[ANSTHRLD] Device Question

[tmcd at panix.com]

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