posted 02-03-2005 06:46 PM            

The pot is of a shape typical of a number of somewhat larger surviving canns made by all three of the Burts (and at least one or two other Massachusetts silversmiths). A cream pot in the Minneapolis Institute of Arts by Samuel has a handle that looks identical to the one on this pot, but is of the next earliest form (a bellied pot on three legs).

There is no way of determining with certainty which of the three Elizabeths (or even yet another) owned this pot. It seems unlikely it was the bride who married that year, because wedding gifts generally had initials of both bride and groom; it also seem unlikely (but not impossible) that it was the infant born that year, as the pot is a bit more pretentious a christening gift than the usual spoon; but it does seem possible that Samuel could have made this pot as an apprentice (hence its being unsigned) and given it to his intended, perhaps as betrothal token (this Elizabeth married Samuel at age 19; she would have been only 15 in 1743, but in those days things were done differently than they are today). Had provenance been maintained on this object, we would know whether or not it was owned by Samuel's Elizabeth, and these questions would not even have arisen.

posted 02-03-2005 08:03 PM            

quote:

---

Well, my researches would certainly be easier (though less satisfying) if if those lazy ancestors had taken the time to write everything down and store it in a safe place.

---

posted 02-04-2005 08:46 PM            

I do not think any apprentice would have been allowed to use his own punch until he had completed his apprenticeship (he probably didn't even have one yet), nor would it be likely that he would be allowed to use his master's punch on any piece for his own use.

The piece was bought by the seller at auction, and there is no other information available.

There is no scratch engraving under the base.

Other than church presentation pieces, which had lengthy inscriptions, most of the described engraving (in Kane's tables) on pieces by the Burts consists either of the conventional owners' initials, crests or shields; there is no mention of engraved reserves, but that does not necessarily mean there were none. Early silver was nearly always engraved as protection against theft - this engraving does not seem out of period, and there is no visible evidence of removed initials, so it is unlikely that this engraving was added later; if the pot did belong to Samuel's Elizabeth, his unfortunate bride died in the year following her marriage, so the idea should be a non-starter. If the reserve were copied, it was not necessary for it to have been copied from something John had done (although it would help establish a link between them if it were), but it could have been copied from any source - silversmiths often relied on style books, so this reserve could have appeared in one of those. If in a dated book, that might help with the dating (if the first appearande were in a later book, it would mean the engraving would be later; if in an earlier book it would not invalidate the date on the pot).

There are three cream pots by Samuel listed by Kane: the one in the Minneapolis Museum mentioned above, and two others in references I have not yet been able to obtain. In spite of the very large body of surviving work by John Burt, Kane lists only two cream pots by him. There are seven (all later) listed for Benjamin, who left an even larger body of work than John. There are none for John's third son, William, who has even less surviving silver than Samuel. Either cream pots were not a large part of their output, or many have not survived or else, not being major items, few have been recorded. Since small items are more likely to be lost or damaged, this may be the more likely scenario. This little cream pot, while sturdier than later ones, is only 3 1/4" tall. It had suffered damage (repaired) to the base where the foot is attached.

Contemporary canns of the same shape were about 2" taller; spouts have been addded to canns, mugs, and tankards to convert then to pitchers, but this piece is too small to have been anything else (a toy cann would have been smaller still), so it certainly is original in this form.

posted 02-04-2005 09:05 PM            

BTW, I have seen evidence of the practice of unmarked silver continuing into the 20th C. Apparently workers at the Kirk factory were allowed to fashion pieces for themselves in their spare time (though I'm sure they paid for the silver). I saw an exceptional unmarked Repousse urn once, complete with the provenance that it had been made by a Kirk chaser for his wife.

posted 02-14-2005 09:05 PM            

There is a way to reduce the field of speculation, but it costs a little money. Spectroscopic analysis can be done of the piece to show trace elements and this (similar to a fingerprint), can be compared to the specs of a piece of silver made around the engraved date, by the suspected silversmiths. Aint science grand! Talk to your local Chemist or physics PhD at the local University for more help.

Always happy to confuse the issue.

posted 11-02-2006 02:30 PM            

The MMA literature places this example by Benjamin about 1765, the form having originated a decade or more earlier. It was replaced by pots with inverted pear-shaped or "double bellied" bodies during the 1760's, so this example may have represented one of the last of the type. The double-bellied form was in turn replaced by the more familiar Neoclassical helmet or urn shaped pots, supplanting the earlier Rococo pots by the 1780's.

posted 11-03-2006 12:13 AM            

Just a question about style depicted here. I notice the single foot round base of the earlier form vs the three-foot configuration of the later piece. I ask, as I have an almost identical Cream Pot to the later one except it has the single foot base of the first.

Being Unmarked, I have been in disagreement with the attributed date associated with the piece when I bought it. I had always thought it earlier that the 1775 attribution, and was not sure why.

With the comparison made here I was thinking the three-foot configuration might be a stylistic delineator of later work?

Thoughts anyone?

posted 11-06-2006 01:02 PM            

I know they are a bit fuzzy but with my eyesight that beth best I can get.. in fact these are much better than usual...

The only marks are on the handle are in old block letter "I pellet D pellet H"

It stand 3 and 3/4 inches high at the lip and handle...

It weights 110 grams...

posted 11-06-2006 05:20 PM            

but alas there is nothing... I will however report that it does serve Cream and Mild (for my coffee) very nicely after over 200 years :-)

"Smaug"

posted 11-07-2006 04:30 PM            

I took the liberty of tweaking one of the images of argentum's cream pot which has a body shape more nearly typical of the double-bellied form:

and added ahwt's photo of Joseph Toy's cream pot for comparison: