top of page

突發:劉益謙龍美術館同款官釉八方弦紋盤口瓶驚現蘇富比春拍 - The Southern Song Guan of Long Museum, ex-Edward T.Chow emerged in Sotheby's 2024 HK.



宋或较晚 官釉八方弦纹盘口瓶

高 22 厘米

估价:8,000,000 - 12,000,000 港元

蘇富比2024 春拍


這件作品讓大家想起2015年超過一億港元的同款八方瓶,這次拍賣宣傳,蘇富比負責人仇國士大談安宅英一舊藏,現藏大阪市立東洋陶瓷博物館的南宋官窯八方瓶(業界無爭議南宋時代作品),大吸眼球。


劉益謙龍美術館是中國爆光率最高的私人美術館,藏有當代到古代的一系列藝術珍藏。劉益謙以明成化雞缸杯的購藏一戰成名,但實際上他是一位有著超過30年收藏經驗的老藏家。


這次拍賣的瓶子,藏家須知:

  • 造型與龍美術館劉益謙珍藏一致,與大阪安宅舊藏為同款。(年代待論)

  • 年代標誌:蘇富比寫”宋或更晚“,是否表明對其年代沒有信心?單色釉同類作品,明清是否有製作,致敬?

  • 仇焱之舊藏目前僅憑模糊記憶(circumstantial),是否有發票或進一步文字證據?

  • 定價800-1200萬港元,與劉益謙2015年1億港元售價相去甚遠,是否年代、傳承因素導致?

  • 名稱採用“官釉八方弦纹盘口瓶”,避開“南宋官窯”字眼,是否為了避免窯口之爭議?

  • 據悉,台北故宮博物院藏有同類b



每一個藝術行業的從業人員、藏家都對其十分關注,年前劉益謙的龍美術館釋放了一批當代藝術,引起整個市場對其經濟狀況的猜測。龍美術館之前從未涉及宋代藝術品的釋放,此次上拍的南宋官窯瓶與劉益謙曾經購藏的1億人民幣南宋官窯瓶同款。


根據華爾街日報2015年的報導,劉益謙花了超過1億港元(當時1460萬美元)在蘇富比拍賣購入該瓶,蘇富比收取佣金港幣1390萬。華爾街日報當時報導:“Mr. Liu, a taxi driver turned stock-market investor, beat out seven other bidders.” 當時競拍人數8人,由劉益謙奪標。




蘇富比2015年拍賣總結 ⬆️


以下內容來自蘇富比2024年3月1日21點發布的消息:



秘藏復光


仇国仕

亚洲区主席 | 亚洲艺术部主席兼环球主管


中国陶瓷珍藏,深闺潜居半世纪馀,单色为主,清逸脱俗。这是两名高士千里相遇的故事,他们对艺术共同的热忱,谱出了如此轻柔的乐韵。这也是中国陶瓷美学的故事。赵宋伊始,陶瓷以淡雅为尚,艺匠费索思量,对婉约蕴藉苦苦追求,千秋未竭。陶艺的精髓,在于形与色的共舞。单色釉器,似简还繁,慎形重色,纵使中国陶瓷变化万千、林林总总,它们凭一色、骄独秀。但最重要的,这是一个缘份的故事,细诉器物的命运,如何把我们和故人、现在和过去,悄悄地连在一起。


中国陶瓷珍藏,深闺潜居半世纪馀,单色为主,清逸脱俗⋯⋯这是一个缘份的故事,细诉器物的命运,如何把我们和故人、现在和过去,悄悄地连在一起。


仇焱之(1910-1980年)


香港.六十年代末


欧洲重要藏家商务访港期间,在一场社交宴会上遇见以中国文化造诣称着的名媛淑女,他们一见如故,谈古说今。藏家透露蒐集中国玉凋之愿,她却说,白玉虽好,陶瓷更佳,他的品味高致,宜攻中国单色釉器。为此,她引荐了以独具慧眼闻名的上海鑑藏家兼古董商仇焱之。

 

他们约好了在仇氏跑马地寓所见面。就是在那俯瞰马场的宅第裏,丝绒复盖的桌案上,仇氏把盒子逐一打开。莹润的翠、甘饴的白,两宋伊始,明清接续。细腻的,嫩红、娇黄、胭脂,一色纯淨,伴以十八世纪初雍正绘彩名品。且有大明青花,从十五世纪早叶至十七世纪前期,由盛世经典到末代遗风,见尽一朝兴衰起落。严肃地,仇氏从最后的锦盒拿出一个瓷瓶,棱角分明之处,浑然天成,罩施厚釉微泛灰,润泽如脂,披一身金褐细片,秀朗朴雅。昔为圣君御製,至此已近千年,沧海早变桑田。

 

数星期后,华物珍品分装二船,告别香港,启程欧洲。




宋或较晚 官釉八方弦纹盘口瓶

高 22 厘米

估价:8,000,000 - 12,000,000 港元


倫敦.2010年11月


正正是这个星期,我罕有地戴上了家传佩饰:祖父六十年代的欧米茄手錶和他经典的『金纽结』袖扣⋯⋯年幼时多次听过这名字,爸爸谈过祖父曾把成组珍品售予一名欧洲藏家,但数十年来,它们彷彿消声匿迹。


仇国仕


这是伦敦的拍卖季节,为了一整个星期的拍卖活动,大中华、日本、欧洲、美国的藏者与艺坛专家云集此地。梅菲尔、圣詹姆士、肯辛顿教堂街的酒会、开幕、拍卖,让人们乐此不疲,熙熙攘攘。正正是这个星期,我罕有地戴上了家传佩饰:祖父六十年代的欧米茄手錶和他经典的「金纽结」袖扣。这是我们的拍卖翌日,我终于可以忙裏偷闲,回到隐藏在苏富比大楼深处的部门办公室。经过仓库的储物柜,我注意到一只瓷瓶,形採八方,色罩淡蓝,高踞架上。远观彷彿似曾相识,犹如大坂安宅旧藏宋代官窰名品的孪生兄弟。安宅藏瓶,是我久慕之物。1970年伦敦一场拍卖中,祖父仇焱之与坂本五郎互不相让,在连番激烈竞价后,最终击退日本艺商,赢得该瓶。然而眼前的不可能是那瓶。我攀梯取瓶,放在图书馆的案桌上。长颈宽肩,器形的恢宏聚焦在峻岭之上,釉则如雪落高峰沿坡缓流。釉是丰厚的,游遍颈上乳浊的山丘与旋涡,随着冰裂片纹的韵律起舞。是那渊深玄奥,让我沉浸在覃思之中。终于,我伸手摩挲,探索瓷瓶大方的质感,刚阳的建筑线条融化在婉柔的触觉下,成全了这趟深刻的美学旅程。




坐在这列纯美的陶瓷面前,百感交集。是中国陶艺的延绵,更是祖父的锐目慎选,把它们从朝代的盛衰更迭中连繫起来。


仇国仕


这麽一件珍品,为何会闲置在部门架子的顶层呢?我走到同事的办公室,是我们的部门主管,问他此事为何。他说这瓶属于一个欧洲显赫珍藏,以单色釉器为主,暂存此处进行价值评估。我问他藏家名字。太诡异了吧。年幼时多次听过这名字,爸爸谈过祖父曾把成组珍品售予一名欧洲藏家,但数十年来,它们彷彿消声匿迹。

 

尚有其他器物。我爬上梯子把它们逐一撷取。坐在这列纯美的陶瓷面前,百感交集。是中国陶艺的延绵,更是祖父的锐目慎选,把它们从朝代的盛衰更迭中连繫起来。一器一物,皆蕴祖父的精神。我拿出电话打给父亲,告诉他这批藏品终于復现。他问我当中是否有一宋官窰瓶,他说那是祖父珍慕不已之品。挂线后,回到原位,凝神灌注在瓷瓶片纹的迷宫裏,浑然忘我。蓦然回想,祖父当时售出此瓶,定是念念不忘,数年后再遇同式类例,便志在必得,在圣詹姆士拥挤的拍卖场上,一掷千金,终得美瓶。后来才纳入安宅氏典藏。


仇国仕戴着祖父仇焱之的六十年代欧米茄及「金纽结」袖扣,手捧官釉八方瓶。


写到这裏,瞥看旧錶,祖父的欧米茄,不为报时,志在重温器物的魔力,如何让时间昇华,归回此刻、思及今人,却又同时邀请我们沉浸在历史的长河,共编永续的诗歌。

仇国仕


初遇藏珍至今已逾十载。写到这裏,瞥看旧錶,祖父的欧米茄,不为报时,志在重温器物的魔力,如何让时间昇华,归回此刻、思及今人,却又同时邀请我们沉浸在历史的长河,共编永续的诗歌。这名显赫的欧洲藏家,珍存此组中国陶瓷雅器近六十寒暑,如今惜已仙逝。蒙其后人託付,我很荣幸能助他们释出珍品,以期让新一代收藏家与守护者分享这份观物覃思的喜悦。


參考資料:


安宅英一、大阪市立東洋陶瓷博物館同款:


下蕪形瓶的口沿做成鍔狀,整體八面倒角。 頸部和肩部所見的對接線被認為是仿照古青銅器上的弦紋。 整個表面覆蓋著一層厚厚的、渾濁的淡藍綠色粉藍色釉。 粘土呈灰黑色,花瓶底部露出黑色的胎骨,是南宋官窯器的特徵之一,即所謂的 "鐵足"。


劉益謙購藏之同款,2015年超過一億港元成交:


Lot 1. An Outstanding ‘Guan’ Octagonal Vase, Southern Song Dynasty (1127-1279); 21.9 cm., 8 5/8  in. Estimate Upon Request. Lot sold 113,880,000 HKD (14,600,000 USD) to the Long Museum, Shanghai - The Third Highest Price for Song Ceramics at Auction. © Sotheby's.


superbly potted, of octagonal section, the compressed globular body rising from a short recessed foot to an angled shoulder encircled by a raised fillet and surmounted by a tall tapering neck elegantly sweeping to an everted flat mouthrim, exquisitely potted with two raised horizontal ribs above a faintly discernible protruding fillet encircling the base of the neck, the dark brown body unctuously veiled overall in a lustrous bluish-celadon glaze thinning at the extremities save for the unglazed footring, the glaze suffused with a network of luminous golden-beige crackles, two Japanese paulownia wood boxes.


Provenance: Collection of John Henry Levy (until 1975).Sotheby’s London, 8th July 1975, lot 68.Eskenazi Ltd., London.Mayuyama & Co., Ltd. Tokyo.


ExhibitedThe Arts of the Sung Dynasty, Oriental Ceramic Society, London, 1960, cat. no. 159.The Ceramic Art of China, Oriental Ceramic Society and Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 1971, cat. no. 102, illustrated pl. 67.Bi no bi [The beauty of beauty], Nihonbashi Mitsukoshi, Tokyo, 1976, cat. no. 45.Sō Gen no bijutsu [The art of Song and Yuan], Osaka Municipal Art Museum, Osaka, 1978, cat. no. 1-20.Chūgoku no tōji/Special Exhibition of Chinese Ceramics, Tokyo National Museum, Tokyo, 1994, cat. no. 174 (illustration mirrored). 


Literature: G.St.G.M. Gompertz, Celadon Wares, London, 1968, pl. 12.W.B.R. Neave-Hill, Chinese Ceramics, Edinburgh, 1970, pl. 86.Hasebe Gakuji, ed., Sekai tōji zenshu/Ceramic Art of the World, volume 12: S¿/Sung Dynasty, Tokyo, 1977, pls. 67 and 68.Tōji taikei [Outlines of ceramics], vol. 36: Seiji [Celadon wares], Tokyo, 1978, pl. 19.Sōgen no bijutsu [The art of the Song and Yuan], Tokyo, 1980, pl. 3.G.St.G.M. Gompertz, Chinese Celadon Wares, London, rev. ed. 1980, col. pl. F.Deng Heying and Tang Junjie, Nan Song guanyao [Guan Ware of the Southern Song], Hangzhou, 2008, p. 120 top left.Giuseppe Eskenazi with Hajni Elias, A Dealer's Hand. The Chinese Art World through the Eyes of Giuseppe Eskenazi, London, 2012, pl. 265.


NoteGuan yao, the fabled ‘official ware’ specially created for the imperial court of the Southern Song (1127-1279) in Hangzhou in south China, is perhaps the most desirable and certainly one of the rarest types of Chinese ceramics. Its serenity and seeming simplicity could only be achieved through utmost sophistication. It showcases Chinese potters at the height of their ingenuity, technical know-how and aesthetic vision. Like great artists and artisans anywhere, they captured – perhaps inadvertently – the zeitgeist of the period in their creations. The works of art they conceived embodied the leitmotifs of China’s highly educated scholar-officials, the non-aristocratic ruling elite of the Song (960-1279).




The Song dynasty was marked by two contrasting Confucian concepts of thought, one conservative, personified in particular by Ouyang Xiu (1007-1072), who advocated a revaluation of ancient tradition as a source for moral principles and a guideline for righteous behavior; the other reformist, propagated by Wang Anshi (1021-1086), who proposed idealistic reforms to achieve an ideal social order and himself practiced an exemplary simple, frugal lifestyle.


In this climate, the baroque voluptuousness that had characterized the aesthetic landscape in the Tang dynasty (618-907) was no longer acceptable even at court and gave way to a more modest, stream-lined functionality. Luxury goods had to be sophisticated rather than just precious.


For the literati-scholars of the day the interaction with the past was not only romantic fascination but compelling necessity. In the words of James T.C. Liu "It was during the Sung [Song] that the ancient Confucian heritage evolved into the new pattern that was to permeate Chinese society for the next thousand years." The rituals of Antiquity, in which bronze vessels had played a central part, "expressed the society’s consciousness of its own identity and regulated, in an all-pervasive way, every need, every detail, indeed everything in human life, in accordance with a meaningful, aesthetic, harmonious, and satisfying moral and philosophical order."1


This attachment to a golden Chinese past only intensified after the foreign Jin (1115-1234) had conquered the Song capital and forced the court to move south to a city – modern Hangzhou – the emperor never fully identified with but merely considered the ‘temporary capital’. When the Palace Maintenance Office endeavoured to commission a new official ware for the Southern Song court, the modernity embodied by the sparse but exquisite Ru ware was taken as model, with its emphasis on tonal variation and patterns of crazing reminiscent of those provoked naturally in precious stones. New commissions of such ceramics suggested cultured patronage rather than wasteful consumption and at the same time conveyed an unbroken continuation of imperial taste and style from Northern (960-1127) to Southern Song. For shapes, the form of archaic ritual bronzes or jades provided the most important inspiration. Archaic bronzes and jades had begun to be excavated, researched and collected as symbols and witnesses of a blessed era of Chinese history, due to their central function in important state rituals in antiquity. The five most important examples of this ware in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, are in the form of a bronze zun, a massive bronze hu with tubular handles and a smaller one of similar form, a fang hu with tubular handles, and a jade cong.2


The present octagonal bottle form is not directly copied, but clearly based on late Bronze Age prototypes. This would have signalled at court a direct connection with the past and imbued the vessel with a significance a newly invented form could not have provided. An unusual type of circular bottle, hu, dating from the Han dynasty (206 BC - AD 220), might have provided inspiration, of related form with low body and tall neck, with engraved designs intersected by horizontal bands around neck and shoulder; an example is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, accession no. 2007.133 (fig. 1); another in the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Washington, D.C., accession no. RLS 1997.48.831. Raised ribs appear, for example, around the neck of tall-necked bottles with a ‘garlic-head’ mouth, mostly of Qin dynasty (221-206 BC) date (see Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, accession no. RLS 1997.48.592, or an example sold in our London rooms, 20th June 2001, lot 182). The angularity was certainly modelled on bronze prototypes, where it appears in many forms, although perhaps not in this hushape. Since Chinese ceramics are largely fashioned on the wheel rather than in moulds, a multi-facetted shape such as this did not come naturally to the potters, but required awkward treatment, since the circular vessel that was assembled from individually thrown horizontal sections, then had to be carefully cut into shape once it was leather-hard, prior to firing.


Engraved bronze vase, hu, Han dynasty (206 B.C.–A.D. 220), ca. 1st century B.C.–1st century A.D. Purchase, Bequest of Dorothy Graham Bennett, 2007, 2007.133. © The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Image source: Art Resource, NY


The exquisite, unctuous glaze of the present vase with its smooth pleasing texture, milky-blue tint and subtle gloss was achieved through gradual application of multiple layers and presumably successive firings. The thick coating thus formed softly envelopes the angular shape, rounding off all sharp angles to create an object that invites being held. The distinct web of veins of the large-scale crackle, probably provoked by a well-controlled cooling process after the last firing and subsequent staining, acts like a design formed by nature, giving the whole piece an aspect as if carved out of one large boulder of a fine jade-like stone.


The dark blackish-brown body visible at the foot and vaguely perceptible through the glaze at raised edges, which is characteristic of Southern Song guan ware, adds depth to the glaze and gravitas to the whole object, as it subtly accentuates the shape. In the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), when guan ware was much copied by the Jingdezhen kilns of Jiangxi province, this dark stoneware body was generally imitated by coating Jingdezhen’s white porcelain with a blackish-brown slip before glazing.

Guan ware is mentioned and lauded already in contemporary texts of the Southern Song period. According to those texts, Xiuneisi, the Palace Maintenance Office, set up a kiln in the new capital, modern Hangzhou, to produce wares modelled on the official ware of the Northern Song. Somewhat later, another kiln at Hangzhou produced a similar but lesser ware. The basic message of these reports appears now supported by archaeological research, since two different kiln sites have been explored at Hangzhou, one at Wuguishan, south of the former Imperial city, the other at Laohudong on the site formerly occupied by the Imperial city.3 Because of their locations and the different qualities of the sherds recovered, the Wuguishan kiln has been interpreted as the (lesser) Jiaotanxia kiln, the Laohudong kiln as the exalted Xiuneisi manufactory. 

It is difficult, however, to link the best examples of guan ware to either kiln site. In quality and beauty they seem to surpass not only the fragments found at the Jiaotanxia but also those from the supposed Xiuneisi kiln site at Laohudong. It is still too early to say whether such outstanding examples were made there, but have not turned up at the excavation site, since nothing reaching this quality would ever have been discarded; or else, whether they may have been made at yet another, superior and perhaps smaller kiln in Hangzhou as yet undiscovered, which may have been active for a shorter period. Compare a fragment of a related circular bottle excavated at the Laohudong kiln site, included in the exhibition Maboroshi no mei yō. Nan Sō Shūnaishi kan yō/Temporary Exhibition: Southern Song Xiuneisi Guan Ware. Archaeological Findings from the Kiln site at Laohudong, Hangzhou, Museum of Oriental Ceramics, Osaka, 2010, cat. no. 05 (fig. 2).

 


Guanyao vase, Southern Song dynasty, excavated at the Laohudong kiln site. After: Maboroshi no mei yō. Nan Sō Shūnaishi kan yō/Temporary. Exhibition: Southern Song Xiuneisi Guan Ware. Archaeological Findings fromthe Kiln site at Laohudong, Hangzhou, Museum of Oriental Ceramics, Osaka, 2010, cat. no. 05

Song dynasty examples are exceedingly rare even in the Palace Museums of Taipei and Beijing, which contain the former imperial collection. Vessels of top-quality guan ware are today virtually all in museum collections. Most closely related is the famous octagonal bottle of similar form reputedly from the Chinese imperial collection, thereafter in the collections of F.C. Harrison, Sir A. Daniel Hall, Robert C. Bruce and Edward T. Chow, later in the collection of Ataka Eiichi and today in the Museum of Oriental Ceramics, Osaka, sold twice in our London rooms, 1st July 1943, lot 70 and 12th May 1953, lot 60, and at Christie’s London, 12th October 1970, lot 77, frequently illustrated and exhibited, and included side by side with the present example in the OCS exhibition The Ceramic Art of China, London, 1971, cat. no. 103 (illustrated pl. 68) (fig. 3). That bottle is slightly smaller than the present piece and shows a much more faint crackle.



Guan ware octagonal vase, Southern Song dynasty (1127-1279), The Museum of Oriental Ceramics, Osaka. © Christie's Image Ltd 1970. 

Only two other vessels representing Song guan ware at its best have ever appeared at auction: the fang hu with tubular handles from the collection of Mrs. Alfred Clark, sold in our London rooms, 25th March 1975, lot 101, published in Sekai tōji zenshū/Ceramic Art of the World, vol. 12, Tokyo, 1976, col.pl. 71; and the mallet-shaped Yujinyuan bottle sold in these rooms, 11th April 2008, lot 2601.


Crackled bluish-green glazed ceramics of guan type became one of China's most widely admired and most avidly imitated ceramic styles. Guan ware was copied already in its own time by the Longquan kilns in Zhejiang province, and ever since has inspired a vast production of crackled wares, which still continues today. Many Ming dynasty (1368-1644) writers have evoked the fame of Southern Song guan ware and important copies, but generally of small size, were made at the imperial kilns of Jingdezhen, both in the Xuande period (1426-35) and in the Chenghua reign (1465-87). In the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), the Yongzheng Emperor (r. 1723-35) sent originals from the imperial collection to Jingdezhen as models to copy, and a vase in the shape of the present example was probably among them.


The Qianlong Emperor (r. 1736-95), who was a particularly avid collector, received a large number of tribute pieces, which entered the imperial collection, were accepted as genuine Song guan wares and sometimes even provided with imperial inscriptions. These tributes to the Qing court and the Qianlong Emperor's inscriptions have for a long time blurred our vision of the true identity of Southern Song guan ware. Only recently, later copies among them have been identified as such. The National Palace Museum exhibition in 1989, for example, contained 143 items of so-called guan ware, including thirty vases, of which only four were considered to be genuine Southern Song guan wares.4 


John Henry Levy, who died in 1976, was the son of the well known collectors of Chinese ceramics, the. Hon. Mrs. Nellie Ionides and her first husband Walter Henry Levy, but was an important collector in his own right. The present bottle was the highlight of the 1975 Sotheby's sale, which included a major part of his collection.

_____________________________________________

1 James T.C. Liu, Ou-yang Hsiu. An Eleventh-Century Neo-Confucianist, Stanford, 1967, p. vii, and p. 163.2 See the Special Exhibition of Sung Dynasty Kuan Ware at the National Palace Museum, Taipei, 1989, cat. Nos. 2 and 8-10; and China at the Inception of the Second Millennium: Art and Culture of the Sung Dynasty, 960-1279, Taipei, 2000, cat. no. I-31. 3 Nan Song guan yao/Southern Song Governmental Porcelain Workshop, Beijing, 1996; Du Zhengxian, ed., Hangzhou Laohudong yaozhi ciqi jingxuan [Selection of porcelains from the Laohudong kiln sites in Hangzhou], Beijing, 2002; Zhang Zhenchang, ed., Nan Song guan yao wenji/A Collection of Essays on Southern Song Dynasty Guan Kiln, Beijing, 2004.4 This view is expressed by Ts'ai Ho-pi in the catalogue, but in veiled terms, see Special Exhibition of Sung Dynasty Kuan Ware at the National Palace Museum, Taipei, 1989.


其他精选拍品


清雍正 胭脂红内粉彩荔枝纹盃一对 《大清雍正年製》款

径 8.8 厘米

估价:5,000,000 - 7,000,000 港元


清康熙 黄釉盌一对 《大清康熙年製》款

径 14 厘米

估价:300,000 - 400,000 港元


清雍正 胭脂水马蹄盃一对 《大清雍正年製》款

径 8.5 厘米

估价:2,500,000 - 3,500,000 港元


明永乐 甜白釉暗花缠枝莲纹围棋罐

宽 17.1 厘米

估价:1,000,000 - 1,500,000 港元




Comentários


bottom of page