ANSTHRLD - Device help and ideas please

[Timothy A. McDaniel]

becky demonja <wyrdling at swbell.net> wrote:
> Per pale embattled sable an argent ermined vert a chevron
> counter-changed and a winged ferret sejant erect wings elevated an
> addored argent
...
> The ferret is whole in the upper back part of the field.  How do I
> blazon that so it is clear?  Does that clear up the rule conflict?

For anyone who's not completely sure of a blazon, I suggest that they
give a plain English description of the design, as complete as they
can as to where things are on the shield and what tincture everything
is.

What is "upper back"?  Tec assumed "in dexter chief" == "in canton",
hence her suggestion, but I don't see how you could call that "back".
I assumed "upper back" meant "in sinister chief", which would put a
white ferret on a white ermined field, which would be the proverbial
polar bear in a snowstorm.

You do have to blazon the position of the ferret relative to the
chevron, because two objects like that have no default relative
positions.  Assuming that the ferret is at the viewer's upper left,
then it would be

    Per pale embattled sable and argent ermined vert, a chevron
    counterchanged, in dexter chief a winged ferret sejant erect wings
    elevated and addorsed argent.

The shield is divided vertically with an embattled line, with sable to
dexter and "argent ermined vert" to sinister.  The chevron overlies it
and is counterchanged (argent ermined vert to dexter, sable to
sinister).

Tec wrote:

] RfS section VIII.3. disallows complex lines of division to be
] crossed by charges, as it kills identifiability.

?

    For instance, a complex line of partition could be difficult to
    recognize between two parts of the field that do not have good
    contrast if most of the line is also covered by charges

"Do not have good contrast" (translation: color and color, or metal
and metal) and "if most of the line is covered"; Neither is the case
here.  "Could be" not "is" (though I think that with Laurel precedent
now, "is" if it's low-contrast).

    A complex divided field could obscure the identity of charges
    counterchanged.
"Could", not "does".

] But you still have a chevron over the complex per pale field
] division, which is the no-no.

Do you have a cite?  I would expect a chevron over a complex per pale
line per se is fine.  Maybe you're thinking of obscuring a
*low-contrast* complex line, which is indeed cause for return, or
complex-outline charges counterchanged over an ordinary, which is
returnable?  This is neither.

Now, it may still be too complex because of the *counterchanging* over
a complex line.  For just one example of a decision,
    [Quarterly argent and sable, a cross moline quarter-pierced,
    counterchanged] This cross is at the very limits of acceptability
    for counterchanging. (Jaelle of Armida, LoAR January 1999, p. 6)

Winged ferrets are unattested in period armory, I think, and I suspect
ferrets are easier to identify statant, so if you're interested in
period style, you might consider that.

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.