Antique qins, fake antique qins

[guzhenglover]

I found quite a few (well I think) really good qins over the weekend, and the ones that captivate my attention are supposed to be from Qing Dynasty. Their sound is really good, the design is nice, the timber (from what my limited experience tells me) seems OK but I have doubts about the age of the qin (not sure if they are really from Qing Dynasty - and I don't mean late Qing but early). There are tiny "cracks" on the surface and carvings inside the qin's belly showing supposedly the name of the Qin emperor etc., but I doubt that these are authentic. I'd have thought that it takes at least a few hundred years before the desired cracks appear? And I am sure that not all engravings on the qin are genuine testimonies to the instrument's age. What d'you guys think?

HAVING SAID ALL THIS, I am still tempted to buy one because I can tell that even if the qins are genuine antique then they would still be at least more than a few decades old and the timber does look appealing and the craftsmenship is quite adminrable, plus the sound is good and the price is very reasonable (having taken into account what people say about dodgy dealers charging heaps for a piece of fake antique). I also like the sound. Do people still buy nice fake antique qins to practice on as second instruments and/or even for proper performances and/or to use professionally? After all, some of the most famous qins are imitations based on earlier dynasties e.g. song period imitation of a tang qin. Can fake antique qins still be a worthwhile investment?

Syburn, are there truckloads upon truckloads of fake antique qins in China? Sometimes I get the feeling that's the case (and that would be the thing that'd put me off).

[blueharp]

I would guess it depends on what you mean by "fake antique".

A contemporary instrument made to appear old and passed off as a genuine antique is fraud. A contemporary instrument is made to appear old for aesthetic reasons and represented as such is a different matter.

Many reputable makers (ie Ma Weiheng, Wang Peng) create instruments with false "tuan wen", literally "breaks the grain" (Â_¯¾ encoded as chinese traditional/Big5). The tuan wen are considered to be aesthetically pleasing and are said to affect the sound in a positive way.

People have been creating the false tuan wen for centuries. They don't necessarily guarantee an antique.

Here is a reproduction antique guqin from the CCN website:

www.chineseculture.net/musicmall/instruments/htmls/guqin/silkantiqueqin.htm

I have seen it in person and it is gorgeous!

Last year I saw a guqin that was about 150 years old. It looked like it had just been made - no cracks in sight - but it was genuine.

If the primary criteria is an instrument that it sounds good, plays nicely and looks good - why not? If the reason is to acquire a genuinely antique instrument, be highly skeptical. There are loads of modern instruments being passed off as antique on ebay. Usually they aren't even playable.

Be warned: if it is a genuine antique, you might not be able to take it out of the country.

From www.lotustours.net/info/travel/travelGuide2.shtml

"Antiques need to be declared at all times. Attempts of hiding and smuggling antiques through customs would be severely punished.

Antiques and related products must carry the appraisal marks issued by the related Chinese culture administration department and the legal document of export sales. "

Whether or not the instrument is any good is what would matter in a performance situation, not necessarily its pedigree.

[guzhenglover]

I think what I consider a worthwhile investment would be either (1) a qin with some age (between, say, a few decades and a hundred years old), or (2) a contemporary instrument made to appear old for aesthetic reasons and represented as such (+/- duan wen, though I don't really like duan wen that's created on purpose). The thing is that I don't know who the makers are - well I don't remember the inscriptions inside each qin, and even if I did I wouldn't know for sure if they are genuine.

I am unure what to think about a contemporary instrument made to appear old and passed off as a genuine antique at this stage. As I mentioned in the first post, isn't it the case that the tradition of making imitations of earlier qins began in the Song Dynasty, and that some of the famous old qins still in use today by master qin players were once thought to be from the Tang or Song Dynasties when in fact they were imitations made in the Ming Dynasty (and people still treasure them even if they are not genuinely Tang/Song)?

I guess what I am saying is that I am prepared to buy a contemporary instrument which has been made to appear old and passed off as a genuine antique - on condition that it is made well, produces a good sound and is worth keeping as it ages further. Well the ones that I looked at certainly weren't unplayable and in fact come from someone who plays and collects qins. But is my attitude wrong?

[blueharp]

IMHO your attitude is perfectly reasonable. Given the same opportunity I would certainly go for it!

There are indeed some historical fakes that are of value. However a Tang/Song qin copied in the Ming Dynasty is still a Ming Dynasty qin. That is a far cry from one made a few years ago that is supposed to be from the early Qing Dynasty.

Sometimes instruments are made from very old wood (as early as the Han Dynasty). These may be good instruments and sound great, but they aren't qin made in the Han Dynasty. It has value as an instrument, but not as an antique.

My understanding is that it can be difficult to establish when a qin was actually made. Often very early instruments will have repairs that were made centuries ago.

I guess the dilemma is whether antiquity or sound is more important.

Quoting from Jim Binkley's wonderful translation of the Yuguzhai qinpu (Volume 3, Chapter 7):

"Beautiful sound does not depend on them [duan wen], but does depend instead on good material."

To which I would add good craftsmanship.

Another quote that I think is appropriate:

"Those people who are only fond of antiquity value the tuan-wen. This is merely an empty convention. Those scholars fond of playing will feel beautiful music is better, and that there is no need for tuan-wen."

Thanks again to Jim Binkley for his great work of translating the Yuguzhai qinpu!

Bottom line - if it is a good instrument at a good price (and you trust the seller), it is worth it.

[blueharp]

Ummm, I misunderstood and thought you were in China already. I have been told by a Taiwanese friend that there are vast quantities of fake antiques to lure the unwary buyer.

I apologize for the confusion.

[guzhenglover]

Thanks for your time commenting on this situation, blueharp! I think the main trap that fake antique qins present is that when they say something is made in X dynasty they can then try and sell the instrument at an astronomical price. I am not sure if the qins I've looked at are authentic, but the bottom line is that the seller isn't charging an astronomical price and in fact he's very reasonable about it. I don't know about trust in this case - this is an elderly person who once played the qin actively and she also has a collection of >20 qins, some of which she is unwilling to part with. Not everyone agrees with her when she says that a qin is of a certain age, but everyone agrees that (1) the timber is good; (2) the instruments are well-made; (3) the sound is good; (4) the price is very reasonable - more reasonable actually than many new qins; and (5) the qins seem good for either practice or performance (insofar as I could tell from my limited qin skills, of course). Some of these qins have duan wen which I really don't care for, though of course if they too happen to be genuine then that'd be an added advantage. I have a new qin now but I just thought that the opportunity of getting a second (older) instrument for practice and/or performance is rather attractive.

[Charlie Huang]

Hmmm, this is a tricky situation. If you want to know its true origin, you'll have to get a qin expert to date it for you.

Since the person isn't flaunting it as an antique for a few ten thousand, and as long as material, workmanship, quality, sound and playability is sound, then I guess it is acceptable. Of course, you really need to find out its date from an expert, even after you bought it, just in case it really is an antique and customs seizes it coz chances are, if you are not sure, then cistums would be not sure as well...

[blueharp]

It is a *very* attractive opportunity! As I said before, if I were in the same situation I wouldn't hesitate (well not too much) if I liked the instrument.

You are right on the mark about the trap of fake antique instuments from X dynasty being offered at outrageous prices. That was what I was trying to say.

Charlie's advice is quite sound, it couldn't hurt to have another opinion on the age after you bought it.

BTW - "early Qing" could mean from the late 17th - early 18th century, plenty of time for real duan wen to develop.

[Si]

GZL - Are these qins in Singapore?

Or have your left for China already!!

[guzhenglover]

Syburn - No I am not in China yet - can't leave without some "travel advice" from you first, can I, haha.

Yep these qins are in Singapore. Forgot to ask you guys one thing. Is it acceptable that the wood inside the belly of the qin isn't lacquered - I mean the hidden areas of the qin, i.e. the underside of the top plank and the hidden side of the bottom plank? Quite a few supposedly old qins seem to have this feature and I am just wondering if this means that the qin is of an inferior quality or shows poor craftsmenship. I seem to have seen similar old qins, however, on which the hidden areas are not necessarily lacquered thus showing the natural condition of the timber.

Any opinion, anyone?

[Si]

ive never seen a qin lacquered on the inside! Its probably not possibel to do it technically speaking. Guitars arent lacquered on inside also.

so does this mean there is a good gu qin shop in singapore now!

[blueharp]

All of the qin that I have seen have NOT been lacquered on the inside. The old one I saw had black paint of some sort on the nayin to make the inscriptions easier to read.

Is your Wang Peng lacquered on the inside?

[guzhenglover]

syburn said:

ive never seen a qin lacquered on the inside! Its probably not possibel to do it technically speaking. Guitars arent lacquered on inside also.

so does this mean there is a good gu qin shop in singapore now!

Well what I mean is that the timber inside the old qins looks pretty bare and exposed, though it's not roten or anything like that.

I guess my Wang Peng qin isn't lacquerd on the inside; however it does look more polished/finished than the rather rough surface of some old qins that I saw the other day.

There's not a new guqin shop in Singapore now. These qins belong to a private collector.

[Charlie Huang]

Do you mean lacquer that's purposefully lacquered all over inside the belly or just the nayin, or is it lacquer that has dripped inside the belly during the lacquering process (like mines)?

IMHO, lacquering all inside the belly would not do the sound any good at all coz it will lock it in. The wood wouldn't be able to breathe and it would surely be prone to warpage. A well made qin should have no lacquer inside the belly whatsoever, even no drips.

[laoqinyou]

It wouldn't make sense to lacquer inside the qin. Lacquer is a bit of a problem anyway with
old furniture simply because when you encase wood with lacquer you create two boxes.
One of them does not move (the lacquer). The other one does tend to move (the wood) due to humidity
changes. This is actually the reason for cracks when it gets down to it assuming the lacquer itself
is good quality. The wood on the inside of the qin needs to transmit its vibration out the sound holes ...
totally encasing it in lacquer might not be the best idea for the sound.

just my opinion :->

laoqinyou

[Si]

last year there was an exhibition of about 20 qins made my this one man. It was in the teochew clan hall - sinagpore. I wonder if they are the same ones.

They were in all sorts of styles and shapes and looked great (modern made but looked old).

[guzhenglover]

Thanks to you all for youir replies, they've all helped greatly. I didn't think lacquering inside the qin makes sense, either, but I think aesthetically some craftsmen obviously pay more attention to giving a nice finish (like sanding of the wood inside and/or removing any drips from the paint, etc.) than others. The qins I looked at were all different in the finish and I think they are all made by different craftsmen. I think I know the exhibition you are talking about, syburn, but I don't think these qins have anything to do with that exhibition. These are qins collected over the years by one person, and I don't think she's ever put them out on display in a public exhibition or anything like that.

[charliecharlieecho]

There's one thing to remember when you buy an old qin. If it's from before 1949 you have to get it cleared before customs will let it out. If it's from before Jiajing (1796) you won't get it cleared - export is illegal.
I know people do get old instruments out, but it's as well to know what the law is so that you can make sure yours isn't confiscated at the exit port.

[Si]

the wood visable in the inside of my qin has been cunningly crafted with the 5 pointed star symbol in blue biro.

this is a common technique of the more modern masters, who each have their own hallmark symbol that they use to mark the top part of the qin before joining it to the bottom.

ccc - i can photograph it if you need to add a section to the wikipedia about this not so well known practice!

[Charlie Huang]

Well, I'm currently not editing the guqin articles since I find that there is nothing more I wish to add. However, I would like to see a pic of it. IMO, biro on a qin is like biro on a Chinese painting; it is bad form!

I've seen one qin which has a strip of masking tape stuck on one of the nayin and on it was written maker's info and date. Acceptable. ZCW uses charcoal, I think, which is more acceptable.

[Si]

Oh i was just having a laugh about the biro on my qin. I know its a cheap one and so i can laugh at such utter abominations as biro stars on my qin!

All I ask is my next one will be a very nice one.

[guzhenglover]

What do people think of Nan Feng qins from Yangzhou? Instead of a fake antique qin, I thought I could also possibly consider a cheap but relatively good qin which I'd get as a second instrument that I'll permanently leave in my office and play whenever I want to....

[Si]

hey i want one in my office too, for when im overtime.

[guzhenglover]

Following up on my earlier question on Nan Feng qins, how do they compare with Long Feng qins? I note that both factories are located in Yangzhou, which makes me wonder about this question. I see that no-one had an opinion on this - whereas people had a lot to say about Long Feng qins from one of many early discussion threads in this Forum.

[Charlie Huang]

I have not touched a Nan Feng qin so I can't really comment. As for Long Feng qins, though they are OK, I find the bridge is too high and they are difficult to play.

I'm thinking of getting a cheap qin (from Yangzhou, Tianyi if I can recall) just to play something different. And the sooner the better to take advantage of the exchange rate between the dollar and the pound (literally, qins in America are half price for us Brits)!