底刻數字款之鈞瓷，乃深受推崇之珍器，本盆玫瑰紫釉絢爛明豔，誠為明初宮廷瓷器佳例，展示當時藝術品味。
至今為止，已知共十四款官鈞瓷器型，每款均有不同尺寸，各刻數字款，其中一款為渣斗，本品器型或源自此器。本盆口沿綫條秀雅，鼓腹器型，最初或因頸部燒成失誤修磨而成，但最少自清代開始獲推崇爲獨特器型，備受珍視。
明十五世紀初 鈞窰玫瑰紫釉花盆
拍賣開始
March 18, 09:00 PM HKT
估價
250,000 - 350,000 USD
描述 底字：七
狀況報告
In overall good condition. The flared mouth has been cut down. There are a few very faint, short hairline cracks to the rim and one to the foot ring. Overall with some expected light wear and minor firing imperfections.
整體品相良好。撇口經截。口沿見幾道極微細短沖，圈足亦見一道。整體見些許正常輕微磨損及輕微窰燒瑕疵。
出處
Ralph M. Chait，紐約
Walter Read Hovey 博士 (1895-1981) 收藏，1973年之前
贈予卡內基美術館，匹茲堡，1973年（館藏編號73.48.58）
鈞瓷，宋五大名窰之一，以釉料溫潤豐厚而不透明，色澤明艷瑰麗為典型特徵，備受帝皇青睞，亦為藏家珍重，然而關於鈞瓷種種，頗多處仍舊成謎。鈞窰器釉色之妙，有別於同期各窰釉料。鈞釉艷色，不僅得自氧化鐵釉料，更賴高溫還原窰燒時產生、石灰含量豐富之極微細玻璃泡，鈞釉因而散射藍光，豔紫效果變幻迷人，千百年來燒製不斷，主要窰址位於今河南、河北與山西等地。
鈞器廣受喜愛，雅好者因而以之泛指各類乳光瑩潤瓷器。然而明初所制、帶數字款之鈞窰瓷（亦稱「官鈞」），比北宋（960–1127年）及金代（1115–1234年）紫斑鈞瓷質素更為上乘，亦更華麗珍稀。此類器胎質精良，釉層厚潤瑰麗，晶潤耀目，釉面帶不規則線狀紋理，謂之「蚯蚓走泥紋」，底部刻由「一」至「十」數字款，標其大小與專配之器托。宋代鈞瓷，多以輪盤拉坯塑胎，乃為較廣泛之對象製作。明初帶數字款之鈞窰瓷（亦稱「官鈞」），文獻與考古證據顯示，相信乃由河南鈞台窰（鈞窰之名，正是由此而來）以模具成批燒製，而且僅見於窰址出土或北京御藏，故此或為明代宮廷御用。據霍吉淑 述，由於雙模製作之法始見於十五世紀初，此類官鈞相信乃屬明代永樂、宣德二帝御令，為北京新建宮殿而製，於殿閣陳設，歷代珍藏；參考《明：改變中國的五十年》，大英博物館，倫敦，2014年，頁92-97。
宮廷畫作，亦可見此類官鈞瓷器，從中可印證上述理論。參考明代佚名《十八學士圖》，畫中有一鈞窰盤，圖載台北故宮「瓶盆風華─明清花器特展」，2014年，頁39（上）；另見明代佚名手卷《杏園雅集》（1437年作），描繪明代文臣楊榮（1371-1440年）於京城府邸會友，畫中有一菱口盆，現藏紐約大都會博物館，亦載於《明：改變中國的五十年》，出處同上，頁190-191，圖164。
至今為止，已知共十四款官鈞瓷器型，每款均有不同尺寸，各刻數字款，其中一款為渣斗，本品器型或源自此器。參考一例，潘氏家族小聽颿樓珍藏，2024年10月16日售於香港蘇富比拍賣，逾1020萬港元成交，編號808 ( 圖一 )；另見Dane Collection鈞瓷收藏，亦刻數字款，現藏於哈佛藝術博物館，編號1942.185.38。
本盆口沿綫條秀雅，鼓腹器型，最初或因頸部燒成失誤修磨而成，但最少自清代開始獲推崇爲獨特器型，備受珍視。另可比較台北故宮藏兩例,刻數字款，頸部亦曾修磨至較短，載於《故宮藏瓷大系．鈞窰之部》，台北，1999年，圖版10及14；北京故宮藏一例，釉色淡青，見於《鈞瓷雅集：故宮博物院珍藏及出土鈞瓷瓷器薈萃》，北京，2013年，圖版107；再比一例，出自S. W.Bushell收藏，《Oriental Ceramic Art》,倫敦，1896年，圖版XCIV；尚有一例，歐默福普洛斯收藏，圖載於R.L. Hobson編，《喬治．歐默福普洛斯藏品目錄》，卷三，倫敦，1926年，編號C3，圖版III。
有關明代鈞窯紫斑花盆之常見問答
鈞窯是什麼，其重要性為何？
鈞窯是一種中國陶瓷，傳統上被列入宋代「五大名窯」之中，以其釉色濃厚且呈現光彩奪目的藍色與紫色調而著稱。這種獨特釉色乃因高溫還原燒製過程中，在釉料中形成富含石灰的微小玻璃氣泡，這些氣泡能夠散射藍光，進而產生出典型的紫色光澤。由於此特性，鈞窯自古以來深受皇室與收藏家青睞，其生產歷史跨越數個世紀，並在河南、河北、山西等省份的多個窯址中延續發展。
早期明代「編號」或「官製」鈞窯與早期其他時期鈞窯有何區別？
早期明代的「編號」或「官製」鈞窯（亦稱官鈞）在品質、華美程度與稀有性上皆有顯著提升，相較於北宋及金代早期所見之紫斑鈞窯更為精緻。這些明代作品採用更細膩的胎土，釉層更為厚重且光彩照人，器物表面常呈現所謂「蟲跡」——即類似不規則線狀的紋理，同時器底鑄有一至十的數字。一般認為，這些數字用以表示器物的尺寸及其對應的座架規格。與早期各地以手工拉坯製作的鈞窯不同，考古證據顯示，明代官製鈞窯很可能是利用模具批量生產而成。
這些早期明代「編號」鈞窯可能在哪裡生產，其製作對象又是誰？
根據考古與文獻記載，這類官製鈞窯極有可能是在河南的鈞台窯製作，正因而得名。由於出窯器物在品質上極為統一，且目前僅在窯址或北京宮廷環境中發現，因此普遍推斷這些器物乃直接為明朝宮廷所訂製。考慮到雙模鑄造技術始見於15世紀初，這些作品很可能是永樂及宣德年間，專為新建北京宮殿而委託生產的。
明代鈞窯的製作工藝與早期鈞窯有何不同？
早期鈞窯主要以手工拉坯的方式在各地獨立生產；而明代官製鈞窯則多以模具鑄造法大規模生產。自15世紀初起採用的雙模技術，不僅大大提升了生產效率，更確保了產品在形制與品質上的高度一致。
花盆底部所刻數字有何意義？
花盆底部刻有一至十的數字，普遍認為這是用來標示器物的相對尺寸，以及其所搭配座架的規格。
何謂「玫瑰紫釉」，其在明代鈞窯中又為何如此珍貴？
「玫瑰紫釉」指的是明代高品質鈞窯中展現出的鮮豔粉紅與皇家紫色調。此釉色源自鐵氧化物顏料與釉中微小氣泡間的相互作用，形成一種光澤柔和、富有乳光效果的釉面。釉色的深邃與飽滿，加上釉面獨特的紋理，使得這類器物在收藏界極具價值。
在明朝宮廷中，這些鈞窯作品主要扮演什麼角色？
明代官製鈞窯（包括花盆）不僅具備實用功能，同時也作為宮廷內重要的裝飾品陳列。這些器物被安置於新建的北京宮殿中，充分展現出明初宮廷的藝術品味與奢華風範。宮廷繪畫中對這類大型器物的描繪，亦進一步證實了其專為皇室所用的地位。
所討論之花盆保存狀況如何，其來歷又如何？
該花盆整體保存狀況良好，但記錄中提及其擴口部分曾經被修剪過。器物的沿緣與足環上存在細微的短裂紋，並有部分正常的磨損及燒製時的輕微瑕疵。其來歷可追溯至紐約的 Ralph M. Chait 與 Dr. Walter Read Hovey（收藏於1973年前），並於1973年捐贈予匹茲堡卡內基藝術博物館。目前此件作品正被拍賣，以資助該博物館的藏品收購基金。
An exceptionally rare and superb 'Jun' purple-splashed flowerpot, Ming dynasty, early 15th century
Property From Carnegie Museum Of Art, Sold To Benefit The Acquisition Fund
Session begins in
March 18, 09:00 PM HKT
Estimate
250,000 - 350,000 USD
Description
the base covered with an olive-brown wash and inscribed with a numeral qi (seven)
Diameter 7½ in., 19 cm
Provenance
Ralph M. Chait, New York.
Collection of Dr. Walter Read Hovey (1895-1981), prior to 1973.
Gifted to the Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh, 1973 (accession no. 73.48.58).
Catalogue Note
Glowing with a captivating palette of vibrant pinks and royal purples, the present lot is a rare example of the much-coveted ‘numbered Jun’ wares and a testament to the artistic vision and sheer opulence of the early Ming court.
Beloved by emperors and collectors alike, the term ‘Jun’ remains shrouded in mystery. Traditionally grouped among the ‘Five Famous Wares’ of the Song dynasty, Jun pieces are typified by their thick sumptuous glazes of dazzling opalescent tone. Unlike other traditional glazes of their time, the color of Jun wares relies not only on the iron oxide pigments found in the glaze itself but also on microscopic bubbles of lime-rich glass formed in the intense reduction firing process. Scattering blue light and producing an enchanting purple tone, this bubbled glaze has continued to be reproduced for centuries in a variety of kiln sites across modern-day Henan, Hebei and Shanxi provinces.
Despite, or indeed because of, the widespread appeal of these pieces, the term ‘Jun’ has been adopted by connoisseurs to describe a wide variety of opalescent wares. Quite distinct from the purple-splashed Jun wares typically attributed to the Northern Song (960–1127) and Jin (1115–1234) dynasties, the so-called ‘numbered’ or ‘official’ Jun pieces of the early Ming represent a marked departure in terms of quality, opulence and rarity. These wares, of a particularly fine clay-body, are adorned with a dazzling thick glaze which seems to ripple across their smooth surface in ‘worm tracks,’ and are inscribed at the base with numerals from one to ten – apparently indicative of their relative size and corresponding stands. Unlike earlier wares, hand-thrown at a variety of sites for a broad consumer market, archaeological and textual evidence suggests that these ‘official’ pieces were likely cast en masse from molds at the famed Juntai kilns of Henan, from which all Jun wares derive their name. With a marked consistency in quality and form and no known examples found outside of a kiln site or Beijing palace context, it seems highly likely that this group was produced directly for the Ming court. As Jessica Harrison-Hall argues, given the method of construction using double molds did not exist until the early 15th century, it seems highly likely that these rare pieces were commissioned by the Yongle and Xuande emperors for the newly built Ming palaces in Beijing where they were displayed and admired throughout the ensuing centuries; see Ming. 50 Years That Changed China, British Museum, London, 2014, pp 92-97.
Early depictions of these grand pots in court paintings further support this imperial attribution. Compare a bulb bowl of this ‘official’ style, depicted in the anonymous hanging scroll The Eighteen Scholars, attributed to the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, included in the Museum’s exhibition The Enchanting Splendor of Vases and Planters: A Special Exhibition of Flower Vessels from the Ming and Qing Dynasties, Taipei, 2014, p. 39 (top); and a barbed jardinière painted in the anonymous handscroll Elegant Gathering in the Apricot Garden from 1437, which depicts the court official Yang Rong (1371-1440) during a gathering of scholars at his home in Beijing. The painting, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, was included in the seminal Ming exhibition at the British Museum, op. cit., cat. no. 164.
To date, fourteen official Jun shapes have been identified, each attested in a range of numbered sizes, including a flowerpot of fluted zhadou (‘spitoon’) form, from which the present design appears to have been derived. Compare a closely related zhadou flowerpot from the Poon Family Collection, sold in our Hong Kong rooms for more than 10.2 million Hong Kong dollars, 16th October 2024, lot 808 (Fig. 1); and another from the celebrated Dane Collection of numbered Jun, now preserved the Harvard Art Museums (accession. no. 1942.185.38). Although perhaps initially ground down out of necessity as a result of an ill-fired neck, the understated rim and globular form of the present lot has been similarly treasured as a distinct and desirable style in its own right at least since the Qing dynasty. Compare two further examples of numbered Jun zhadou with reduced necks preserved in the National Palace Museum, Taipei in A Panorama of Ceramics in the Collection of the National Palace Museum: Chün Ware, Taipei, 1999, pls 10 and 14; and another of lighter blue tone preserved in the Palace Museum, Beijing, illustrated in Selection of Jun Ware. The Palace Museum’s Collection and Archaeological Excavation, Beijing, 2013, pl. 107; a fourth from the Walters Collection in S. W. Bushell, Oriental Ceramic Art, London, 1896, pl. XCIV; and a fifth from the Eumorfopolous Collection, illustrated in R. L. Hobson, The George Eumorfopoulos Collection. Catalogue of the Chinese, Corean and Persian Pottery and Porcelain, vol. III, London, 1926, cat. no. C3, pl. III.
Frequently Asked Questions About Ming Dynasty Jun Purple-Splashed Flowerpots
1. What is Jun ware, and why is it significant?
Jun ware is a type of Chinese pottery, traditionally grouped among the "Five Famous Wares" of the Song dynasty, known for its thick, opalescent glaze in vibrant colors, especially blues and purples. The glaze's unique appearance results from microscopic bubbles of lime-rich glass formed during high-temperature reduction firing. These bubbles scatter blue light, creating the characteristic purple tones and making Jun ware highly prized by emperors and collectors. Its production continued for centuries across various kilns in Henan, Hebei, and Shanxi provinces.
2. What distinguishes "numbered" or "official" Jun ware of the early Ming Dynasty from earlier Jun ware?
Early Ming Dynasty "numbered" or "official" Jun wares (also called "Guan Jun") represent a significant advancement in quality, opulence, and rarity compared to earlier purple-splashed Jun wares from the Northern Song and Jin dynasties. These Ming pieces are crafted from a finer clay body, feature a thicker, more dazzling glaze with "worm tracks" (irregular line-like textures on the surface), and have numerals (one to ten) inscribed on their bases. These numbers are thought to indicate the size of the piece and its corresponding stand. Unlike earlier Jun ware that was hand-thrown at a variety of kilns, archaeological evidence suggests that "official" Jun ware was mass-produced from molds.
3. Where were these early Ming Dynasty "numbered" Jun wares likely produced, and for whom?
Archaeological and textual evidence indicates that these "official" Jun wares were likely produced at the Juntai kilns of Henan, from which all Jun wares derive their name. Due to the consistent quality and the fact that no examples have been found outside of kiln sites or Beijing palace contexts, it is believed that these wares were produced directly for the Ming court. The double-mold construction technique used didn't exist until the early 15th century, making it likely that these pieces were commissioned by the Yongle and Xuande emperors for the newly built Ming palaces in Beijing.
4. How does the manufacturing process of Ming Dynasty Jun ware differ from that of earlier wares?
While earlier Jun wares were hand-thrown on a wheel at different locations, the Ming Dynasty "official" Jun wares were likely cast en masse from molds. The use of double molds, a technique dating back to the early 15th century, allowed for a greater consistency in quality and form.
5. What is the significance of the numbers inscribed on the base of these flowerpots?
The numbers (one to ten) inscribed on the base of these flowerpots are believed to indicate their relative size and the corresponding stands that accompanied them.
6. What is the "rose-purple glaze" and why is it highly valued in Ming Dynasty Jun ware?
The "rose-purple glaze" refers to the captivating palette of vibrant pinks and royal purples characteristic of high-quality Jun ware, especially from the early Ming Dynasty. This glaze results from the interplay of iron oxide pigments and microscopic bubbles within the glaze, creating a luminous, opalescent effect. The depth and intensity of these colors, combined with the glaze's texture, make these pieces particularly coveted by collectors.
7. What purpose did these Jun wares serve within the Ming court?
The "official" Jun wares produced for the Ming court, including flowerpots, served both decorative and functional purposes. They were displayed and admired in the newly built palaces in Beijing, reflecting the artistic taste and opulence of the early Ming court. Early depictions of these grand pots in court paintings further support this imperial attribution.
8. What is the condition of the flowerpot being discussed, and what is its provenance?
The flowerpot is described as being in overall good condition, though it has been noted that the flared mouth has been cut down. There are also faint, short hairline cracks on the rim and foot ring, along with some expected light wear and minor firing imperfections. The flowerpot's provenance traces back to Ralph M. Chait (New York), the collection of Dr. Walter Read Hovey (prior to 1973), and was gifted to the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh in 1973. It is now being sold to benefit the museum's acquisition fund.
Comments