[ANSTHRLD] Is there a CD between 6 vs 4 and 2?

[Paul E. Kiefer, Jr.]

--- Jennifer Smith <jds at randomgang.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 07:42:19PM -0700, Paul E. Kiefer, Jr. wrote:
> > --- Deborah R Wade <dwade at spyderinternet.com> wrote:
> > > This is embarressing ... Is there a CD for Change of Type between
> "6
> > > increscents" and "4 incresents and 2 tassels"?
> > 
> > Looking a little more carefully at RfS X.4.e, which deals with
> change
> > of type, it clearly states that you must change at least one-half
> of
> > the charges for the CD to apply, so the argument doesn't work since
> you
> > only changed one-third of the group of charges(yes, that's a "no").
> 
> This is generally true, although there's a long-standing precedent
> that
> the bottommost charge of a group of three is considered half of the
> group:
> 
>      After much thought and discussion, it has been decided, for
>      purposes of X.4.d, e and h of the Rules for Submission, that the
>      bottommost of three charges, either on the field alone or around
> an
>      ordinary, is defined as one-half of the group...multiple changes
> to
>      the basemost of three charges under this definition will be
> granted
>      a maximum of one CVD. (CL 9/6/90 p.2)

So where does a group of six charges fall?
 
> On the other hand, there's also this interesting precedent that may
> be
> applicable in the case of 6, if both pieces of armory have a divided
> field:
> 
>    [Per fess dovetailed azure and argent, three mullets argent and a
>    wolf's head erased sable] The device does not conflict with a ...
> Per
>    fess embattled azure and argent, two mullets of four points and a
>    comet fesswise, head to sinister, counterchanged. There is one CD
> for
>    changing the number of the charges in the group. There is a second
> CD
>    for changing the type and tincture of the primary charge(s) on one
>    side of the line of division, even though that portion of the
> primary
>    group is only one quarter of the group, per the following
> precedent
>    from the November 1995 LoAR:
> 
>      There is ... a CD for the change to the field and another for
>      changing the type and tincture of the primary charge group on
> one
>      side of the line of division, even though numerically this is
> not
>      "one half" of the primary charge group. For a fuller discussion
> of
>      this precedent granting a CD for two changes to charges on one
> side
>      of a line of division even when less than half the charge group
> is
>      affected, see the December 21, 1991 Cover Letter (with the
> November
>      1991 LoAR).
> 
>    This situation arises very rarely aside from the well-known
> situation
>    concerning the bottommost of a group of three charges two and one,
>    which has its own different set of controlling precedents. The
> cited
>    precedent appears to have remained in force; the registration
> history
>    shows that this precedent has neither been overruled nor passively
>    ignored. [Cassandra of Standing Stones, 01/03, A-Calontir] 

Now it was my turn to go "precedent-diving".  I had to know what the
thinking was that led to this ruling that seemed to contradict X.4.e...

...>rummage-rummage-rummage<...

So, according to that July-21-1991 CL ruling, it's along the lines of
"visual impact", especially in cases where a field division is present.

As I read it, I didn't see any indication of any field division, so I
assumed that is was a single-tincture field.

> (Amazing what you stumble across when browsing precedents...)

So it would appear.  Now, here's a question that I cropped up in my
mind that I didn't type up earlier:  Would it be possible to say that
there are 2 CDs via a combined X.4.b and X.4.f?  I'm looking at this as
"reduce the original group of charges from 6 items "X" to 4 and then
add a new primary group of 2 items "Y".  I didn't say this earlier
because I wasn't sure that I could be backed up on this.

Lord Johann Kiefer Haydon (Paul E. Kiefer, Jr.)
Plain ol' herald.
(Playing the lawyer named "Devil's Advocate".)


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail