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

[tmcd at panix.com]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Tomas Niallagain <siortomas at gmail.com> wrote:
> it is merely per saltaire gules and sable ...
> understand what has been said, Checky or lozengeny gules and sable
> is not good because the area of the individual tinctures is too
> small to clearly recognize a difference and per saltaire, bend ,
> fess, or pale is ok because the area is much larger giving the
> viewer a better reference to differenciate between and therefore see
> the lines of division?

Yes.

But I'm going to be picky, but I do the pedantic thing a lot.
I hope it's not offensive or confusing.

The *immediate* reason why you can't register checky or lozengy or
gyronny or barry or bendy or paly or whatever gules and sable is
simply because The Rules say you can't.  That is, Laurel Queen of Arms
(or, rather Wreath Queen of Arms) doesn't judge each new situation
anew by holding up color-and-color armory and asking the meeting what
they think of this one.  Instead, it's just a hard-and-fast rule.
(Mind you, Wreath DOES hold up armory forms for the meeting to opine
on something, but for different reasons -- "is the blazon correct?
are they good heraldic tinctures?" and such.)

The reason behind the reason is because the rule tends to fit period
practice.  I believe I could find "per pale color and color" in period
rolls of arms, but I would likely have a much harder time finding
"checky color and color".

But the reason behind the reason BEHIND the reason is, I strongly
suspect, exactly what you wrote: period people found it too hard to
see gyronny or whatever of two colors or of two metals, but not so
when there were few divisions.  So period people did it very rarely,
and as a result, we don't allow it at all.

I hope I'm not too confusing, or too wordy, or too pedantic.
Sometimes I'm annoying or scary.

Danel "grrr, put 'em up, put 'em up" Lion
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com