ANSTHRLD - Need conflict check (Walter)

Timothy A. McDaniel tmcd at
Tue Mar 14 13:59:35 PST 2000

Mableth wrote / "Amy and Bill Morris" <awmorris at> wrote a
message that puzzles me, as I don't see the points.

> But ambiguous blazons are period.

1) Are you perhaps suggesting that we should allow it?  Due to
   high-volume conflict checking and lack of pictorial armorials, we
   If you're *not* suggesting we allow it, what is your point?
2) Not often: the language of blazon was designed to match emblazon.

> We register blazons in the SCA.

1) "And Christ was the son of Mary.  Your point?"  (Quoting
   Turtledove's book on alternate-history Byzantium, the one about the
   detective/inventor magistroi.)
2) Technically, we register emblazons, not blazons.  Yes, blazons go
   in the Big Book-O-Heraldry, and we work with them 99% of the time.
   However, if there's a question of visual conflict (RfS X.5), Laurel
   pulls the forms and compares emblazons.  Also, if blazon practice
   changes, Laurel changes blazons freely; Laurel does not change the
   emblazon ever.  This has happened recently when an SCA default was
   specified for spurs, and when Laurel standardized seahorses and
   natural seahorses (hi, Alanna!).

> We have perforce made some non-period adjustments in the blazoning
> rules to eliminate the potential ambiguities.

1) Exactly (prime example: maintained versus sustained), and also just
   to regularize.
2) I don't know what period blazonry would do with a partial-semy
   field.  "Difficulty in blazon is often an indication of non-period
   style" is a common mantra, and it may apply here.

> I suggest that we forward this discussion to Laurel for a
> Society-wide ruling about how to avoid this problem in the future.

No, I think not.  She's rather busy, and I see no need for her to say
definitively now.  If a case comes before her, I'd suggest a note on
LoI saying "we weren't sure how to blazon a partly-strewn field.
Laurel, please consider clarifying SCA blazons practices in such
cases, unless it's already well-known and we didn't know about it.  We
think 'semy of' should apply only to the last field part or charge
mentioned, and if it is to apply to previous items as well, 'all' must
be added."

> ----- Original Message -----

If you are replying to some particular point, please put your reply
after that point, so we know exactly what you're replying to.
Otherwise, please trim it.

Daniel de Lincolia

Tim McDaniel is tmcd at; if that fail,
    tmcd at is my work account.
Join the Clueless Brigade!
    All you have to do is quote this entire signature in your reply!
Go to to perform mailing list tasks.

More information about the Heralds mailing list