Establishing authenticity can be tricky, especially when itcomes to a treasured item believed to have been made in15^th century China. This was the challenge faced by aclaims adjuster in this month's Contents Claims Solved.

The object in question was a 15^th century MingDynasty vase. The insured purchased the vase in Hong Kong for$1,000 in 1971. A prudent collector, he still had his originalreceipt from the Hong Kong dealer certifying the age of the vase.The vase was broken and the insured was now claiming $7,000. Thisvaluation came from a noted New York City appraisal firm thatcharged $300 an hour for their services.

The claims adjuster wanted to verify the valuation and calledupon contents claims specialists to examine a set of images of thevase — the same images used by the NYC appraisal firm to determinetheir valuation.

Case Background

Vases from the Tianshun period (1457-1464) come up in themarketplace on occasion, though they are not common. Provenance andassured authenticity are major factors that drive valuation forthese items, as reproductions of these forms have been widely madein China starting in the 16th century and continuing to the presentday. Auction results confirm that true authentic period vases sellfor many thousands of dollars, and Ming imperial pieces for manyhundreds of thousands or even more. At the other end of thespectrum, modern reproduction “Ming-style” vases sell for as littleas a few hundred dollars.

The subject vase presented a number of troubling attributes. Thefour character markings on the base of the vase were atypical, bothin their nature and their placement, which appeared to be on theinside bottom of the vase. Similarly, the reign marks that appearedin calligraphic script on the exterior neck of the piece were mostunusual and again atypical of pieces from the stated period. Theceramic form lacked the refinement and grace of a Ming vase, withthe broken base pieces being atypically thick. In addition therewas a lack of glaze on the bottom rim and the form of the vaseitself was cruder than would be typical of genuine 15th centurypieces of Chinese porcelain.

Click Next for the Result!

Based on these anomalies, contents claims specialists determinedthat the piece was in fact not authentic 15th century and wasactually of 20th century manufacture. If it was a genuine 15thcentury piece — as accepted by the NYC appraisal firm — the truereplacement value would have likely been closer to $70,000 ratherthan $7,000.

ReadMore Contents Claims Solved Here!

Contents claims specialists determined that the piece was infact a 20th century reproduction with a retail replacement value ofapproximately $200. While disappointed that the vase was not anauthentic antique, the insured understood the clear evidenceprovided by contents claims specialists and accepted thevaluation.