[ANSTHRLD] Help needed on a Conflict check on a badge

[Luciana Caterina di Boniface]

I genuinely do not know if the client is even aware that this is not period
design. I will certainly let him know that.

I can redraw the device, that is certainly not a problem. That 'should' take
care of the insta-boing of the paw not touching the annulet. My next
question is the conflict checking...I found the following:

Ælfra Long <http://oanda.sca.org/cgi-bin/oanda_name.cgi?p=AElfra%20Long>

   - The following badge associated with this name was registered in June
   of 2002 (via
AEthelmearc)<http://oanda.sca.org/cgi-bin/oanda_date.cgi?y1=2002&m1=June&y2=2002&m2=June&kH=checked>
   :
   *(Fieldless) A lozenge within and conjoined to an annulet sable.*

Based on my understanding, there would be only 1 CD for the lozenge. This
would conflict with the "(Fieldless) A Wolf's paw within and conjoined to an
annulet sable", correct? Or have I misjudged...again?

Thank you,
Luciana





On 10/9/06, Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Luciana Caterina di Boniface <dolce.luce at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I have the image of the badge now. It is currently a black ring with a
> > stylized wolf's pawprint in it. None of the pieces are touching. The paw
> > print looks very simlar to the one found at url: <
> > http://www.wolflabs.co.uk/wolf_paw.gif > :(
> >
> > Does anyone have an image of a wolf's paw print that does NOT look like
> it
> > is in pieces? It is pretty, but is definately not going to work in this
> > instance, and I find it difficult to believe that there is not a 'whole'
> > wolf's paw print somewhere
>
> I don't have precedents to hand, but I'm morally certain that having
> disconnected pieces is part of the definition of a pawprint, and that
> it's not a bar to use on a fieldless badge.  For example, an ermine
> spot is considered one charge and usable as a fieldless badge, even
> though it's usually drawn as disconnected pieces.  I think a cross of
> Jerusalem qualifies too.
>
> The return for the design is because the *ring* isn't touching the
> other charge.
>
> It's also not anywhere near period style, but the client may not care.
>
> Daniel de Lincolia
> --
> Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
>



-- 
Talking to yourself is okay. Even answering yourself is all right. The
problem is when you have to ask yourself to repeat the question.....