[ANSTHRLD] Chevron Cotised, Looking for Conflicts - X-Posted (Somewhat Long)

[Lee & Susan]

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
registered:
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,
Susan

----- 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
(Somewhat Long)


> 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.
>
<snipped>
> 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.
>
> -Aryanhwy
>
>