Art, Hong Kong, 1994, cat. no. 73.
National Museum of Singapore, Singapore, 1994-1995.
Robert Kleiner, Chinese Snuff Bottles in the Collection of Mary and George Bloch, British Museum, London, 1995, cat. no. 110.
Chinese Snuff Bottles in the Collection of Mary and George Bloch, Israel Museum, Jerusalem, 1997.

Emily Byrne Curtis, ‘Chinese Snuff Bottle Portraits: A Supplement’, Journal of the International Chinese Snuff Bottle Society, Autumn, 1985, p.2.
Journal of the International Chinese Snuff Bottle Society, Spring 1987, p. 1.
Carol Michaelson, ‘The Use of Archaism as a Decorative Motif in Snuff Bottles’, Journal of the International Chinese Snuff Bottle Society, Winter 2000, p. 12, fig. 34.
Hugh Moss, Victor Graham and Ka Bo Tsang, A Treasury of Chinese Snuff Bottles: The Mary and George Bloch Collection, vol. 5, Hong Kong, 2002, no. 840.

One minute chip to the outer lip, smoothed. A larger chip on the outer footrim.
"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."

During the 1760s the Qianlong emperor, having amassed a large quantity of jade carvings from Mughal India and the Ottoman Empire, set up his own palace workshops to replicate the style. The influence on other palace arts was noticeable, but there is a danger in assuming that anything with formalised floral designs similar to those of the imported jades must have been influenced by them. Floral meanders were standard on Ming and Qing porcelain wares, including many similar to the traditional Northern Indian equivalents. Trade between the Ottoman Empire and China in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries resulted in considerable export of blue-and-white and also copper-red decorated ceramics. Many of these were made specifically to suit their market, and incorporated such formalised floral designs. Together with other floral motifs, the so-called ‘Indian lotus’ design became firmly established as a part of Chinese ceramic art from that time onwards. The Qianlong emperor’s keen interest in Mughal and Turkish jade carvings is clearly reflected in some palace arts from the 1760s onwards, but it would not be safe to assume this applies to any scrolling floral motif.

The form here is a modified meiping 梅瓶 (‘prunus-blossom vase’) typical of the palace workshops, the ogival tops to the vertical panels probably being the result of matching the panels to the pointed ends of the inverted lotus petals on the shoulders, rather than indications of Mughal influence. The floral designs are not particularly Indian in style, similar motifs being found on a wide range of painted enamels on metal and glass from the Kangxi to early Qianlong period, long before Mughal nephrite carvings were introduced to the emperor. More difficult to dismiss as coincidence, however, is the manner in which the panels curve sharply outwards at the base, resembling some of the delicate carving on Mughal jades.

Evidence that the bottle is blown is supplied by the light weight and oval air bubbles round the neck, all orientated away from the direction of the blow-iron. It gives the appearance of having been carved partly because the inside has been frosted by the lapidary, as was Sale 4, lot 92, but the interior shape retains the perfectly rounded contours of a blown form. The colour also imitates beryl. This example is the typical emerald-green of the imperial glassworks—although it might also have been made elsewhere.