[ANSTHRLD] Re: Chevron Cotised, Looking for Conflicts

Tim McDaniel tmcd at panix.com
Sun Apr 11 17:18:05 PDT 2004

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004, Jeanne Marie Lacroix <mranc at EARTHLINK.NET> wrote:
> Concerning:
> Per bend sinister azure and sable, a chevron argent
> Surprisingly, I find no conflicts.


May I make a period style suggestion?  Is there some deep significance
to the "per bend sinister" and/or the tinctures, that would make you
not want to change them?  In period, "a bend sinister" and "per bend
sinister" were exceptionally rare.  Also, in earlier period at least,
if there were two colors used, more often than not one of them was
gules (red).

I can find four early-period examples of "Per pale ... a chevron"
(_Anglo-Norman Armory II_, p. 241-2 -- but the one on p. 242 hurts).
(Confirming this in Aspilogia III ... oh, Brault, you diseased
whoreson, why did you index them all under the *field* "Party per
pale" instead of the ordinary?!)

It's already been pointed out that "per pale azure and sable" would be
a conflict,
    Per pale azure and sable, a chevron cotised argent. Melisant de
        Alemayne (4/2000 AnTi)
and unfortunately, the reverse is too:
    Per pale sable and azure, a chevron argent and a bordure
        Or. Nordmark, Principality of (6/1995 Drac)
    Per pale sable and azure, a chevron argent and overall a laurel
        wreath Or. Nordmark, Principality of (9/1985 East)
But (assuming I only have to check the field in question) [*],
    Per pale azure and gules
    Per pale gules and azure
are both clear.  (Using sable/gules, though, you hit
    Per pale gules and sable, a chevron and in base a swan
        argent. Catherine Cary of Grayhouse (7/1990 Caid)
    Per pale gules and sable, a chevron between two escallops and a
        heron statant argent. Morwenna of Tintagel (9/1992 West)
    Per pale sable and gules, a chevron and in base a mullet
        argent. Cormac Douglas (8/1998 AEth)

[footnote *] I _believe_ the fact that "[One field], a chevron argent"
is clear implies that "[Any other field], a chevron argent" only has
to be checked in "any other field", because any other conflict would
be granted 1 CD for the field and hence would have conflicted with the
first design.

Alternately, have you considered "per fess"?  It wasn't common early
(Brault has just one example, just as many as "per chevron embowed"),
but it wasn't utterly unknown.  I rather like the unusual asymmetric
look of a chevron over a per fess line, but that may just be me.
Looking at just the fields of per fess of sable/azure, azure/gules,
and sable/gules, I don't see any conflicts there.

Another question to ask: protection.  Any armory registered gets fully
protected (at least 2 CDs, X.2, all that sort of thing) unless you
explicitly request otherwise.  But "[Field], a chevron argent" is such
a classic piece of armory and a large chunk of simple heraldry space
that I wonder whether you would consider submitting with it a blanket
permission to conflict, which includes
    I grant permission to any future submitter to register armory that
    is (not identical to|at least one countable step different from)
    my registered armory.
But this would be up to you to decide how close would be too close for
comfort for you.

Daniel de Lincolia
Tim McDaniel (home); Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com; work is tmcd at us.ibm.com.

More information about the Heralds mailing list