[ANSTHRLD] Chevron Cotised, Looking for Conflicts - X-Posted (Somewhat Long)
Lee & Susan
lecachot at airmail.net
Sun Apr 11 11:52:20 PDT 2004
Thanks for the info! I'm trying to use the Ordinary as you suggested, and I
think I'm way in over my head (at least at this time) :) I did find this
Melisent de Alemayne
Per pale azure and sable, a chevron cotised argent
Would there be enough difference because of the different field division, or
do I have a conflict here? I don't think I know enough to spot any others
Once again, my thanks,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sara L Friedemann" <liana at ellipsis.cx>
To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <heralds at ansteorra.org>
Cc: "SCAHRLDS" <SCAHRLDS at LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Chevron Cotised,Looking for Conflicts - X-Posted
> Quoth "Lee & Susan":
> > Per bend sinister azure and sable a chevron cotised
> > Now, my questions. Is it possible to put an ordinary on a divided field
> > like this, or am I missing a rule that I'm not aware of. I'm assuming =
> > (maybe incorrectly) that a divided field with two colours is all right =
> > (the SCA has registered this field division as recently as last year, =
> > per the online O&A).
> The answer is yes to both question. See the RfS contrast - which I
> cannot quote right now because I can't seem to get to anything off
> the www.wisc.edu server at the moment.
> The blazon pattern searches are not the way to go, generally; you'll miss
> quite a bit. You want to use the index of the SCA Ordinary, and look
> under chevron - 1- uncharged - plain line - argent.
> Again, I can't conflict check this because my internet access is
> being flaky.
More information about the Heralds