[ANSTHRLD] More Darts and perhaps even some rocks to be thrown!

tmcd@panix.com tmcd at panix.com
Mon Sep 11 16:58:04 PDT 2006

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Tomas Niallagain <siortomas at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/11/06, Schalles, Francis T <francis.schalles at ttuhsc.edu> wrote:
> > I have heeded your advice and converted the checky gules and sable
> > to per pale gules and sable.

I suggested checky or barry, as being rare in the SCA yet common in
period; that would require changing one of the two tinctures.

> > I don't know if this will clear the contrast issue,

I quoted the rule in my previous note.

RfS VIII.2.a:

    a.   Contrasting Tinctures - Good contrast exists between:

    i.   A metal and a color;

    ii.  An element equally divided of a color and a metal, and any
     other element as long as identifiability is maintained;

    iii.  A color and a charge, blazoned as proper, that is
     predominantly light;

    iv.  A metal and a charge, blazoned as proper, that is
    predominantly dark.

So gules and sable don't have "good contrast" as defined by that rule.

RfS VIII.2.b:

    b.   Contrast Requirements

    i.  The field must have good contrast with every charge placed
     directly on it and with charges placed overall.

    ii.  A charge must have good contrast with any charge placed
    wholly on it.

    iii.  Elements evenly divided into two parts, per saltire, or
     quarterly may use any two tinctures or furs.

     For example, a field quarterly could be composed of azure and
     gules, argent and Or, Or and ermine, or vert and vairy gules and

    iv.  Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of two different
     tinctures must have good contrast between their parts.

     For example, "checky argent and gules" is acceptable, but "checky
     azure and gules" is not.

    v.  Elements evenly divided in three tinctures must have good
     contrast between two of their parts.

See iii above.  "Per pale" makes the field "evenly divided into two
parts", so "Per pale gules and sable" is OK.

> > Per pale, gules and sable, an elephant rampant argent within an orle
> > argent.

While that's a correct blazon, and matches the English-language
description provided (thanks!), I have just a bit of SCA blazon nits.
We don't put a comma in the field blazon.  When two or more charges in
a row have the same tincture, we generally omit the tincture from all
but the last.  So Laurel would blazon it as

  Per pale gules and sable, an elephant rampant within an orle argent.

Back to Tomas:
> I am curiuos though that if lozengy gules and sable could be
> registered

It can't.  "Lozengy" doesn't fit RfS VIII.2.b.iii (two parts, per
saltire, or quarterly), and not v either (three tinctures), so iv is
the only one that applies, and vi requires "good contrast", which I
noted gules and sable don't have.  It can't be registered under the
current rules.

"Lozengy gules and sable" and "lozengy sable and gules" have never
been registered.  It's been PROTECTED once, in the arms of Earl of
Morris, but that's "(Important non-SCA arms)" -- important non-SCA
armory is never judged by whether it follows any SCA rules or not.
It can even be almost unblazonable, as with Alberta's arms.

Danihel Lindocollinum
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com

More information about the Heralds mailing list