[ANSTHRLD] Fimbriation Question

[Brent.Ryder at compucom.com]

> It probably isn't.  These precedents cover similar situations, with the
> second dealing with a cross which has an outline very similar to the
> cross barby:

I would beg to differ on a 'Cross of Jerusalem' being anything close to a 'Cross Barby'. The Potenty ends of a 'Cross of Jerusalem' have a much greater weight visually than the 'Cross Barby' and also has the four crosslets.

>      A cross moline is too complex to fimbriate. [Andrew Talbot, 7/99,
>      R-Ansteorra]

Looking at the cross moline, the ends are almost the inverse of the cross barby flaring out more like a cross potenty with a dimple.

>      [returning a Jerusalem cross fimbriated]    It is Laurel's belief that
>      a cross potent, the central cross in a cross of Jerusalem, falls into
>      the same "too complex to fimbriate" category as roses and suns.  Even
>      were that not felt to be the case, however, the amount of fimbriation,
>      of both the cross potent and the four surrounding crosses couped, is
>      excessive and sufficient grounds for return in and of itself.
>      (Sebastian Blacke, 12/95 p. 22)

So far, no one has thought a cross barby 'simple' enough to fimbriate and I am tending to agree with this. If it were a simple cros fitchy, then it should be able tobe fimbriated, but the small detail of making it look like an arrow head could easily disappear when fimbriated.

At least the submitter gave the option of just going with '.... a cross barby Or'

Thanks for all the opinions

Borek