[ANSTHRLD] question about counterchanging

[tmcd at panix.com]

kobrien at texas.net wrote:
> > Quoth "Joe Percer":
> > > And I just get Master Daniel's email saying that it is too
> > > complex. So I'll re-do my question, when they say simple
> > > geometric charges, are we speaking solely of ordinaries?
> > 
> > No - things like roundels and billets are also suitable.
> 
> The way "How to tell if something is simple enough to fimbriate" was
> explained to me, a number of years ago, was:
> 
> - look at the item you want to fimbriate
> - imagine the same item - only larger (as if you had made it bigger
>   on a copier)
> - can you put one over the top of the other and have it look like an
>   outline?
> 
> If so, it's probably simple enough to fimbriate.

What I call the Xerox at 90% Test, or the Wash It On Hot Test.  Put
forth (not in those words) by Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, then
Laurel King of Arms, in the November 1992 LoAR cover letter.
(Unfortunately, the on-line version at
<http://sca.org/heraldry/loar/1992/11/cvr.html> doesn't have the
pictures.)

    ... Currently, the only charges that may be voided are ordinaries
    (as well as those charges, like annulets and mascles, that are
    voided by definition).

    It seems to me that, if roundels and lozenges were voided in
    period, then charges of comparable simplicity may likewise be
    voided. Of course, this begs the question of defining "simplicity"
    for purposes of voiding. (Which definition differs entirely from
    that of "simple geometric charge" for Rule X.4.j.ii, or "simple
    armory" for X.2...)

    The arguments presented in Abaigeal's submission provide a rule of
    thumb we can use. We consider voiding to have the same visual
    weight as adding a tertiary charge -- i.e. Sable, a cross Or
    voided gules and Sable, a cross Or charged with another gules are
    interchangeable blazons, yielding the same emblazon. This view is
    supported by period heraldic treatises: e.g. Guillim's Display of
    Heraldrie, 1632, in discussing chevrons voided, says "if you say
    voided onely, it is ever understood that the field sheweth thorow
    the middle part of the charge voided. If the middle part of this
    chevron were of a different metall, colour, or furre from the
    Field, then should you Blazon it thus: A Chevron engrailed Or,
    surmounted of another, of such or such colour."

    We can use the equivalence between voiding and adding tertiaries
    to determine when voiding is acceptable: if the voided charge can
    be reblazoned as On a [charge], another -- that is, if the inner
    line and the outer line of the voided charge are geometrically
    similar -- then it's simple enough to void.

    For instance, in the illustrations below, figure A could equally
    well be blazoned a delf voided or a delf charged with a delf;
    either blazon is correct for that picture. Figures B and C, on the
    other hand, are definitely a griffin's head voided and a griffin's
    head charged with another, respectively; the emblazons are quite
    dissimilar, and the inner line of figure B is not the shape of a
    griffin's head. The delf voided, then, is acceptable, but the
    griffin's head voided is not.

    By this guideline, mullets, hearts and triangles are all simple
    enough to be voided or fimbriated. This is only a rule of thumb,
    of course, not an ironclad law, but it helps us decide a thorny
    question, it's consistent with how we (and some period heralds)
    view voiding, and it eliminates the need to collect reams of case
    law. I shall be employing it henceforth.

The next ruling adjacent, by the way, is the one that banned overall
charges in fieldless badges unless they have a small area of
intersection, so it was important cover letter.

> Something like a delf or lozenge would also be simple enough to
> fimbriate.

A lozenge is so voidable that it even has its own period name: mascle.
In the SCA, voiding and fimbriation go by the same rule ("Voiding and
fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in
the center of the design."), so a lozenge can be fimbriated.

You can do a precedent dive (if you have the time) to see about
voiding of certain charges.  E.g, in Jaelle's tenure:
- gouts: no
- laurel wreath: hell, no
- seraph: way hell no
- heart: not any more
Da'ud 2.2:
- cross throught (ordinary): yes
- cross potent, hence Cross of Jerusalem: no, mentioning
  - compass star: yes
  - roses: no
  - suns: no
Da'ud 2.1:
- flame: we've been saying no for quite some time now
Bruce:
- heart: yes (overruled later)
- keyhole: yes
- flame: yes (overruled later)
- mullets of six or more points: may be voided and interlaced
  (e.g., Magen David)

Daniel de Lincolia
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com; tmcd at us.ibm.com is my work address