The word only ever appears in lists of commodities, and it is not clear what sort of item is being referenced here. Brian Foster, the editor of Local Port Bk, rejected the notion of ‘pot containing paint’ on the basis that the nominalized use of the word paint is post-medieval. Although this does not necessarily seem to be the case in Anglo-Norman (cf. peint¹), attestations of the compound paintpot appear much later in English (1792), and make it unlikely that the Anglo-Norman term was already referring to these. Foster suggested an interpretation of the term as pot peint, ‘painted pot’, with the adjective used prenominally. This definition was used in AND¹ (and thus finds its way into DEAFpré). However, not only is the prenominal use of the adjective unusual, further attestations, especially the one from pro, suggest that the first half of the compound may be unusual spellings of pinte rather than peint. Since pinte pot is indeed attested as a compound in Middle English, it seems plausible that these are further Anglo-Norman instances of it. (See also the collocation pot pinte sub pot¹).