[ANSTHRLD] Device Question
Morgan Blackdragon
blackdragonmorgan at gmail.com
Thu Feb 23 14:19:04 PST 2006
Thank you very much for the dissection. Back to the drawing board for
me. I'll take these suggestions and come up with a different variation
that should fit society rules. And yeah, it would be an interesting
tattoo. Not sure about the bum placement though...
~Morgan~
On 2/23/06, tmcd at panix.com <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:
> Anent <http://members.cox.net/blackdragonsca/BlackdragonDevice.jpg>:
>
> I see up to seven reasons for return. At least two are "rock-solid",
> 100% guaranteed.
>
> - Crandall suggested that the middle charges are "wyrms".
> The term "wyrm" has never been used in registered armory, except for
> Caerthan Heraldic Symposium|8109A|b|Vert, issuant from a can two
> wyrm's heads addorsed Or.
> which is obviously an unusual blazon term to support the joke.
> I saw the picture once, and they're just dragon's heads.
>
> In this design, they're not dragons, or any other charge I've ever
> seen.
>
> It is possible to construct monsters by parts, if they're done like
> period-style monsters. (Think griffins, hippogriffs,
> lion-dragonets, and such.) So maybe this could be called "two
> monsters consisting of the head of a dragon and the tail of a
> snake". I've not looked at constructed-monster precedents to know
> whether this fits into the category; given the number of reasons for
> return this design has, I'm not inclined to do a precedents dive.
>
> - The position of the dragon-like charges is not blazonable. There are
> two basic requirements in Rfs VII.7 for all charges:
>
> RfS VII.7.a. Identification Requirement - Elements must be
> recognizable solely from their appearance.
>
> I mentioned above that this is a little dubious in this case.
> There's a dictum that "Difficulty in blazon is an indication of
> non-period style", and N.P.S. can be a cause for return.
>
> RfS VII.7.b. Reconstruction Requirement - Elements must be
> reconstructible in a recognizable form from a competent blazon.
>
> Any element used in Society armory must be describable in
> standard heraldic terms so that a competent heraldic artist
> can reproduce the armory solely from the blazon. ...
>
> Crandall's suggestion of "grasping their tail in their mouth
> emergent from the line of division" is nowhere near specific enough
> to get each dragon's head holding its own tail AND the "tails" going
> up to meet in a chevron AND each dragon-like part is a loop, so the
> whole thing is shaped rather like eyeglasses (pince nez, to be
> precise). Even that plain English isn't really sufficient to
> describe the layout precisely.
>
> - The lowest charge is not identifiable (RfS VII.7.a). Crandall
> suggests it's a flame voided. I first thought it was a crown
> voided, as in the arms of the kingdom of the West. Now I'm thinking
> it's a jester's hat voided. I still can't see it as a flame of any
> sort.
>
> - RfS VII.3: "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used with simple
> geometric charges placed in the center of the design.". A case
> could be made that it's enough in the center of the design. But it
> is not a simple geometric. Simple geometric charges are things like
> the roundel (voided -> annulet), the lozenge (voided -> mascle),
> simple mullets. The standard test is what I call the "photocopy on
> 90% test". You can see the November 1992 LoAR Cover Letter at
> <http://www.sca.org/heraldry/loar/1992/11/cvr.html>, but
> unfortunately the very useful pictures are not present.
>
> There's a specific and recent Laurel precedent about flame:
> Flames are too complex in shape to be fimbriated. [Giovanna da
> Ferrara, 12/01, R-Meridies]
> As noted in the rule above, voiding and fimbriating go together.
>
> Regardless of the type of the lowest charge, it's not a simple
> geometric, so this is a rock-solid instaboing.
>
> - As Crandall noted, the arrangement of the charges cannot be
> blazoned. They aren't in fess, because the flame/crown/hat is not
> in the same horizontal line as the dragon-like charges. They aren't
> "two and one", because that is (fixed width font required)
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> but the flame/crown/hat is much too high for that.
>
> - The charge on the chief we would not blazon a "chevronel", because
> we neither blazon nor register single diminutives of an ordinary.
> (That is: one chevron, but either two or more chevrons or two or
> more chevronels.)
>
> The "chevronel inverted" is much, much too thin, returnably so, even
> if it were in semy of chevronels (as in the field division
> chevronelly).
>
> This is a rock-solid instaboing.
>
> - I don't think it can actually be returned for excessive
> counterchanging (RfS VIII.3, "Identifiable elements may be rendered
> unidentifiable by significant reduction in size, marginal contrast,
> excessive counterchanging, voiding, or fimbriation, ..."), because I
> can recognize everything. But I think a case can be made for return
> under RfS VIII.4, Obtrusive Modernity, under RfS VIII.4.d:
>
> d. Modern Style - Generally modern style in the depiction of
> individual elements or the total design may not be
> registered.
>
> Artistic techniques and styles developed after 1600 should
> not be used in Society armory. Charges may not be used to
> create abstract or op-art designs, or be patterned after
> comic book art, fantasy art, pointillism etc.
>
>
> The design is certainly a visually striking modern design. I would,
> in all sober seriousness, suggest that the submitter get the center of
> the design tattooed on some part of his anatomy (for work reasons,
> I suppose it would be prudent to put it on an area that's normally
> covered, such as a buttock), and then look at compilations of period
> arms to get a feel for period armory.
>
> For showing period style arms, I use Foster's, the large hardcover
> colored version, because it has so very many images in color. I can
> presumably dig out URLs of on-line period armorials if you like.
>
> > I am thinking that the item in the middle will be a flame, but I
> > have heard that flames must be proper.
>
> To the contrary, flames can be and are tinctured just like any other
> heraldic charges. "Flames proper" are alternating tongues of red and
> yellow.
>
> Danett de Lyncoln
> --
> "Me, I love the USA; I never miss an episode." -- Paul "Fruitbat" Sleigh
> Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at ansteorra.org
> http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/heralds
>
More information about the Heralds
mailing list