Consigned from a private source and in good condition, it was painted with eight pairs of Buddhist emblems on a lotus scroll ground and sported a cautious £600-1000 guideline.
There was fierce competition between Hong Kong, mainland Chinese and UK dealers confident of its 18th century Imperial heritage, who contested it to £125,000.
Similarly, there was pre-sale trade debate as to whether the privately sourced underglaze blue and yellow enamelled double gourd vase was a Yongzheng (1723-35) mark and period vessel as catalogued and whether some of the enamelling was later.
Once again the Far Eastern market decided it was right. Mainland Chinese and Hong Kong dealers pushed bidding way past its tentative £3000-5000 estimate to a winning £60,000.
Elsewhere, a more speculative £48,000 was tendered by the Far Eastern trade for a £1000-1500 estimated clear glass enamelled
waterpot with a Qianlong seal mark, but catalogued as 'possibly of the period', while £32,000 was needed to secure a hardwood display cabinet entered with pre-sale hopes of £800-1200 in the belief it was a Qianlong Imperial work.
However, there was never any question regarding the authenticity of this exquisite Qianlong period (1736-95) jade vase (shown bottom right). A good size at 12in (31cm) high and a beautiful celadon colour, it was pursued to £125,000.
Opinion divided over blue and white vase
AUCTIONS are often the best way of settling whether a work is genuine or not. Of the speculative entries in Christie’s South Kensington’s 584-lot sale on June 11, most were contested by Hong Kong and mainland Chinese dealers. Before the sale, trade and auction specialist opinion was divided as to whether this 10 1/2in (27cm) high blue and white vase (shown right) was a Yongzheng (1723-35) mark and period vessel or a 19th/20th century copy as catalogued.