[ANSTHRLD] Legs and body different colors

Teceangl tierna at agora.rdrop.com
Mon Aug 14 02:24:20 PDT 2006

>   Someone asked me if it was possible to specify color for body parts - 
> say
>  Hare rampant with body argent and ears sable
>  or
>  Horse sallient with body Or and legs sable
>   This could allow someone to create a picture of a favorite pet on 
> their shield. At the moment this is an intellectual exercise, but could 
> have some interesting effects down the line.

Body parts are considered 'maintained' for purposes of conflict, so the
hare above is argent, the horse is Or.

In period the body parts most usually colored differently from the beast were 
the tongue, the horns, the hooves/claws, the pizzle (go look it up for 
yourself <grin>), and fins on fish and sea-creatures.

In fact the heraldic dolphin proper is vert finned gules (from the Glossary 
of Terms - Table of Default Proper Coloration).

Here's an interesting one from prcedents:
 [a boar statant sable crined gules] The crining of the boar refers to the ridge of bristles along its back. [Rycharde de Northewode, 12/01, A-An Tir]

Now, when they're small like that, we don't actually bother blazoning them.
In period a lion sable might have gules claws in one rendition of the arms,
azure in another.
However, something as big as a hare's ears would probably be appropriate to

Since they're still a minor part of the critter, you might be able to get
away with breaking the Rule of Tincture, just as you can when a creature is
half metal and half color and considered 'neutral'.  I would counsel logic
when selecting the tinctures, and remembering that of all the heraldic
colors, gules has the highest possible contrast with all the others.  So
either of your example animals would do well on a gules field.  Under no
circumstances let something match the field, and keep azure and sable from
touching one another, likewise gules and purpure.  The first combination
has resulted in return from Laurel for lack of contrast leading to 
unidentifiability and the second is both a lack of contrast and a rather
awful clash which will probably also be unidentifiable.

Aha, found the precedent on contrast:
 [Quarterly azure and argent, in pale a raven perched atop a decrescent sable] This submission has insufficient contrast. Sable objects technically have good contrast on a quarterly azure and argent field by RfS VIII.2.a.2: "Good contrast exists between ... ii. An element equally divided of a color and a metal, and any other element as long as identifiability is maintained." In this submission, identifiability is not maintained. All the identifying portions of the close bird are on the low contrast portion of the field, as are the more identifiable portions of the decrescent. We were unable to identify either charge accurately without close viewing of the form. This is therefore not identifiable due to marginal contrast by RfS VIII.3, Armorial Identifiability: "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size, marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the design." [Tristan Ravencrest, 03/02, R-AEthelmearc]

And another which goes the other way:
 [Azure, a camel rampant Or wearing a hat gules and maintaining in its mouth a bottle fesswise reversed vert] The hat (which functions as a maintained charge) and the maintained bottle both have insufficient contrast with the field. This is acceptable for maintained charges, which are not worth difference, as long as the charge in question has some contrast with the field. [Xenos the Butcher, 06/02, A-Ansteorra]

Which is why I say 'go with logic'.

- Teceangl
    A bed of roses is not at all the same as a sack of frogs.
					       _Minims_ by Tom Weller

More information about the Heralds mailing list