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

[tmcd at panix.com]

<http://www.geocities.com/elfsea_herald/Devices/Arthur-Badge-Annulo.gif>

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jennifer Smith <jds at randomgang.com> wrote:
> That's a lot better. I personally would like to see a somewhat
> thicker annulet, since the paw & annulet should probably be
> co-primaries

I don't think so.  The pawprint is the charge dominating the center of
the field(lessness), and the annulet is secondary.

However, I agree that the annulet should be substantially thicker,
maybe twice as thick, just because annulets should be drawn about that
thick.


I should explain my earlier "not period style" remark.  Pawprints are
not attested in period armory.  I don't recall seeing "an X within and
conjoined to a Y" in period arms or as a badge, though I wouldn't be
utterly shocked to see it.  It is, however, frequent enough in the SCA
that I would call it something of an SCA cliche.

It has a visual resemblance to one period method of display of arms or
a badge displayed within a closed belt (e.g, the Garter), but that
tended to be for high orders and I think Scottish clan chiefs, and
that was for an achievement of arms, not a badge.

On the other hand, barring conflict, it's registerable style.

I think the best outcome is something that's period style AND that the
submitter likes AND that isn't common in the SCA.  So, facing such a
submitter, I'd lay out the evidence for them to mull, and ask whether
they'd be just as happy with some other charges.  If so, I'd consider
and discuss the charges.  But if they're set on a pawprint, oh well.

Danyll de Linccolne
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com