清十八世紀 透明料光素八棱鼻煙壺

Fahardi，紐約，1980年
Gerd Lester 收藏，1986年

Robert Kleiner，《Chinese Snuff Bottles in the Collection of Mary and George Bloch》，大英博物館，倫敦，1995年，編號129
《Chinese Snuff Bottles in the Collection of Mary and George Bloch》，以色列博物館，耶路撒冷，1997年

Hugh Moss、Victor Graham 及曾嘉寶，《A Treasury of Chinese Snuff Bottles: The Mary and George Bloch Collection》，卷5，香港，2002年，編號794

Apart from a barely perceptible nick to the outer lip, the overall condition is very good.
"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."

When the Chinese first encountered European glass, they praised it as being like crystal. The fluorescence, which under ultra-violet light turns the bottle a misty white, reveals the addition of lead to have been the cause of its crystal clarity. Lead oxide was known to glassmakers in the ancient world, having been used—particularly to recreate the brilliance of a gemstone in imitations—since before the eleventh century. In England, in about 1676, George Ravenscroft (1632-1683) used increased quantities of lead oxide in an attempt to combat the problems of crizzling, which were prevalent in seventeenth-century European glass (problems that were then exported to China), and in the process created what became known as ‘lead glass’. Lead brought to colourless glass the clarity and even some of the weight of natural crystal. Lead glass was to become known as ‘crystal’ in Western glass terminology (although, being glass, it was not crystalline) and rendered the situation even more confusing for those scholars in the field required to distinguish between the natural stone and its glass equivalent.

Apart from its brilliance, impeccable formal integrity and commanding workmanship, this bottle represents something of a conundrum. It is so exquisitely well made from such flawless glass that it betrays little of its process of manufacture. The tiny air bubbles revealed under a microscope are spherical, even at the neck, suggesting that it has not been blown. The interior, on the other hand, is so perfectly even and constantly curved that it seems to represent a blown form, in particular the bubble-like shape in the shoulders. If it were blown, however, it has subsequently been polished by the lapidary, removing any traces of an interior fire-polish.

While it would have been possible to blow so perfect an interior bubble using a mould, equally it could have been produced by a skilled lapidary. The exterior, even if formed initially by a mould, has been finished by the lapidary to remove any trace of one and to make each of the three panels on each main side very slightly concave in section. This last touch is remarkable, since the concavity, although barely perceptible, demonstrates extraordinary aesthetic concern.

Kleiner has suggested that, like lot 94 of this sale, it might be a bottle intended for enamelling, in which case one might expect it also to date from the second half of the Qianlong period, when colourless glass became a standard alternative ground for painted enamels. There are three reasons, however, for doubting this to be the case.

The nature of the faceting identifies it with a well-established genre, and the extraordinary and subtle scalloping of each vertical panel suggests that this was the intention. What would be the point of this aesthetic flourish if it were destined to become lost beneath an array of colourful flowers? Unlike lot 94, there is no known faceted enamel equivalent, and, finally, there seems to be a much higher lead content here than in the clear glass from the mid-Qianlong period that is enamelled.

It seems more likely that this little gem is a rare example of the general range of faceted bottles made at the court from the Kangxi period onwards, and which continued to as late as the second half of the Qianlong reign. An absence of crizzling may have nothing to do with a later date, and everything to do with the very high lead content.  The provenance of the present offering is most likely the imperial glassworks, and the first half of the eighteenth century.