[ANSTHRLD] Device checks

[Timothy A. McDaniel]

Rendell Skaggs <rendells at code-works.com> wrote:
> "Timothy A. McDaniel" wrote:
> > - We would usually blazon those things as "rapiers", due to the
> >   cup hilts and the thin blades.  That's not a CD from any other
> >   type of sword, mind you: blazonable !== CD.
>
> I was under the impression that if blazoned sword the heraldic
> artist could draw whatever sword they thought it called for. I was
> keeping it liberable

Because the depiction didn't have the standard sword, I assumed that
it was the standard SCA case where the accurate-to-the-nanometer
precise depiction of the Implements of Destruction had Deep Personal
Significance to the submitter.  If the submitter doesn't care whether
it's a rapier but will tend to draw it that way in practice, then put
a standard sword on the emblazon submitted.  Submit what's on the Web
page and it may be reblazoned "rapiers".

> That's my fault, part of the outline of the sword from my line
> drawing blended with the field when I did the colorfill. they are
> supposed to be conjoined by the submitters request.

Registerable.  However, the period in-piles I've seen have had
non-touching objects.

> how about:
> Sable, in pile two rapiers inverted points conjoined, on a chief
> argent three hearts gules

Registerable concept, correct blazon.

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)