[ANSTHRLD] conflict double check

[tmcd at panix.com]

On Thu, 4 May 2006, Hedwig von Luneborg <lochherald at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a gentle wishing a badge with this:
>     Or, a shamrock fesswise vert within a bordure azure.
> I conflict checked and found this:
>     Or, a trefoil within an annulet azure.

Since you're there, you might as well mention who it is: Sile Pwyllog,
July 1993, Calontir.  (It usually doesn't matter, but occasionally it
does, like if we happen to know the fellow and you wnat permission to
conflict.)

> So I'm counting:
>     1CD for color of trefoil
>     1CD for the annulet vs the bodure
and 1 CD for orientation of the shamfoil/trerock/whatever.

> So that clears...or is the bordure and annulet too similar?

Back to the source, RfS X.4.e:

    e.  Type Changes - Significantly changing the type of any group of
     charges placed directly on the field, including strewn charges or
     charges overall, is one clear difference.

     Changing the type of at least half of the charges in a group is
     one clear difference.  Types of charges considered to be separate
     in period, for example a lion and an heraldic tyger, will be
     considered different.  A charge not used in period armory will be
     considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction is
     significantly different.

So: if both are period
- then: were they different in period?
- else: do they look different enough?

The Pic Dic says
    Annulet: An annulet is a plain ring; it is one of the most ancient
    of charges, c. 1244, and was sometimes called a "false (voided)
    roundel" in the earliest blazons.
It doesn't date the bordure, but as I pointed out before, I can open a
source for early period armory and find bordures in seconds.  Annulets
are bordures were considered different in period.

You may object that a bordure on a round badge shape looks like an
annulet.  Two objections:
- no, an ORLE looks like an annulet on a badge form.  An annulet, as
  with any other closed-loop charge, doesn't reach the sides of the
  shape like a bordure does.
- it's an artifact of the roundness of the badge form, not reflecting
  the design.  The new forms, coming out soon, will have a square
  shape to draw badges, just because of the number of people who were
  falsely equating orles and annulets on badges.

I thought a recentish LoAR had a rant on "stop focusing on the roundel
badge form", but I can't find it.  The closest I can find is 7/03,
Outlands pends:

  Duncan Silverwolf McTyre. Badge. Per fess azure and vert, a boar
  statant to sinister argent within an orle of oak leaves stems
  outwards Or.

      The Letter of Intent arranged the oak leaves in annulo but the
      submitter's blazon arranges them in orle. Per the LoAR of
      January 2002, "There is normally a CD for changing the
      arrangement of a group of unnumbered (and thus 'many') charges
      from in orle to in annulo, even on a round badge form." We give
      difference between these arrangements because they are different
      in depiction on almost all escutcheon shapes used for heraldic
      display in period. The two arrangements only appear to be the
      same on the relatively uncommon roundel escutcheon shape, which
      is (unfortunately) the traditional SCA shape for a badge form.
      This submission is therefore pended for further conflict
      research under the correct blazon.

and, Atenveldt pends from 8/05:

  Johnathan Crusadene Whitewolf the Younger. Badge. Argent, a clenched
  gauntlet aversant gules, a bordure rayonny quarterly sable and
  gules.

      Several commenters noted that this appears to be a charged sun.
      This is a function of the round badge form used - when displayed
      on anything other than a roundel this resemblance is
      non-existent.

> Also, am I correct in thinking that the position of the
> shamrock/trefoil is irrelevant?

I think not.  There are three leaves/petals in both cases, but there's
a visible difference between

 #
# #

and

 #
#
 #

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