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

[Britt]

> I believe that the blazon would be: "Gyronny sable and Or, a wolf rampant
> holding a key azure (gules)".

Gyronny sable and Or, a wolf rampant maintaining a key azure.

The issue might be identifiability. All these precedents give insight
into potential problems:

[Gyronny sable and argent, a saltire of chains vert] "The contrast
between the vert chain and the sable portions of the field are
marginal but because of the symmetry and high contrast against the
argent portions of the field this is (just) registerable." (LoAR 7/91
p.1).

[Gyronny sable and Or, a lozenge within a bordure azure] The Letter of
Intent asked whether an azure charge may be identifiable on a
partially sable gyronny field. RfS VIII.2.a.ii indicates that this is
a legal color combination as long as identifiability is preserved.
This emblazon maintains identifiability due to the simple outline of
the lozenge. [Brigid of Kincarn, 01/02, A-Ansteorra]

[Quarterly azure and argent, in pale a raven perched atop a decrescent
sable] This submission has insufficient contrast. Sable objects
technically have good contrast on a quarterly azure and argent field
by RfS VIII.2.a.2: "Good contrast exists between ... ii. An element
equally divided of a color and a metal, and any other element as long
as identifiability is maintained." In this submission, identifiability
is not maintained. All the identifying portions of the close bird are
on the low contrast portion of the field, as are the more identifiable
portions of the decrescent. We were unable to identify either charge
accurately without close viewing of the form. This is therefore not
identifiable due to marginal contrast by RfS VIII.3, Armorial
Identifiability: "Elements must be used in a design so as to preserve
their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements may be
rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size, marginal
contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or fimbriation, or by
being obscured by other elements of the design." [Tristan Ravencrest,
03/02, R-Æthelmearc]

[Per pale sable and argent all semy-de-lys counterchanged, a sword
inverted azure] Because half of the long axis of the blued sword is
placed on a black background its visibility to the point where it
became unidentifiable. [Mahieu Griffaud, 01/00, R-Atlantia]

[Gyronny sable and argent, a wolf statant purpure...] Even though the
field is evenly divided of a color and metal, most of the identifying
parts of the wolf are on sable areas of the field, making the wolf
unidentifiable. [Wulfgar Neumann, 01/01, R-Outlands]


The charges on gyronny with sable in the field have usually been
gules, argent, or extremely simple in outline. Caution is the order of
the day, particularly when a lozenge azure caused questioning. The
most identifiable parts of the wolf need to be on Or sections (snout,
tail, ears, and that key).

> Eoin Scott na Daingniche
> Gyronny argent and sable, a tyger rampant erminois incensed gules within a
> bordure counterchanged.
Clear by X.2. - no CD count necessary.

> Steffen von Ostdorf
> Gyronny Or and sable, a lion rampant reguardant and in sinister canton a
> cross flory gules.
Clear by X.2. - no CD count necessary.

> John Paul Blacklore
> Gyronny of ten sable and Or, a lion rampant to sinister regardant within an
> orle argent.
Clear by X.2. - no CD count necessary.

Remember X.1. and X.2. when conflict checking.  X.1. is what clears
the proposal from Campbell, Duke of Argyll - Gyronny Or and sable.
X.2. clears it from armories which have a charge other than a canine
as the primary. Here you can rely on X.2. since the proposal has only
one charge on the field. Yes, the CD count here is valid:

> Rhiannon Fitzgerald
> Gyronny sable and argent, a dragon rampant gules between three estoiles Or,
> a bordure gules estoilly Or.

Rhiannon's armory has three types of charge on the field and therefore
does not qualify for X.2.  However with three types of charge on the
field there'll be two CDs from the proposal no matter what, since each
charge group is worth a CD.
You were perfectly right to check, mind. I'm just noting some of the
conflict checking tricks usable to make it easier.

Looks clear to me. congrats to your client for finding a place to slot
a single charge on the field. Be careful, careful, careful with the
art!

- Teceangl