A beautiful enamel of violet blue tone, it is an important factor of the _famille verte_ decoration, and the merits of a vase or dish are often decided on the purity and brilliance of this colour alone. There is, however, something in the nature of the enamel which seems to affect the surrounding glaze; at any rate, it is often ringed about by a kind of halo of dull lustre, reflecting faint rainbow tints to a distance of perhaps an inch from the edge of the blue. It is as though an exhalation from the blue enamel deposited a thin film of lustre on the glaze, and it is a very frequent occurrence, though not always in the same conspicuous degree. Collectors who are ever looking for a sign have been tempted to hail its presence as a sure proof of antiquity. But it is by no means constant on the old _famille verte_, and it has yet to be proved that the same enamel will not produce a similar effect on the modern glaze. In view of the appreciation of _famille verte_ porcelain at the present day a contemporary criticism will be of interest. D’Entrecolles in his first letter,[312] referring to “porcelain painted with landscapes in a medley of almost all the colours heightened with gilding,” says: “They are very beautiful, if one pays a high price, but the ordinary wares of this kind are not to be compared with blue and white.” And again,[313] following an exact description of painting with enamel colours on the finished glaze and of the subsequent refiring of the ware, we read: “Sometimes the painting is intentionally reserved for the second firing; at other times they only use the second firing to conceal defects in the porcelain, applying the colours to the faulty places. This porcelain, which is loaded with colour, is not to the taste of a good many people. As a rule one can feel inequalities on the surface of this kind of porcelain, whether due to the clumsiness of the workmen, to the exigencies of light and shade in the painting, or to the desire to conceal defects in the body of the ware.”