[ANSTHRLD] requesting conflict check

[tmcd at panix.com]

"BOWERMAN, MATTHEW S. (JSC-DV1) (USA)"
<matthew.s.bowerman1 at jsc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> I think, and may be wrong that Master Daniel is referring to the use
> of ermine/erminous/etc. as a sole coat of arms

("Erminois", BTW.)

Actually, I did mean only the single coat "Ermine", bourne by the
dukes of Brittany and registered under "Brittany" as "important
non-SCA armory".  No other ermined tincture is so registered and so
protected in marshalling.
    Quarterly gules and PEAN    , in bend two crosses bottony argent.
    Quarterly gules and ERMINOIS, in bend two crosses bottony argent.
would be OK (modulo conflict), or any other ermined tincture or fur in
the uppercase area, but
    Quarterly gules and ERMINE  , in bend two crosses bottony argent.
would have appearance of independent arms in each quarter and would
bounce.

> that may have been marshaled in period, so to avoid this the rules
> have put in a buffer to insure that the SCA does not inadvertently
> pass a period device.

We've never worried about returning armory that "might have been used
in period".  (Thank heavens.  Imagine returning something with "That
looks too period, so we won't pass it"!).

Until 1995, we worried about all armory that was used in period, but
then the Modest Proposal was put thru and we no longer conflict-check
against non-SCA armory (except for the limited set that have been
registered into the SCA armorial).

> I ... believe that solid fields tinctures were not registered by the
> College of Arms.

That is quite true: we neither register nor protect solid-field
tinctures, with the exceptions only of Brittany and Libya.  You can't
register plain
    Argent ermined purpure.
but you can use it in a quartering.

Daniel de Lincolia
--
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com; tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work address