[ANSTHRLD] help with conflict check

[tmcd at panix.com]

Some of the context has been lost, but as best I recall, it's a
question of conflict between
    (Field) a dragon's head (tincture)
versus
    (Field) a dragon's head (tincture) issuant from a cloud (tincture2)

"Paul E. Kiefer, Jr." <rapierman at yahoo.com> wrote:
> [someone else wrote:]
> > Quoth "Paul E. Kiefer, Jr.":
> 
> > > Pardon my ignorance, but what does a cloud have to do with a
> > > dragon's head erased?  There wasn't any mention of a cloud in
> > > the blazon he was checking.
> > 
> > But there is a cloud in the possible conflict I mentioned.  If
> > it's a small cloud, it might be considered equivalent to a
> > maintained charge, and thus not worth difference.  If it's a large
> > cloud, on the other than, it's probably worth a CD.
> 
> >scritch-scritch-scritch< Okay, methinks the RfS just defied the
> laws of physics and logic.  Either something is there or it isn't
> there, right?

Not right in how humans view things.  An analogy: suppose I point at
my car and say it's a blue car.  You'd probably agree (I presume).  I
could then point out that there's thin chrome details around the
windows, a chrome make and model sign an inch high on the back, chrome
Honda insignia about two inches high on front and back, black side
mirrors and licence-plate holders, and a few other things.  You would
reply, I hope, something like "Pick, pick, pick", and still say that
overall it's a blue car.

Or: I'm wearing a purple shirt.  Well, except there's three tan
buttons, each about half an inch in diameter.  But that's a tiny part
of the overall shirt -- even I am not nitpicky enough to call it my
"almost but not quite entirely purple shirt", even in my most pedantic
mood.

So it is in heraldry.  Suppose a herald painter paints a lion azure.
With some frequency, they would paint the eyes, teeth, and/or claws
gules, for a nice artistic contrast.  But fairly often, they wouldn't
-- they'd keep them azure, or make them argent, or whatever they felt
like.  On an entire lion, the colors of the eyes, teeth, and claws are
artistic details that the SCA doesn't even bother to blazon (although
real-world heralds are sometimes picky enough to do so).  I will call
it a lion azure, period, regardless of its dentistry, contact lenses,
and fingernail polish.

Soem real-world and SCA coats of arms have "maintained charges".
Let's say one example is a lion maintaining in one paw a sword.  What
you'll find in real-world heraldry is that sometimes that lion will be
depicted without the sword.  The SCA Armorial has an example:

    Norway|9412L|d|Gules, a lion rampant (sometimes crowned) Or
    sustaining a battleaxe argent.|(Important non-SCA arms)

It's not the "sustaining" bit: I presume from the use of that
particular word that it's a big axe that's not omitted.  I'm referring
to the "sometimes crowned" part -- optional maintained charge
(maintained using its head rather than a paw, but that don't make no
never mind no how).

If a held charge is small enough visually in relation to the thing
that's holding it, we blazon it as "maintained" (except for crowns and
collars as aforesaid) ...

and the key to all this: we give no difference for maintained charges.

That's why someone, writing about
     (Field) a dragon's head (tincture) issuant from a cloud (tincture2)
wrote
> > But there is a cloud in the possible conflict I mentioned.  If
> > it's a small cloud, it might be considered equivalent to a
> > maintained charge, and thus not worth difference.  If it's a large
> > cloud, on the other than, it's probably worth a CD.

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