2010年36.125萬英鎊約324萬人民幣，2017年1450萬港幣，7年翻了4倍多，回看如今的市場，精品的爆發力依然強勁，對宋磁品相的包容度也有了共識，這個價格依然是便宜的。
12 五月 2010 • 倫敦
估價 Estimate 300,000 - 350,000 GBP
售價 Lot Sold 361,250 GBP
02 十月 2017 • 香港
香港樂從堂專場
估價 Estimate 6,000,000 - 8,000,000 HKD
售價 Lot Sold 1450萬港元
克拉克舊藏，鐵鏽色的撒斑，被稱為鷓鴣斑。宋徽宗是一個非常喜歡花鳥的帝王，宋代還是以百花齊放，艮岳珍禽為背景主旋律，宋瓷所表達出來的藝術審美和成就，也在這兩個方面綻放得淋灕盡致。
既有具象的審美，如牡丹刻劃等等；也有抽象審美，如撒斑的鐵鏽花。後者對藏家的審美修養有更高的要求。克拉克伉儷是20世紀東方陶瓷學會的核心成員，也是明星藏家。
他的審美不僅經過東方陶瓷學會成員的認可，也在20世紀末（1975）、21世紀初的各場蘇富比的拍賣中受到了後輩藏家們的認可，紛紛用錢包投票創下一次次的世界紀錄。
綜而觀之，判斷此件葵式盤的出身誠屬不易，其胎身明確與曲陽等北方定窯一致，可能是定窯之作，亦有可能是當陽峪窯、清涼寺窯。然而關注其本身的稀缺和藝術性，再加上傳承之顯赫，已經毫無疑問的讓窯口歸屬問題變得不是那麼重要了。
「此盤曾為克拉克伉儷珍藏近四十載，存於倫敦西郊伯克郡 Fulmer 宅邸， 1920-1940年代，直至1950年艾弗瑞臨終前。此盤後續為名家遞藏，先入東京出光美術館館藏，後為葡萄牙宋瓷鑒藏名家 Francisco Capelo 雅蓄…」
SACA學會2019年11月4日發表：《松隐幽归：绽放自然的克拉克伉俪珍藏 - the Alfred & Ivy Clark Collection》
Clark collection, rust-colored scattering spots, known as partridge feather. Emperor Huizong of the Song dynasty was a great lover of flowers and birds, and the Song dynasty was still characterized by the blossoming of a hundred flowers and rare birds of the Imperial Garden Gen Mountains, and the artistic aesthetics and accomplishments expressed in Song porcelain bloomed to the fullest extent in these two areas.
Both figurative aesthetics, such as peony engraving, etc.; There are also abstract aesthetics, such as the rust flowers of the Spot. The latter requires a higher level of aesthetic sophistication on the part of the collector. Mr. and Mrs. Clark are the core members of the 20th Century Oriental Ceramics Society and are also star collectors.
His aesthetic is not only recognized by the members of the Oriental Ceramics Society, but also in the late twentieth century (1975), early twenty-first century Sotheby's auctions by the later generation of collectors recognized, and have voted with their wallets to set the world record again and again.
短微撇底，平底，瓣裂形圈足，內壁施豐富的黑色亮光 "鷓鴣羽 "釉，釉上散布著不規則的赤褐色羽毛狀斑點，外壁施類似的釉至底止。
the short, slightly flared foot rising to a flattened base and flared petal-lobed rim, the interior covered in a rich black glossy 'partiridge feather' glaze suffused with an irregular scattering of feathery russet flecks, with a similar glaze to the exterior stopping short of the foot
來源
Collection of Alfred Clark.Sotheby's London, 25 March 1975, lot 21.Collection of the Idemitsu Museum of Arts, Tokyo.Christie's New York, 21 March 2002, lot 137.Collection of Francisco Capelo.
展覽
Arts de la Chine Ancienne, Orangerie de Tuileries, Paris, 1937, cat. no. 665.Sung Dynasty Wares. Chun and Brown Glazes, Oriental Ceramic Society, London, 1952, cat. no. 54.L'Art de la Chine des Song, Paris, 1956, cat. no. 78.Arts of Sung, Oriental Ceramic Society, London, 1960, cat. no. 69.
Idemitsu Tenth Anniversary, Idemitsu Museum of Arts, Tokyo, 1976, cat. no. 103.
Gendai no toji, Idemitsu Museum of Arts, Tokyo, 1979, cat. no. 75.
Idemitsu Fifteenth Anniversary, Idemitsu Museum of Arts, Tokyo, 1981, cat. no. 728.
出版
Chinese Ceramics in the Idemitsu Collection, Tokyo, 1987, pl. 107.
Francisco Capelo et. al., Forms of Pleasure. Chinese Ceramics from Burial to Daily Life, London, 2009, pl. 35.
品相
This exceptionally rare dish has two conserved hairlines, running from the rim, 4.5cm and 4cm respectively.
兩條線，分別從邊緣開始，長 4.5 釐米和 4 釐米。
黑華世珍
康蕊君
定窰葵式盤耀眼迷人，黑釉濃重且細膩，金褐鷓鴣斑灑落於上，優雅雋秀而酣暢淋漓，窄足寬沿，器形大方端麗，實為獨一無二之作。葵口造形雖非刻意傚仿盛開嬌蕊，此器之美宛似稀有的黑蜀葵，工藝超絕至臻，屬宋代黑瓷中極少數能媲美同朝白瓷與青瓷之最，共列典範者。此盤風格獨特脫俗，需巧思卓藝，燒製過程極度精準縝密，黑瓷多造於北方窰口，屬各窰主要製品之偏類，此盤即是定窰燒造的少數非白瓷，一如河南寶豐汝窰。曹昭《格古要論》，著於1388年，論及北方黑瓷，僅述河北曲陽定窰所出，「有紫定色紫，有墨定色黑如漆，土俱白，其價高於白定，俱出定州。」
此盤六瓣葵口造形，類同宋代漆盤，口沿削切圓潤小角，葵瓣間隱現淺溝，纖雅俐落（漆器例見圖一：坂本五郎舊藏漆盤，2013年10月8日售於香港蘇富比，編號141）。汝州張公巷窰址出土近似之深棱六瓣葵式瓷盤，此窰所造之器近類汝瓷，但幾無傳世之例（見《汝窰與張公巷出土瓷器》，北京，2009年，頁87、100-102；陸明華，〈兩宋官窰有關問題研究〉，《南宋官窰文集》，北京，2004年，頁149，圖8-12）。定窰所造白瓷與柿釉瓷（紫定）雖以六瓣葵式器形著名，多為平底無足（《定瓷雅集：故宮博物院珍藏及出土定窰瓷器薈萃》，故宮博物院，北京，2012年，圖版73、89）。 其他葵式盤則見細窄圈足，足沿無釉以供立燒（《定窰白瓷特展圖錄》，國立故宮博物院，台北，1987年，編號77、78）。武德教授（Nigel Wood）在《Chinese Glazes. Their Origins, Chemistry and Recreation》，倫敦，1999年，頁142論及此盤時指其為「精美北方黑瓷盌」…「胎土塑性強，能造出較南方瓷對比更為多變之器形 — 如同此器造形摹傚漆盤，圈足承載寬大盌沿。當朝定窰有製此類器形，然皆為覆燒。」此件葵式盤之寬沿與窄足之尺寸差距，較其他定窰白瓷盤及南方窰例更大，曾與一件相類柿釉盤一併刊載於展覽圖錄《宋代の陶磁》，出光美術館，東京，1979年，編號76。著錄未見與此盤近類者，相似風格及品質僅見於曲陽定窰。定窰遺址出土黑瓷殘片甚少，其中帶褐斑者更罕，器形均為笠式盌。其中一例為深黑釉面灑褐斑，類同此盤，但圈足上方釉已抹除，或為其遭剔棄之因由：《定瓷雅集：故宮博物院珍藏及出土定窰瓷器薈萃》，故宮博物院，北京，2012年，圖版97，及《国際交流企画展「定窯．優雅なる白の世界．窯址発掘成果展」》，東洋陶磁博物館，大阪，2013年，編號38）。
曲陽出土另一件黑釉鷓鴣斑盌殘片，斑點略大，還有一件笠式盌，比例類同此件葵式盤，但盌口無棱，黑釉無斑（《中國古瓷窰大系：中國定窰》，北京，2012年，圖版129、128）。此外，定窰遺址僅出土少數較小之黑釉褐斑破片（《故宮博物院藏中國古代窰址標本》，卷2：河北卷，北京，2006年，圖版208）。
尤金白納德舊藏一件定窰黑釉褐斑盌，後為大阪萬野美術館雅蓄，曾展出於東方陶瓷學會周年特展《The Ceramic Art of China》，倫敦，1971年，編號71，圖版48，1980年11月7日售於紐約蘇富比，編號91，2002年10月28日售於香港佳士得，編號515，並刊於封面；哈佛大學薩克勒博物館亦藏有一例，展出於《Hare’s Fur, Tortoiseshell, and Partridge Feathers: Chinese Brown- and Black-glazed Ceramics, 400-1400》，哈佛藝術博物館，劍橋，麻州，1996年，編號16。台北國立故宮博物院珍藏一件近似黑釉褐斑盌，金屬釦口，展出於《千禧年宋代文物大展》，台北，2000年，編號IV-34，無述窰口。
如同定窰白瓷，此葵式盤胎質近乎純白，盤沿黑釉薄透處，可見瓷胎隱隱發亮。前述作例胎質雖與此盤相近，然其足底釉藥多已拭淨。宋代其他主要窰址並無燒造相似瓷器，僅曲陽鄰近瓷窰，如較南的河北井陘窰，尚有相似之作。井陘窰也以燒造定窰白瓷為主，惟造少量黑瓷，部分飾有褐斑（〈河北井陘窰河東坡窰區〉，《1998中國重要考古發掘》，北京，2000年，頁87-92；《故宮博物院藏中國古代窰址標本》，前述出處，圖版222-226）。
位處更南之河北磁州窰，亦傚仿定窰燒造相類瓷盌，足底無釉，見《Hare’s Fur, Tortoiseshell, and Partridge Feathers》，前述出處，編號34、35；但此類瓷盌，釉濃不透，即便口沿仍難見淡色瓷胎。
綜而觀之，判斷此件葵式盤的出身誠屬不易，其胎身明確與曲陽等北方定窰一致，應屬定窰之作。南宋時期，江西吉州窰出產鷓鴣斑釉瓷盛名遠播，其釉面多未及此盤光潤，此場拍賣會一件吉州窰梅瓶，拍品編號15，即是其中佼佼之例。
此盤曾為艾弗瑞．克拉克伉儷珍藏近四十載，存於倫敦西郊伯克郡 Fulmer 宅邸， 1920-1940年代，直至1950年艾弗瑞臨終前，伉儷致力建構其中國陶瓷收藏，雅蓄精妙絕倫，世界聞名。艾弗瑞對倫敦東方陶瓷學會貢獻良多，協籌1935-6年之倫敦中國藝術國際展覽會，並借出約六十件藏品。大維德爵士夫人在1992年的一次訪問中，當被問及其夫生前最仰慕的收藏時說道：「我想應該是克拉克」，「克拉克收藏可以說是最精絕之一。規模不大，由兩位品味高致的藏家巧心構築而來……他們在家的上層專闢一個小房間，滿置展示櫃，陳列其珍藏宋代佳器」（林華田，〈An Interview with Lady David〉，《Orientations》，卷23，第4期，1992年，頁56-63）。此盤後續為名家遞藏，先入東京出光美術館館藏，後為葡萄牙宋瓷鑑藏名家 Francisco Capelo 雅蓄。
克拉克 alfred clark
A Rare Black Flower Picked by Alfred Clark
Regina Krahl
Highly impressive, with its captivating brown markings on a rich black glaze, yet elegant and graceful, its generous shape daringly raised on a narrow foot, this superb dish is unique. Although the six-lobed shape is not immediately associated with any particular bloom, this vessel evokes flowers of rare beauty such as the black hibiscus. Of exceptional quality, it is one of those exceedingly scarce Song (960-1279) black wares, that do not need to shy comparison with the finest contemporary white and green wares. This dish is so individual in style and execution that its precise attribution provides a challenge. Black wares were made by most north-Chinese kilns, but they often represented a minor by-product of a manufactory that was famous for a different production line, as was the case, for example, at the Ru kilns of Baofeng in Henan province. Only the Ding manufactories of Quyang in Hebei province are known to have devoted particular care to their black wares, and this was duly noted by connoisseurs like Cao Zhao, who records in the Ge gu yao lun [Essential criteria of antiquities], first published in 1388, “There are also purple Ting [Ding] and ink Ting wares, the latter as black as lacquer. Their paste, however, is white. Like white Ting pieces, they were also produced at Ting-chou, but are more expensive.” (Sir Percival David, Chinese Connoisseurship: The Ko Ku Yao Lun: The Essential Criteria of Antiquities, London, 1971, p. 141 and p. 306). Ding wares are the only northern black wares he mentions.
The present dish is extremely finely potted, its six-lobed flower shape, reminiscent of contemporary lacquer, created by cutting small triangular indents from the rim and generating faint radiating grooves outside (for a lacquer comparison see fig. 1, a dish from the collection of Sakamoto Gorō, sold in these rooms, 8th October 2013, lot 141). In ceramics, six-lobed dishes of this deep angled form have been recovered from the Zhanggongxiang kilns in Ru county, Henan, the only kilns known to have created pieces on a par and similar to Ru ware, but of which almost no examples are extant (see Ruyao yu Zhanggongxiangyao chutu ciqi/Ceramic Art Unearthed from the Ru Kiln Site and Zhanggongxiang Kiln Site, Beijing, 2009, pp. 87 and 100-102; and Lu Minghua, ‘Liang Song guanyao youguan wenti yanjiu [Research on questions relating to the official wares of both Song periods], Nan Song guanyao wenji/A Collection of Essays on Southern Song Dynasty Guan Kiln, Beijing, 2004, pp. 149, figs 8-12).
Although the six-lobed flower shape is well known from white and brown-glazed (‘purple’) Ding wares, most of these have a flat base without a foot (Ding ci ya ji. Gugong Bowuyuan zhencang ji chutu Dingyao ciqi huicui/Selection of Ding Ware. The Palace Museum’s Collection and Archaeological Excavation, Palace Museum, Beijing, 2012, pls 73 and 89). Those that do show this elegant angled shape, raised on a fairly narrow foot, have an unglazed rim on which they were fired (Ding yao bai ci tezhan tulu/Catalogue of the Special Exhibition of Ting Ware White Porcelain, National Palace Museum, Taipei, 1987, cat. nos 77 and 78). Nigel Wood writes about the present “fine northern blackware bowl” … “The non-vitrifying northern clays allowed more extreme forms than were possible with southern porcelains – such as this imitation of a lacquer dish, with its wide overhang above its foot. A similar form was used for some contemporary Ding wares, but these were fired rim down.” (Nigel Wood, Chinese Glazes. Their Origin, Chemistry and Recreation, London, 1999, p. 142). On the present dish the difference in diameter between the very small foot and the wide rim is more pronounced than on white Ding counterparts, or on similar shapes from southern kilns. One related persimmon-glazed dish was included together with the present dish in the exhibition Sōdai no tōji/Sung Ceramics, Idemitsu Museum of Arts, Tokyo, 1979, cat. no. 76.
No piece closely comparable to the present dish appears to have been published and vessels related in style and quality are not known from any ceramic workshops other than the Ding kiln group in Quyang. Of the already small number of black sherds excavated or recovered from the Ding kiln site, only very few are patterned with brown splashes, all apparently belonging to conical bowls. One fragmentary conical bowl shows a deep black glaze with similar brown markings as the present piece, but the glaze has been wiped away above the foot, which may be the reason it was rejected, Ding ci ya ji. Gugong Bowuyuan zhencang ji chutu Dingyao ciqi huicui/Selection of Ding Ware. The Palace Museum’s Collection and Archaeological Excavation, Palace Museum, Beijing, 2012, pl. 97, and Teiyō. Yūgu naru haku no sekai: Yōshi hakkutsu seika/Ding Ware. The World of White Elegance: Recent Archaeological Findings, Museum of Oriental Ceramics, Osaka, 2013, cat. no. 38).
Sherds of another brown-splashed black-glazed bowl excavated at Quyang show larger dot-shaped markings, and a fragment of a conical bowl of lower proportion, closer to the present piece, but without lobes, is covered with a black glaze only (Zhongguo gu ciyao daxi. Zhongguo Dingyao/Series of China’s Ancient Porcelain Kiln Sites: Ding Kiln of China, Beijing, 2012, pls 129 and 128). Otherwise only a few smaller black sherds with brown splashes appear to have been published from the Ding kiln sites (Gugong Bowuyuan cang Zhongguo gudai yaozhi biaoben [Specimens from ancient Chinese kiln sites in the collection of the Palace Museum], vol. 2: Hebei juan [Hebei volume], Beijing, 2006, pl. 208).
Attributed to the Ding kilns has been a brown-splashed black bowl from the Eugene Bernat collection and later in the Manno Art Museum, Osaka, included in the Oriental Ceramic Society Jubilee Exhibition The Ceramic Art of China, London, 1971, cat. no. 71, pl. 48, and sold in our New York rooms, 7th November 1980, lot 91, and at Christie’s Hong Kong, 28th October 2002, lot 515 and illustrated on the cover; and another in the Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard, Cambridge, included in the exhibition Hare’s Fur, Tortoiseshell, and Partridge Feathers: Chinese Brown- and Black-glazed Ceramics, 400-1400, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, Mass., 1996, cat. no. 16.
A similar brown-splashed black bowl with a metal mount hiding the rim, in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, was included in the Museum’s exhibition Qianxi nian Songdai wenwu dazhan/China at the Inception of the Second Millennium: Art and Culture of the Sung Dynasty, 960-1279, Taipei, 2000, cat. no. IV-34, without attribution to any particular kiln.
Like Ding ware, the present dish is made from a near-white body material that shines through at the rim, where the dark glaze has drained to a transparent layer. Although the above pieces seem to be similar in material, they generally show a foot that is more neatly wiped free of glaze. No other major kiln centre is recorded to have created such wares but, like with most important Song manufactories, various kilns located around the type site – in this case Quyang – produced very similar wares, here, for example, the Jingxing kilns further south in Hebei. They equally made mainly ‘Ding’ white wares, but also a small number of black pieces, some with brown spots (‘Hebei Jingxingyao Hedongpo yaoqu/The Hedongpo Section of the Jingxing Kiln Site in Hebei’, 1998 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu fujue/Major Archaeological Discoveries in China in 1998, Beijing, 2000, pp.87-92; and Gugong Bowuyuan cang Zhongguo gudai yaozhi biaoben, op.cit., pls 222-226).
Related bowls, clearly made in imitation of Ding and with the foot similarly wiped free of glaze, are also attributed to the Cizhou kiln group further south in Hebei province, see Hare’s Fur, Tortoiseshell, and Partridge Feathers, op.cit., cat. nos 34 and 35; but on these, the glaze seems to be more opaque, hiding the paler body also at the rim.
The present dish thus remains very difficult to attribute. Its body material clearly identifies it as a piece from a northern kiln, where at present the Ding kilns at Quyang or a related kiln nearby, represent the most likely origin. In the Southern Song period (1127-1279), this ‘partridge feather’ glaze pattern became a very popular decoration style at the Jizhou kilns in Jiangxi province, where the surface, however, was generally much less glossy. An unusually fine example of this type is the meiping from the same collection, also included in this sale, lot 15.
For around four decades, if not more, this dish belonged to Mr and Mrs Alfred Clark of Fulmer in Berkshire, England, west of London. The Clarks formed their fabled collection mainly between the 1920s and 1940s, before Alfred Clark’s death in 1950. Besides being active supporters of the Oriental Ceramic Society, Alfred Clark was directly involved in the preparation of the 1935/6 exhibition in London to which he lent five dozen pieces. Asked whose collection Sir Percival David considered most highly, Lady David in an interview in 1992 replied “I think the Clark’s”, “The collection, I would say, was one of the finest. It was small, formed by two people with extremely good taste…. They… had a little room upstairs in which they kept their Song pieces in showcases around the walls …” (Anthony Lin Hua-Tien, ‘An Interview with Lady David’, Orientations April 1992, pp. 56-63). The following decades the dish spent in no less elated company, in the fabled collection of the Idemitsu Museum of Arts, Tokyo, before entering the choice assembly of Song ceramics formed by the Portuguese collector Francisco Capelo.