[ANSTHRLD] Help please - Conflict check for "Gyronny sable and Or, a wolf rampant holding a key azure"

[Britt]

Thank you, Alasdair, for the key info. The PicDic can be woefully out
of date and doesn't reflect official SCA defaults. The Tables on the
Glossary of Terms do.

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Luciana Caterina di Borghese <dolce.luce at gmail.com> wrote:
> > <http://www.geocities.com/elfsea_herald/Devices/Alexander/alexander1.JPG>
>
> Now I'm wondering about idential charges in two separate charge groups
> on the same design.  Yin Mei Li's design was shot down, for example:
> one mullet between eight mullets, if memory serves.  I've not done a
> precedents dive, but I suspect this particular case is OK because
> they're the same size.

But not in the same charge group.
Now, you can have the same type of charge as secondaries and tertiaries.

>From the September 1999 LoAR:
     Coilin Cruaidhchridheach. Device. Per chevron sable and gules, on
a chevron between
     three hearts argent three hearts sable.
     There is no problem with having the same type of charge as both
secondaries and tertiaries.
     Submissions are only returned if the same type of charge is used
as primary and secondary
     charges.

Then there's this one:

     [registering Purpure, a lion dormant and on a chief argent three
lions dormant contourny
     purpure]  While, as several commenters noted, there are
precedents prohibiting the use of
     two different sizes of the same charge in a device, this
prohibition does not run to the
     combination of primary and tertiary charges.  It has almost
always been applied to, e.g.,
     primary and secondary, or primary and semy, groups containing two
different sizes of the
     same charge.  The use of the same charge as a primary and again
as tertiary charges does
     not fall afoul of the prior precedents, and, indeed, can be
documented as occurring in period
     arms.  (Gwylym Penbras, 2/96 p. 12)

Sometimes I wish Laurel had said something I could use now. This
differentiating semy from secondaries is not good phrasing, and it'd
have been really clear cut had Laurel said 'groups containing two
different sizes of the same charge on the field'. But alas, it's still
ambiguous.

I don't remember seeing precedents dealing with maintained charges the
same size as secondaries. I've got the time for precedents.

And Daniel, Yin Mei Li's octofoils were all the same size. That was
part of the problem.  I don't think her submission was returned on
sword and dagger reasons, but blazonability/reproducability. I'll grab
that one, too.

     [an octofoil within eight octofoils in annulo] This submission
was blazoned on the Letter of
     Intent as Per bend sinister argent and azure all semy of
octofoils counterchanged. The
     blazon term semy refers to a group of charges strewn evenly on
the field. Such strewing is
     not always done with geometrical precision, especially when there
are other charges on the
     field around which to strew the charges. Still, a correctly drawn
semy group of charges
     appears to be evenly strewn about the field. The overall effect
of this submission is not that
     of evenly strewn charges, but charges in a specific arrangement.
We have therefore restored
     the blazon from the previous submission, which had an identical
emblazon. We also uphold
     the previous reason for return: "Size is not the only thing that
determines a primary charge.
     We were unable to devise a way to describe arrangement of the
charges in a way that did
     not imply that they were a primary charge surrounded by a
secondary group. Such
     arrangements cannot use the same type of charge" (LoAR of
September 2000). [Yin Mei Li,
     04/02, R-Artemisia]

Compared to that this isn't cognate as it's totally possible to blazon
the maintained key as such and the secondaries and get the proper
placement and arrangement of charges.

Here's one one size. It says nothing about the current case but
provides a bit of insight into maintained charges, their size, and why
they're usually not worth difference.

     Since the July 1992 LoAR, the term maintaining has been used for
grasped or held items
     which are too small to be worth difference. Sustaining and
supporting have been used for a
     grasped or held item which is of comparable visual weight to the
item holding it, and thus
     worth difference. In cases where other blazon words are used for
the act of holding an item,
     the blazon is ambiguous about whether the held item is
significant or not. It is true that the
     term maintaining literally derives from a Latin phrase for
holding in a hand, and thus is not
     ideal for blazoning an item which is held in the mouth, or by the
tail, of an animal. However,
     it seems preferable to remove the blazon ambiguity and use the
word maintaining in these
     cases. [Godwin Alfricson, 08/01, A-Ansteorra]

This one's closer to the matter at hand:

     [a talbot passant maintaining a cross of Calatrava] The talbot
was originally blazoned as
     sustaining the cross of Calatrava. Per the Cover Letter to the
LoAR of October 1996,
     "Maintained charges are small and do not count for difference.
Sustained charges are
     large - large enough in fact that if they were not being held
that they would be considered
     a co-primary, and do count for difference." In this case, while
the cross of Calatrava is not a
     miniscule charge, it is not large enough to be considered a
co-primary charge. It is smaller
     than the talbot both vertically and horizontally and has notably
less visual weight than the
     talbot. Because the SCA's only choices for held charges are to
consider them to be sustained
     co-primary charges, or to consider them maintained insignificant
charges, and this cross
     cannot be considered a co-primary charge, it must be considered a
maintained charge.
     [Susannah Griffon, 12/03, R-Calontir]

I've just read precedents back to the beginning (where I found the
category 'Business End', no less) and come up inconclusive. Laurel
apparently has never ruled on a maintained charge of the exact same
size as the secondaries on the field.
I'm with Daniel on this. We don't have ironclad proof, but I think
it'll be a problem.

I also worry that even though gules, the wards of all four keys are
primarily or wholly on sable gyrons, placing the most obvious 'this is
a key' identifiability trait on the lowest contrast on the field. The
ring handle rather than the trefoil-shaped one more commonly seen
might be a contributing factor to identifiability issues.

- Teceangl