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

[Tim McDaniel]

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