tmcd at panix.com
Mon Apr 5 14:58:24 PDT 2004
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 ravenrux at cox.net <heralds at ansteorra.org> wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
> iv. Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of two different
> tinctures must have good contrast between their parts.
> For example, "checky argent and gules" is acceptable, but "checky
> azure and gules" is not.
> I guess I don't understand this. Why do azure and gules not have
> good contrast? ... but why doesn't gules have good contrast with
> all the other colors?
The prescriptionist answer is "because the rules say they don't".
The descriptionist answer is that
- in period theory, most all heraldic treatises specified the rule of
- in period practice, the rule of tincture was mostly followed. You
have to look some to find exceptions, and the ones I know of were
- small exceptions (a small maintained charge, say)
- vert trimount on azure, mostly Hungarian
- sable not-hard-to-ID charge alone on a gules field, mostly German
> What this seems to say is that, unless you have a field that is
> divided into 2,3 or 4 parts, the rule of color next to a color
> doesn't apply.
? I'm not sure what you're saying here. The rule of tincture is
usually expressed as "no color ON color, no metal ON color". Color
NEXT TO color is less problematic and is observed in some period
armory, but what the rule says is that color NEXT TO color IS allowed
if the field is divided into 2 or 4 parts, and between two parts of a
Daniel de Lincolia
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com; tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work address
More information about the Heralds