ANSTHRLD - Another can this be done???

[Tim McDaniel]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, avalon <avalon at arn.net> wrote:

(By the way, you have to have a name (either registered or in
progress) to register armory.)

> Per Saltire Gules and Or checky a base Sable and Or Checky and a
> chief Or and Argent checky. Over all an Eagle displayed proper in
> its dexter talon a lion (color?) and in its sinister talon a bear
> (color?).
>
> In my terms the above device would be described as follows:
>
> A device in fourths. The top quarter would be gold and silver the
> bottom quarter would be Black and gold and the two sides would be
> Red and gold.  And I think I have the Eagle part right unless the
> bear and lion need to be described as rampant, couchant, etc. . .

Thank you very much for the English-language description as well as
the blazon.   If you're not utterly certain of the blazon, it's far
preferable to give an English description.

Unfortunately, I still don't know exactly what you're getting at.

> A device in fourths.

Since you use "Per saltire" and talk about "the top quarter" &c, I
assume you mean fourths as in X, not fourths as in + (quarterly).
(Blazon nit: the only words that are capitalized in a blazon in the
SCA are
- the first word
- "(Fieldless)", if present
- proper names, like "a Bowen knot" or "a Norse sun cross"
- the tincture Or
Hence, just "Per saltire".  Modern English practice does capitalize
all the tinctures; it's just that we don't.)

> The top quarter would be gold and silver

You have to explain just what the gold and silver are doing.  The
dexter half gold and the sinister half silver?  Vertical stripes
(paly)?  Horizontal stripes (barry)?  In the blazon (as opposed to the
description), you use "checky" three times, so I can assume that
that's what you want.

You seem to be using "checky" after the tinctures that it applies to.
In blazons, you give the field division first, and *then* the
tinctures that it applies to.  You then blazon the tinctures chief to
base and dexter to sinister; I guess you did (for the "per sinister")
dexter to sinister and then base to chief.

For example, for a field divided by one line vertically ("per pale")
with blue to dexter and black to sinister, it's "per pale azure and
sable".  For a per saltire field that's white in the top and bottom
slices and red in the dexter and sinister slices, it's "per saltire
argent and gules".

For "checky", you start with the tincture of the square to dexter
chief.  However, for "checky" as with all other many-parted divisions
of the field, you get no heraldic difference for swapping the
tinctures around, so "checky argent and Or" gets no difference from
"checky Or and argent".

> the bottom quarter would be Black and gold
...
> the two sides would be Red and gold.

Again, arranged how?

"A base" is a charge, like painting over the bottom tip of the shield.
"A chief" is a charge, like painting a horizontal stripe over the
entire top 1/3rd - 1/4th of the shield.

You mention An Tir.  I'm guessing that you're blazoning starting with
the dexter and sinister slices of "per saltire" and not indicating
that, and using "checky" after the two tinctures it applies to instead
of before, and using "a base" and "a chief" to refer to the lowest
slice and the uppermost slice.  That would make the field that you
describe as

> Per Saltire Gules and Or checky a base Sable and Or Checky and a
> chief Or and Argent checky

as, if I number the slices as follows


\  1  /
 \   /
  \ /
4  X  2
  / \
 /   \
/  3  \

slice 1: "checky Or and argent", like the field of An Tir's arms
2 and 4: "checky gules and Or"
3: "checky sable and Or".

There are three problems so far.

1) It's almost completely unblazonable.  I had to draw a labelled
   diagram (using my own terminology) to describe the parts.  A blazon
   can't have a diagram.  When you do *quarterly*, then there's a
   standard numbering for the four quarters:

   1 | 2
   --+--
   3 | 4

   but there is no such standard for per saltire.

   The best attempt I can make would be

       Per saltire, to chief checky Or and argent, to dexter and
       sinister checky gules and Or, and to base checky sable and Or,

2) It's non-period style.  "Difficulty in blazon usually indicates
   style problems", and I had to think 5 minutes on how to blazon
   this.  I've never seen "per saltire" with more than two kinds of
   slice -- 1 and 3 are always the same, and 2 and 4 are always the
   same.

3) 

> My understanding is that a checky background is neutral, thus you
> can do the metal on metal. Like the Antir device. I'm not sure about
> the different quarters of the device being three different checky
> styles.

An Tir's arms do indeed have "checky Or and argent".  However, that
was allowable at the time.  It would be returned now.  (Your
registered items are still registered items even if the rules change
out from under you.)

Checky is not neutral per se.  A field that is half color and half
metal is neutral for contrast purposes.

Neutral has nothing to do with how you can compose a field.  The rules
are in RfS VIII.2.  VIII.2.a says that metals and colors have "good
contrast", and neutral versus any other tincture so long as
identifiability is maintained.  VIII.2.b says

i. The field must have good contrast with every charge placed directly
   on it and with charges placed overall.
ii. A charge must have good contrast with any charge placed wholly on
   it.
iii.   Elements evenly divided into two parts, per saltire, or
   quarterly may use any two tinctures or furs.
iv.  Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of two different tinctures
   must have good contrast between their parts.
v.  Elements evenly divided in three tinctures must have good contrast
   between two of their parts.

Since we haven't gotten to the charges yet, i and ii don't apply yet.
iii says you can do what you want with the "per saltire" so long as
you use just two tinctures; you could actually use two checkys, but I
firmly believe not three.  v doesn't apply to checky.  iv is what does
apply, and "good contrast" does not occur between argent and Or (by
VIII.2.a).


Now to the charge.

> Over all an Eagle displayed proper in its dexter talon a lion
> (color?) and in its sinister talon a bear (color?).

"Overall" (one word) refers to a charge partly overlying another
charge.  Since the eagle is overlying no other charge, that word
doesn't belong.

What color do you think the eagle is?  That is, what do you think the
proper tincture of an eagle is?

An eagle is displayed by default, so the word "displayed" can be
removed.

The lion and the bear do have to have tinctures mentioned.  The
default posture for a lion is "rampant".  I don't have a source handy
to tell me for a bear, so you should probably give it.

Further problems:

4) I do not recall a bird holding animals in its claws, except for a
   roc holding an elephant (the roc was known in myth for being REALLY
   HUGE and for carrying off elephants).  While this is probably
   registerable, it takes it even further from period style.

5) An eagle holding something in its claws is going to be much larger
   than the things.  This makes a eagle much larger than a lion and a
   bear.  That's silly.

6) The little creatures are overlying a complex checky field.  They're
   going to be really hard to make out.

7) There's a rule-of-thumb complexity count, the number of different
   tinctures plus the number of types of charges.  Gules + Or + sable
   + argent + eagle + proper (maybe) + lion + bear = 8.  That's the
   rule-of-thumb limit.  One gets slack for a unified, period-style
   design.  You get negative slack.

8) Charges held in the claws do not count for difference.  Multiple
   changes to this field give you only one difference (CD).  This
   boils down to "A field, an eagle displayed of some tincture".
   There are likely conflicts.  For example, if the eagle is black or
   brown, it conflicts with Germany / the Holy Roman Empire, "Or, an
   eagle displayed sable.".  Argent, gules, Or, and "checky gules and
   (either Or or argent)" are conflicts too, and probably others.

   In fact, I note
        Sicily, "Per saltire Or four palets gules and argent an eagle
        displayed sable.  (Important non-SCA arms)"

I do commend your choice of an eagle, the single most common bird in
heraldry and in its standard position.  Checky was more common in
period than in the SCA, I think.  A design with per saltire (with one
section complex) and an eagle is apparently period.

The entire design is so far from period style and registerability that
I can only advise you to start over.  What design elements are
important to you?  I suggest for a starting point that two or perhaps
three tinctures and one or two types of charge is good.  If you have
three tinctures, in many cases in period one of the tinctures is
gules, because red has such vivid visual difference from the other
tinctures.

Checky is good.  You can go for the notably more common "barry"
(horizontal stripes), either on the field or for the eagle, if you
want Germanic, but it was not that uncommon in England and France
either.

Go with two bars (a total of five stripes) and lay the eagle over it
and you get a motif that's more nice and period (rather like
    Giovanni Boccaccio, "Azure, three bendlets and overall an eagle
    displayed Or." (Important non-SCA arms)
) and hardly used in the SCA, and I *think* that with *two* stripes
underlying, you avoid the eagle-directly-on-the-field conflicts.

> After that, I'm off to take some Aspirin.

After that, I'm off to take some Bourbon.

Daniel "Azure, three fleurs-de-lys Or and overall a bendlet gules"
de Lincolia
-- 
Tim McDaniel (home); Reply-To: tmcd at jump.net; 
if that fail, my work address is tmcd at us.ibm.com.
 "To join the Clueless Club, send a followup to this message quoting every-
 thing 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.