[ANSTHRLD] comments or suggestions

[tmcd at panix.com]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Hedwig von Luneborg <lochherald at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am working on a redraw for a client.  I would appreciate comment
> on the drawing and any conflicts found.  I really don't want to have
> to do a second redraw after this one.  Thanks...

Do you have the original image on the Web?  What comments were made in
the original return?  Those details help, because we can then say
"looks like you fixed it" or "I hadn't noticed that problem -- no,
it's still a cause for return in the new drawing.".

> Gules a chevron throughout argent charged with an eagle displayed gules
> between two plates
>
> (That's my best try...I'm still working on the blazon bits)
>
> http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/melissa_phobia/detail?.dir=/f5d9&.dnm=5868scd.jpg&.src=ph&.tok=phMS8yEBIQYKqHw8

A chevron is a two-sided ordinary, like a broken fess:

    /\
   /  \
  / /\ \
 / /  \ \
/ /    \ \
 /      \

So if you really wanted a chevron, you need to redraw.

There can be "per chevron", a field division into two parts ... but
the white part here is nowhere near half the field.  I'm thinking it's
"a pile inverted".

Charges on the field (here, the pile and plates) are almost always
blazoned before tertiary charges (charges on charges; here, the
eagle).

"Displayed" is the default posture for an eagle.

So:

    Gules, on a pile inverted throughout argent between two plates
    an eagle gules.

(Even though plates are argent, I'm not sure that the word "argent"
can be removed, that the later implied argent would be held to apply
to the pile too.)

Denyel de Lyncoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com