Methinks you reply with a bit of sarcastic self deprecation. I am, however, available; and I admit that I let the photos override my reading of your article if, as Zhang Dahai wrote, they were added separately and apparently without the writer of the article’s agreement. To be sure, if you are with the Freer, you surely know better. There is a bottom line for all the endless chatter about fakes. One that top dealers and most knowledgable collectors have long known: best quality jade along with best quality carving = no mistakes. Regardless of “age.” Only a fool would deface a piece of jade that is selling by the gram for, at best, the price of gold, whether by poor carving or surface alteration. Especially when there is so much suspicion to the point of paranoia, when it comes to attributions earlier than Qing. Besides, like new pieces with an easy Qianglong attribution are bringing the world record prices, if you are an expert “faker” with a beautiful piece of nephrite, where would you direct your efforts?

However, the photos of supposed antique jades that accompany the article were added by someone else. They are not even high-end forgeries, but the kind of trash available on eBay and in tourist markets for a few dollars.

These photos undermine an otherwise good article, and readers would do well to ignore them.