[ANSTHRLD] Blazon

[Haines, Paul]

I don't know that "one and two" and "in chevron" would be equivalent.  To my
thinking, charges that are in the direction of an ordinary (in fess, in
pale, in bend, in chevron) would be smaller in scale, such that they could
effectively fit on an ordinary in which direction they are being displayed,
than their mutiple charges on a field.  So I would depict three lozenges in
chevron as being drawn smaller (and within the confines of the area of a
charged chevron) than three lozenges one and two.

Alden

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	tmcd at panix.com [SMTP:tmcd at panix.com]
> Sent:	Friday, March 28, 2003 1:38 PM
> To:	heralds at ansteorra.org
> Subject:	Re: [ANSTHRLD] Blazon
>
> "Timothy Rayburn" <timothy at elfsea.net> wrote:
> > I would suspect that if submited to the SCA CoA this device would be
> > registered as the second, as we tend to avoid the use of "1 and 2" and
> > it's cousins in the SCA.
>
> Um, actually, the reverse.  "One and two" was used in sixteen
> registered blazons in 2000 alone, and one of them got a "Nice armory!"
> comment.  "In chevron" was not used at all for three objects in 2000:
> it was used for pairs of long skinny objects arranged like /\, and for
> four or five objects.
>
> "One and two" and "in chevron" are equivalent, though, in this sort of
> case.  If you prefer to use the term "in chevron", you could write it
> in the proposed blazon box (and I'd attach a note to each form saying
> that you prefer that term), and if nobody changed it along the way, I
> suppose it'd presumably get registered that way.
>
> Daniel de Lincolia
> --
> Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com; tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work address
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at ansteorra.org
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/heralds