[ANSTHRLD] Checking my work.

[tmcd at panix.com]

"Fulco of Scarborough" <fulco at fulco.net> wrote:
> http://riversrun.fulco.net/images/device.jpg
>
> Sable, on a chevron throughout gules fimbriated argent three bezants.

As I view it now (1:56 PM on 6 March), the tip of the chevron is no
longer touching the top of the shield, so it's no longer "throughout".
You can have it either way you like, and it makes no difference at all
in the conflict check (Meadhbh inghean R{o'}is, 4/99, full quote below).

I already did a conflict check, and it was reasonably easy -- anyone
else care to check my work?

The full precedent, for those who care:

    Meadhbh inghean R{o'}is. Device. Vert, a chevron and in base a
    triquetra argent.

        This conflicts with Megan Silverstar Vert, a chevron
        throughout and in base a mullet of eight points argent. There
        is a CD for changing mullet to the triquetra, but nothing for
        the throughoutness of the chevron. As a general rule we grant
        a difference between an ordinary throughout and its
        non-throughout form.  Chevrons are a bit of a special case,
        since throughout has a different meaning when applied to them,
        referring to the point touching the top of the shield rather
        than the ends.  The distinction between chevrons and chevrons
        throughout is, in period heraldry, one of regional style or
        artistic preference.  The same coat may be found depicted both
        ways.  We would, however, grant difference between a chevron
        (whether throughout or not) and a chevron couped, i.e. with
        the ends cut off without touching the sides of the shield.
        This is identical to our practice with other ordinaries, such
        as fesses throughout vs fesses couped.

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