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

[Jennifer Smith]

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)

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] 

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

-Emma

-- 
Jennifer Smith
jds at randomgang.com