[ANSTHRLD] picture of badge

[Brian L. Rygg or Laura Barbee-Rygg]

Daniel de Lincolia scripsit:

> That is a rule-of-thumb sometimes stated, but I think
> you're making it stronger (the badge and the notion)
> than they need to be.

     I sit corrected.

> What's required is either for the items to touch, or for
> the area of overlap on overall charges to be small.
>
> >      Making the dragon a bit bigger could help mightily in that
> > regard -- the bottom foot can be securely grasping the dovetail, the
> > one wingtip could overlap a portion of the dovetail it's now
> > touching, and you could even have a forepaw grasping a dovetail.
>
> I think you're suggesting "barely overall", and that has been a
> well-established cause for return for a number of years.  There'd be
> no way to have a maintained charge if grasping were not allowed, but I
> think the wingtip would be a problem, and possibly even too much
> grasping.

     Barely overall certainly isn't what I  *meant*  to be suggesting with
the wingtip, and yes, if that's how it would be considered, it's certainly
something to avoid.  (My neophyte impression of "barely overall" would have
had the wingtip going beyond the dovetail, and probably a bit beyond the
annulet itself; that much I was pretty sure would not be kosher.  [Is my
shield entirely gone already, by the way?])

     But I doubt there can be "too much grasping," since one of the standard
two-item period badges that comes to mind is the bear & staff raguly/bear &
tree (of Warwick?  My books are still packed in a box for an event I didn't
get to); the bear is, as best I recall, pretty well hugging the staff/tree.


Your honours in dutie.

Brendan, Pilgrim
------
"I do not greatly care whether I have been right or wrong on any point, but
I care a good deal about knowing which of the two I have been."
--Samuel Butler