[ANSTHRLD] Wherein Snorri Bangs his Head Against a Wall ...

[Sara L Friedemann]

Quoth tmcd at panix.com:
> > RfS VII.7.a says that "Elements must be recognizable solely from
> > their appearance."  Something drawn as "Tierced in fess X Y Z" in my
> > mind blurs the line between "Per fess X and Z, a fess Y" and "Y, a
> > chief X and a base Z", and thus cannot be accurately reblazoned as
> > either.
> 
> First, "Y, a chief X and a base Z" is implausible unless there's some
> other reason to drive one towards that interpretation 

What about "Argent, a mullet between a chief enarched and a base sable"?
(Recently submitted in Northshield).  Or would you consider that
"some other reason to drive one towards that interpretation"?  I
don't see anything implausible with using both a chief and a base.

> > "Tierced in fess X Y Z" in my mind blurs the line between "Per fess
> > X and Z, a fess Y"
> 
> Second, "blurs the line" is a problem for horses versus unicornate horses
> versus unicorns ONLY because we grant a CD between the two end points.
> If we grant no CD, as in "Tierced in fess X Y Z" versus "Per fess X
> and Z, a fess Y", there's no line-blurring problems.

But we don't allow "tierced in fess X Y Z", so why should CDs matter?
I'm talking about a purely visual problem, not a conflict problem.
It's possible for an emblazon to blurr the line between "X, a chief Y" 
and "Per fess X and Y" - in fact, you'll see this exact wording used
to describe the problem.  Generally, the recommendation is "draw it
clearly one way or the other."

In generall, "Per fess X and Y, a fess Z" does not look much like
"Z, a chief X and a base Y", because of the varying widths.  But 
"Tierced in fess X Y Z" to my mind is not clearly one or the other.
But since "tierced in fess" is not an allowable blazon, that means
any such device drawn that way should be redrawn so it is clearly
"per fess" or "a chief and a base".

-Aryanhwy



 
-- 
vita sine literis mors est
http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/