This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
Yes, ok, but I think those painted on the biscuit are a minority variant from particular periods - it would be good to find one to illustrate, by the way, or mention if any of the current pics are of one. The phrasing should be modified, but the overglaze link needs to be very prominent. I'll copy this to the article talk, where any continuation should go. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I probably need to look for more closely for sources on that since I'm not exactly sure what the technique they use in Jingdezhen were. From what I can gather, they are not the same as the overglaze enamel used at the palace workshop, but I can't really tell if they still use overglaze famille rose enamal on top. In the Famille jaune, noire, rose, verte article, there is an image (the one on the right) for a famile jaune that is described as being painted on the biscuit as well as on the glaze. Famille noire is also mentioned as being painted on the biscuit. Whether this is the same as for coloured-ground famille rose I don't know. Hzh (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Over the long haul the great majority of Jingdezhen famille ware is overglaze-painted. Unless a museum image file says it is painted on the biscuit, overglaze can be assumed. Afaik enamel on biscuit is extremely rare in Europe, though it is described in this old manual. This might be useful - Hobson was a big expert in his day. Do you want me to dig out my books over the next few days? Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. One thing to bear in mind though is that study of porcelain is a constantly changing field, there is always the question of whether conclusions drawn from years back is still valid now. Hzh (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the earlier periods where there have been lots of changes, from Chinese digs at kilns etc. Not not so much for later periods. Give me a few days. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have read comments by experts that in the early 20th century many porcelain pieces made in the late Qing/early 20th century were sold as earlier pieces, that a lot of scholarship were misled and so drew the wrong conclusions that persisted for a long time. Scientific dating of porcelain can be difficult because it may mean damaging the pieces, and many pieces are being continually re-dated. Hzh (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
