[ANSTHRLD] Device Question

[Morgan Blackdragon]

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
>