posted 09-19-2016 10:55 PM            

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!!

posted 09-20-2016 05:08 PM            

I am not really clear on when a pitcher is as called a ewer, but normally when the throat is narrow it seemed to be called a ewer.

posted 09-20-2016 06:57 PM            

10.15 is 89.58% pure
[(Divide 10.75 (15/20 pennyweight) by 12oz]

11oz is 91.66% pure
[Divide 11oz by 12oz (one troy pound)]

925/1000 is of course sterling at 92.5% pure

Another way to look at it is:

Old Kirk "coin" standard: 10.15
Later Kirk "coin" standard: 11oz
Sterling standard: 11.2 or 925/1000

It appears that Baltimore had its own "silver standard" that was not necessarily in line with the US standard.

In 1837 Congress standardized coin silver to be 900/1000 or 90% pure. So It seems that the Kirk 10.15 silver fell just below this, and the 11oz silver put them just above this 90% standard.

An I on the right track or am I totally confused?

[This message has been edited by Vetdaddy (edited 09-20-2016).]

posted 09-20-2016 11:57 PM            

I did a search on bookfinder and both the 1930 and 1972 editions are available.

Do you know if the buildings shown on your Kirk pieces are representations of real buildings?

posted 09-21-2016 03:26 PM            

Here are a few more pictures to tell the full story. Although these were obviously made as a pair, the scenes on each are different.

The next two pictures are scenes on the front of the ewers. My best guess is that they represent war and peace:

The next two pictures are masks below each spout. Their meaning?:

The next picture is the coat of arms that is identical on each ewer:

My best guess is that this set was made for a wealthy Anglo-Irish family that immigrated to Baltimore.

These ewers have very little patina and appear to have seen little to no use. This seems strange considering their age, but this next picture gives a clear explanation.
They were apparently stored throughout the years in their original shipping box:

posted 09-21-2016 09:04 PM            

This genealogy stuff is not easy. I found there are many variants of the Tully surname, including Flood, Floyd, Floode, Floyde, Tully, MacTully, Tally, Talley.....and apparently many others.

posted 09-23-2016 06:05 PM            

I am not sure that is right. The coronet here is part of the crest with the griffin's (?) head rising out of it. If the coronet were a marker of rank in the nobility it would be above the crest.

posted 09-23-2016 11:43 PM            

I did find a couple of similar, but not exact crests with a griffin head arising from a coronet. This seems to be a not so rare combination with no specific attribute. Below is one picture that I found:

I will back track from my acquisition and if successful, post any information that I find.

posted 09-24-2016 09:46 AM            

I am referring to British arms. While the king or queen and the princes have just a crown, the ranks below that have a coronet with a crest arising from the top. If you like you can search on 'college of arms' and 'crowns and crests' and there you will see some very nicely carved 3-D crests of some Knights of the Garter that are on display at Arundel Castle. The ones belonging to the higher ranking nobility (Earls, Viscounts, etc.) feature a coronet with a device arising from it.

posted 09-24-2016 07:58 PM            

I ought first to put right I slip I made in my earlier comment. When I wrote of the coronet to depict rank being above the crest, I was thinking of engravings that showed only the crest, not the full arms. An illustration (from a book binding rather than a piece of silver) will show what I mean. This is for the Marquess of Hertford.

It is the style I am most familiar with on British silver. While I have seen one or two examples of this happening above a coat of arms as well, it is a very small minority of cases and probably betrays ignorance by the engraver or lack of interest by the owner. You are of course right that correctly speaking the coronet should be on top of the shield and the crest above that. Indeed, on a full-blown version the crest would be atop a helmet above the coronet. This for the Marquess of Bristol:

In practice the helmet is often omitted. Thus, for the Marquess of Salisbury:

The crossed arrows crest simply floats above the coronet.

Where I think we differ is that you are seeing the crest on the ewers as being something on these lines whereas I am seeing them as more like the following for a Mr Edward Webb (not a peer).

Here the coronet is part of the crest and not a signifier of rank in the peerage.

However, I do not claim expertise in heraldry. What little I think I know derives from engravings on silver (mostly simply crests) that I have tried to research, with variable success. I have used pictures from book bindings here, rather than silver, because they are more easily accessible (I don’t have the right examples on silver I own). Whether I am right or not, I hope the pictures at least show why I am not sure we are looking at the arms and crest of a Marquess.

posted 09-26-2016 03:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Martin:
This thread may have sparked some new members to register. In their registration they say their interest is in Heraldry.

---

This is certainly an intricate piece of silver and some fine engraving.

The cross-hatching on the shield of arms indicates the colour scheme. The background is black, the chevron is half silver (the plain part) and half gold (the dotted part), and the gryphons' heads are also silver.

According to Bolton's "American Armory", these are the arms of someone named Bourne. Bolton also gives the crest (a gryphon's head ducally gorged, holding a rose) and motto as shown on the ewer.