[ANSTHRLD] ... "Gyronny sable and Or, a wolf rampant holding a key azure" Question... terms
Alasdair MacEogan
alasdair at bmhanson.net
Wed Apr 18 14:38:23 PDT 2007
Rules for submission.
http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/rfs.html
> -------Original Message-------
> From: TinyGypsyLady <tinygypsylady at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [ANSTHRLD] ... "Gyronny sable and Or, a wolf rampant holding a key azure" Question... terms
> Sent: 18 Apr '07 15:34
>
> The best heralds in the SCA always have the RfS at hand while conflict checking
>
> For those of newbies... the RfS is???
>
> YIS,
>
> Viviana
>
> Britt <tierna.britt at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I went home yesterday, feeling really good about this, only to find an email
> > waiting for me. It would appear that the submittor has decided on the key in
> > red (which is good) and the wolf rampant in argent (which meant conflict
> > checking the whole dratted thing again)
>
> Red key good, very good (see Daniel's occasional comment on red having
> the best contrast with other colors, the fact that if three tinctures
> were used one was almost invariably red, etc.). White wolf bad, and
> you know why. This is going to be a pain to clear.
>
> > I believe that the blazon would read "Gyronny of sable and Or, a wolf
> > rampant argent maintaining a key gules"
>
> No 'of'.
>
>
> > Specifically, this would be RFS.X.4.ii.b *"If the fields of two pieces of
> > field-primary armory have no tinctures in common, they are considered
> > completely different and do not conflict, irrespective of any other
> > similarities between them." *I also found RFS X.4.ii.a, which says: "*If two
> > pieces of field-primary armory have substantially different partitions, they
> > are considered sufficiently different and do not conflict, irrespective of
> > any other similarities between them." *
> >
> > These seem to me to say that if there is absolutely no common color in the
> > field, or if the divisions of the fields do not match at all, then there is
> > no conflict, even if there are wolves of the same tincture and position in
> > the devices' blazons.
> >
> > Have I correctly interpreted this?
>
> Nope. You went deep into the rule and missed the first line:
>
> X.4.aii. Field-Primary Armory - If neither of two pieces of armory
> being compared has charges, or if each has the same uncharged
> peripheral ordinary, they may derive greater difference from changes
> to the field. Such armory will be called field-primary armory.
>
> Armory with charges other than uncharged peripheral ordinaries does
> not qualify as being field-primary, so you cannot apply this rule.
>
> > Wolfangus MhicMarighdhin
> > Azure, a wolf sejant erect affronty, forepaws spread in fess, argent,
> > maintaining a basket-hilted broadsword and a targe Or.
> > 1 CD for the background,
> X.4.a.i. - one CD for changing one or more of tinctures,
> direction of partition lines, style of partition lines, or number of
> pieces in a partition.
>
> > 1 CD for the position of the wolf?
> No, the position is the same - in the middle of the field. :)
> X.4.h. Posture Changes - Significantly changing the posture
> or individual orientation of charges in any group placed directly on
> the field, including strewn charges or charges overall, is one clear
> difference.
> The CD is for posture.
> It's clear.
>
>
> > Johnathan Crusadene Whitewolf
> > Gules, ermined argent, a wolf rampant argent.
> > 1 CD for the background
> X.4.a.i. for changing the field (not background, field). :)
>
> > Would RFS.X.4.ii.a &/or RFS.X.4.ii.b make this clear automatically because
> > of the backgroud?
> > *not sure*
>
> See above. This one is totally a conflict.
> You've noticed I cite date and kingdom of registration? That helps
> with things lie figuring out if permission to conflict is even
> possible. Where that information usually goes in a registration, this
> one says, "The following device associated with this name was
> registered at some point:"
> Oog. That means either before 1975 or the records disappeared, but
> almost surely the former. Which means getting permission to conflict
> is unlikely.
>
>
> > Aidan of Stelton Wald
> > Per saltire sable and gules, a wolf rampant argent charged on the shoulder
> > with a Celtic cross sable.
> > 1 CD for the background,
> X.4.a.i. Field. Field, field, field. :)
>
> > 1 CD for the charge on the wolf?
>
> Why not?
> X.4.i. Addition of Charges on Charges - Adding or removing any group
> of charges placed entirely on other charges is one clear difference.
>
> You are running your conflict checks with the RfS in another window or
> paper copy at hand, right? The best heralds in the SCA always have the
> RfS at hand while conflict checking. Emulating them, I do as well,
> though I've been known to recite one from the back seat of a carpool
> going to a commentary meeting (don't do this often, you might end up
> stranded at a rest stop).
>
>
> > Lothar der Grauwolf
> > Quarterly gules and pean, a wolf sejant erect reguardant argent, maintaining
> > in the dexter paw a torch and in the sinister a sword Or.
> > 1 CD for field,
> See? I knew you knew. I'm nagging because the more accurate
> you describe stuff the easier it is to get your point across. It's
> also easier to explain stuff like why the semy are charges to
> non-heralds if you do the 'heraldry hand-jive' explaining "Bottom
> layer is field, this layer is charges on the field, the semy is on the
> field". It keeps people from thinking of 'giftwrap backgrounds', I've
> discovered.
>
> > 1 CD for wolf's position?
> Posture. This one I repeat because posture and position are
> different and CDs can be gained for each.
>
> > *seems clear*
> Yup.
>
>
> > Robert Strongbow
> > Vert, a wolf rampant argent, grasping in its erect sinister forepaw a bow
> > gules, held fesswise, and in its dexter forepaw a sheaf of three clothyard
> > shafts Or, armed and flighted argent.
>
> And the other reason for citing the date is figuring out whether or
> not the more codified blazon conventions were used, or the looser,
> often ambiguous, earlier ones. Robert's note: "Either the name or the
> following device associated it (or both) were registered in June of
> 1973:" Oog. All lauds to those who started the CoA but they barely
> blazoned back then.
> There's no telling if the bow and arrows are4 maintained and sustained
> unless conflict has been called since against this armory and it was
> mentioned in Laurel precedents and codified. Usually (but absolutely
> not for certain) 'grasping' meant 'maintaining'. You can never count
> on that, however.
> I'll check precedents.
> Nope, it's never come up.
>
> > 1 CD for field, 1 CD for the bow and arrows?
> No idea on the held charges. Probably a conflict - would
> have to go to Laurel to be certain.
>
> There are other conflicts, as well:
>
> Lothar der Grauwolf - August of 1988 (via Ansteorra): Quarterly gules
> and pean, a wolf sejant erect reguardant argent, maintaining in the
> dexter paw a torch and in the sinister a sword Or.
>
> There's the CD for changing the field but the postures are not
> heraldically different:
>
> This distinction between rampant and sejant erect is an issue of
> correctly re-creating the
> emblazon, not of difference. No evidence has yet been presented
> that the rampant and
> sejant erect postures would have been considered distinct in
> period: in fact, it does not
> appear that the sejant erect posture was described in period
> blazon (as discussed further
> in the 1994 article cited above). Thus, period practice appears
> to agree with the visually-
> based precedent in the LoAR of June 1992 (symposium), which
> stated: "By SCA precedent,
> there's no difference between rampant and sejant erect. The only
> real change is the
> placement of a hind leg." [Caoilfhionn inghean Amhlaoibh, 08/03, A-Caid]
>
> Dorcas Dorcadas - September of 1973: Sable, a three-headed hound
> rampant, one head reguardant, argent, langued gules.
>
> One CD for the field, nothing for the heads.
>
> [a raven displayed vs. a double-headed eagle displayed] There is
> no type difference given
> between a raven displayed and a double-headed eagle displayed:
> "[a raven displayed vs.
> an eagle displayed] Even though ravens and eagles were different
> birds in period, only
> eagles were ever displayed. Therefore there is not a CD for type"
> (LoAR November 1999;
> see also the extensive discussion in the Cover Letter for the
> January 2000 LoAR). There is
> also no difference for the number of heads: "...(not too
> dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for
> the difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)" (LoAR
> October 1990 p.14).
> [Njall Randvesson, 04/03, R-East]
>
> And yes, all these armories conflict with each other. The Rules
> changed circa 1990 to better reflect period practice and to make
> conflict something you didn't need a law degree to understand (my
> opinion - I started heraldry under the old rules) and so you'll find
> plenty of pre-1990 registrations which currently would be called in
> conflict.
>
> I checked for the usual peripheral ordinaries, though on a field
> gyronny you honestly don't want anything too complicated. All the
> argent stuff is taken and you can't have an Or charge on a partially
> Or field. The good news? A plain, uncharged bordure azure will clear
> this armory.
>
> - Teceangl
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
>
>
>
> YIS,
>
> Viviana Rowntree
> Oakenwald Pursuivant
>
> "To dream anything that you want to dream, that is the beauty of the human mind. To do anything that you want to do, that is the strength of the human will. To trust yourself, to test your limits, that is the courage to succeed." Bernard Edmonds
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
> Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
>
More information about the Heralds
mailing list