Sara L Friedemann liana at ellipsis.cx
Tue Apr 6 08:10:44 PDT 2004

Quoth ravenrux at cox.net:
> (Fieldless) On a gunstone, a bezant to sinister.
> Will this work? 

Anything that is "on a gunstone" (a roundel sable) is equivalent
to just being put on a sable field.  From the May 1998 LoAR:

"Skraeling Althing, Barony of. Badge for Order of the Friendship of 
the Hare. (Fieldless) On a heart gules, a hare salient contourny argent.

"While blazoned on the LoI as (Fieldless) On a heart gules, a hare 
salient contourny argent., since a heart is considered standard shape 
for armorial display, the submission is considered as Gules, a hare 
salient contourny argent. As such it conflicts with Enid Aurelia of the 
Tin Isles Gules, a hare salient to sinister argent within a delf voided 
and fracted in cross Or., with one CD for the addition of the delf."

So the proposal is equivalent to "Sable, a bezant [position]", and
should be conflict checked a such.

I'm not sure what "to sinister" means.  Are you saying that the bezant
is on the right-hand (looking at the shield) side of the emblazon,
instead of being centered?  If so, that's going to look really 
unbalanced.  In fact, I can't even think of a good way to blazon something
that is merely on the left-hand side of the field, and not in canton
or in base or something.  Perhaps "Sable, in sinister fess point a

>  I'm not sure how much difference a tertiary in a badge gets.

It's the same as in any piece of armory.  Badges are conflict checked
exactly the same as arms and devices.


vita sine literis mors est

More information about the Heralds mailing list