ANSTHRLD - Conflict Check - shark naiant

[Timothy A. McDaniel]

Sunnifa / GeekGrrl <geekgrrl at geekgrrl.org> wrote:
> In the Precedents for Da'ud (second part), it states:
> 
> [returning sharks teeth] It was the overwhelming consensus of the
> commentary that the "shark's teeth" were unrecognizable, as is
> required by RfS VII.7.a., Identification Requirement.  (Agilwulf the
> Loud, 9/94 p. 15)
>
> Checking the LoAR cited, were the teeth considered unrecognizable
> for being black, and thusly without the detail necessary to
> distinguish a shark's tooth from a triangle?

I think I was Oakenwald (hence, Agilwulf's local) *and* at that Laurel
meeting, but "I've slept since then" so I could misremember.  I think
that "shark's teeth" qua *shark's* teeth were considered to be
intrinsically unrecognizable.  That is, they were drawn as jagged
things, but no matter how you draw them, you can't tell by looking
that they're supposed to be "shark's teeth" as opposed to some other
teeth, mountains, whatever.

> However, the submitters are very much wanting to have a vert-azure
> field with an argent shark.

Is this a household badge?  In period, badges (as used for
affiliation) were fieldless.  Would they consider something along the
lines of "[Fieldless] A shark per pale azure and vert"?

Daniel de Lincolia
-- 
Tim McDaniel is tmcd at jump.net; if that fail,
    tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work account.
"To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting everything
up to and including this sig!" -- Jukka.Korpela at hut.fi (Jukka Korpela)
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.