清雍正 / 乾隆 橘黃料葵花式鼻煙壺

Julie and Al Stempel 伉儷收藏
紐約蘇富比1979年10月11日，編號41
Gerd Lester 收藏，1986年

《中國鼻煙壺》，香港藝術館，香港，1977年，頁33，編號34
Robert Kleiner、楊伯達及 Clarence F. Shangraw，《盈寸纖研 ─ 瑪麗及佐治伯樂鼻煙壺珍藏》，香港藝術館，香港，1994年，編號96
新加坡國家博物館，新加坡，1994-5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842

There are some visible air bubbles, including one seen centrally at the base, another small one burst at the surface within the design and a larger one towards the base. The overall condition is otherwise 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."

The pitfalls of seeking to distinguish blown glass from its equivalent carved from the solid by a lapidary are illustrated by this example and Sale 2, lot 153, also carved with a formalised mallow flower. One would be forgiven for assuming them to have been made in the same manner, but this one is blown and the other is carved from a solid block.

Their weight provides the first clue, for despite being considerably larger, this one weighs almost exactly the same as the other. On this example a series of elongated air bubbles at the neck reveal it to have been blown, evidence validated by the slightly undulating line of the inner cylinder of the neck, where the lapidary straightened out the inside of the neck. Sale 2, lot 153 exhibits difference in neither shape nor finish between the inner neck and the rest of the hollowing, but final proof that it is carved from a block lies in subtle streaking of the glass itself. The bottle form cuts straight through this, leaving barely visible striations running in straight lines across the entire neck. One may be certain it was not blown, for the blowing process would have stretched the streaks to some extent away from the energy of the blow-iron.

Nothing here would necessarily preclude a Yongzheng date, although a Qianlong one is more likely, and attribution to the imperial glassworks also seems reasonable. It displays typical courtly mask handles with relatively small and completely circular rings, which would suggest an early date were it not for a very similar bottle in the J & J Collection of the same colour and decoration, which has slightly elongated oval rings and which must be related (Moss, Graham, and Tsang 1993, no. 357).