[ANSTHRLD] chain mail and constellations

tmcd@panix.com tmcd at panix.com
Wed Mar 22 12:57:54 PST 2006

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Hedwig von Luneborg <lochherald at gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, so I've discussed the fact that the big dipper is out with my client.
> So, we came up with an alternative idea...I've attached it...
> Thoughts, comments, ideas?

Most mailing lists don't allow attachments; I'm a bit surprised it
worked.  It certainly doesn't work for those who get the digest form
of the list.

Having charges of the same type but different sizes in the same layer
has long been cause for return:

     [returning a mullet of four points throughout ... between four
     mullets of four points ...] This is being returned for violating
     the long-standing precedent of using two different sizes of the
     same charge on the field. (LoAR 3/98 p. 15)

The line between black and white is not halfway down the field, so
it's not "per fess", but it's not 1/3 or so down the field, so it's
not "a chief".  That is a cause for return:

    The emblazon blurs the distinction between a chief and a per fess
    line of division. If this is a charged chief, the line marking the
    bottom of the chief needs to be higher, and in particular, the
    bottom points of the rayonny line should not extend as far down as
    the fess point of the shield. The moon should also be drawn larger
    as befits a primary charge.

    If this is a per fess division, the rayonny line should extend
    equally over and under the fess line of the shield. In a per fess
    interpetation the equal visual weight of the lozenges and the moon
    is appropriate.

    As this cannot be accurately blazoned, it must be returned per RfS
    VII.7.  [Lyutsina Manova, 09/02, R-An Tir]

The hammer is not angled enough to be bendwise and not vertical enough
to be palewise, which blurs the distinction between two things that
get a CD, so it's cause for return as well.

That premised: this is closer to period style and registerability.
Strewn charges were done more in period than in the SCA, including
mullets, so I like it. It's a good solution for someone who wants
stars but can't have a constellation.  Six-pointed mullets were done
more on the Continent, and are substantially less common in the SCA,
so I like it more.

I suggest that the hammer be (approximately) fesswise atop the anvil.
Both should be drawn substantially larger to better fill whatever
space is available to them.

The dividing line can move either up (if he wants a chief) or down (if
he wants per fess).  Or he could just have the anvil and hammer in the
center and have strewn stars all over the field (though either the
stars or the anvil and hammer would have to change tincture to make
that work).

Denyel Lincoln
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com

More information about the Heralds mailing list