[ANSTHRLD] simple armory

[tmcd@panix.com]

Again, I wanted to go into a few issues in more detail.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006, [utf-8] Alasdair MacEogan <alasdair at bmhanson.net>
wrote:
> Hedwig von Luneborg <lochherald at gmail.com> wrote:
> >      Per bend Or and vert two dolphins counter-changed

Two blazon nits:
- in SCA blazon, we include a comma after the field specification.
- we spell it "counterchanged".
So
    Per bend Or and vert, two dolphins counterchanged.

> >  does NOT conflict with
> >      Per bend Or and vert two towers counter changed
> >  or
> >      Per bend Or and vert two butterflies counter-changed
> >  but it WOULD conflict with
> >      Per bend argent and azure two dolphins counter-changed
> >  because there is 1CD for the field but no other CD

As Emma and someone else pointed out, in the last example there's a
second CD for the tincture of the charges.  I wanted to expand on
that.

In any but a few pathological cases, "counterchanged" is just heraldic
shorthand like "proper", a way to just have a shorter blazon.  They
are not tinctures in and of themselves.  "A sword proper", for
example, is treated exactly the same as "a sword argent hilted Or".
The dolphins in the examples are not tinctured "counterchanged",
because there is no such tincture, but each dolphin is vert, Or,
azure, or argent, depending.

So, for the designs you were asking about, the blazons are exactly
equivalent to
    Per bend Or and vert, in bend sinister a dolphin vert and
    another Or.
versus
    Per bend argent and azure, in bend sinister a dolphin azure and
    another argent.

That may make it clearer to see the second tincture CD.

> >  Also, the "attitude" of the charge (in this case the dolphins) as in
> >  niaint, hauriant, counter naiant ect. does NOT count for a
> >  CD...right?
>
> Correct.  a posture change does not make the charges substantially
> different.

Um.  You're agreeing with her, but you're talking about two different
things.

The second and simpler part first.  For X.2, substantial difference of
type of charge in simple cases, it is indeed type alone, not posture /
orientation, arrangement, number, tincture, or any other attribute,
that determines that they're clear.  Under X.2,
    Argent, a wolf rampant gules.
is as clear of
    Argent, a horse rampant gules.
as it is of
    Or, five snakes in saltire samba-ing to sinister sable.
(The latter case, of course, is also clear by CD counting.
If they're clear by RfS X.2, then we don't have to do the CD counting
of RfS X.4, and vice versa.)


As for the previous point, about "attitude" getting a CD ...  well,
for an in-depth discussion, a lot of details have to be considered,
because posture is so wrapped up in type -- towers can't ramp, trees
can't tergi, lions can't nai.  You may want to skip this if you don't
want to go over the details.

Da Roolz, RfS X.4.h, is

    h. Posture Changes - Significantly changing the posture or
       individual orientation of charges in any group placed directly
       on the field, including strewn charges or charges overall, is
       one clear difference.

       Changing the posture of at least half of the charges in a group
       is one clear difference.  Changing "a sword fesswise" to "a
       sword palewise", or from "a lion rampant" to "a lion passant",
       is one clear difference.  Multiple changes to the posture or
       orientation of the same charges may not be counted separately,
       so "a lion passant bendwise" is one clear difference from "a
       lion couchant to sinister".  Changes of posture or orientation
       of separate charge groups may each be counted.  A change of
       posture must affect the orientation of the charge, or
       significantly change its appearance.  Changes in the position
       of the head, for instance, are not significant, nor is the
       change from statant to passant, which essentially moves only
       one leg.  Changing from passant to couchant, however, visually
       removes the legs from the bottom of the charge and is
       considered significant.

So the "attitude" CAN count for a CD ... sometimes.  Note that all the
examples deal with the same type of charge: sword, lion, beast.  It's
not clear how to apply posture or orientation changes for disparate
types.  Should there be an orientation CD between "a pheon" (shaft to
chief) and "a crescent" (horns to chief)?  How about "a lion rampant"
(vertical) versus "a sword fesswise" (horizontal)?

There's an in-depth discussion in the July 2003 LoAR Cover Letter.
(Find LoARs under <http://sca.org/heraldry/loar/>, in this case under
<http://sca.org/heraldry/loar/2003/07/>.)  Moderately short form:

- "Animate and inanimate objects are not generally considered to have
  a meaningful posture comparison."  No posture CD between a lion
  rampant and a sword fesswise.

- "Very different sorts of compact inanimate charges - for example,
  pheons and crescents - are not generally considered to have a
  meaningful posture comparison."

- 'Some substantially different types of charge may be meaningfully
  compared for their overall orientation, but the inversion or
  reversing of the charge is not meaningful. This is generally agreed
  to be the case for inanimate objects which are not compact ("long
  skinny" objects). We would give a posture CD between an axe fesswise
  and an arrow bendwise, because the charge has had a major change to
  its overall orientation. However we would not give a posture CD
  between an axe fesswise and an arrow fesswise reversed because the
  overall orientation of the charge is the same (fesswise), even
  though the arrow is reversed.'

- "Different types of quadrupeds (which may also be winged) are
  generally agreed to have meaningful posture comparisons, even when
  there is substantial type difference between these quadrupeds.
  Griffins and wolves are compared with the standard quadruped posture
  comparisons."

- "Quadrupeds, insects, birds, and heads do not have comparable
  postures, because of the very different sorts of postures these
  charges hold in heraldry.  When two types of charge do not have
  comparable postures, we do not give posture difference between
  them. This lack of posture difference applies to all the possible
  postures the charges might take."  So no CD for orientation between
  a lion rampant and a corbie rising.

BUT

- "Please see the ruling on the device of Bran mac Conchobair in the
  May 2003 LoAR for more discussion of this issue. The short relevant
  excerpt from that ruling reads:

     We do allow meaningful posture difference between groups of
     charges which would otherwise not have comparable postures
     when the following conditions apply:

         * both groups consist of charges which have the ability
           to be addorsed or respectant

         * one group is addorsed or respectant (both charges face
           in opposide [sic] directions) and the other group is
           not (both charges face in the same direction)

     So, while it is is not possible to compare the posture of a
     bird and a cat, it is possible to compare the posture of two
     cats rampant addorsed versus two doves close, and see that
     the cats are facing in opposite directions and the doves are
     facing in the same direction."

---------------------

So.  Hedwig's examples are actually really good for illustrating these
points.

    Per bend Or and vert, two dolphins counterchanged.
versus
    Per bend Or and vert, two towers counterchanged.
Animate versus inanimate: you don't get a posture CD.  Towers can't
nai and we deem that dolphins can't squat on their bases frowning at
the landscape.

    Per bend Or and vert, two dolphins counterchanged.
versus
    Per bend Or and vert, two butterflies counterchanged.
The precedent doesn't talk about fish-like critters (though you can
make a case for dolphins being quadrupeds).  But I think the spirit of
"no posture comparison between quadrupeds and insects" extends here:
I'd say no CD for posture.

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