[ANSTHRLD] Radei Drchevich appeal

[tmcd at panix.com]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, kevinkeary at aol.com <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org> wrote:
> if I understand this correctly, in this case the lozenge throughout
> Radei wants is considered the same as a field vetu,

They are exactly identical visually.

> and that [vetu, presumably] is considered a field treatment

To be technical, vetu is what the SCA calls a "parted field" or "field
division", not a "field treatment".  According to the College of Arms
Glossary of Terms, <http://sca.org/heraldry/coagloss.html>,

    Partition. A division of the field into pieces that have different
    tinctures. Some partitions follow and are named after ordinaries,
    like per pale, per fess, per bend, and per saltire; others have
    their own names, like checky, lozengy, and quarterly.

    Field Treatment. A repeating pattern drawn in a tincture with good
    contrast over the field or a charge. Field treatments leave more of
    the underlying tincture showing than they cover. They are considered a
    part of the field or charge tincture. The term field treatment is not
    a standard real-world heraldic description for a class of armorial
    designs, but is the SCA catch-all term for the few period heraldic
    designs meeting this description. Field treatments include masoned and
    the forms of papellony and scaly which are drawn as voided
    scales.

There are some rules distinctions between them.

> (making the mullet the primary)?if?that will cause conflict with
> another device, and considered a primary charge (making the mullet a
> tertiary) if THAT will cause conflict.? Maximizing conflicts however
> possible.

I don't know what character[s] you're typing, but please use just the
plain keyboard characters: other systems may display curly quotation
marks or em-dashes as "?", as above.

> Makes it seem like the system is specifically geared to discourage
> the use of fields vetu.

Not at all, though given that vetu and lozenges throughout were quite
rare in period, I don't think that side effect is bad.

It's the principle enunciated in other messages -- "you can't blazon
your way out of a conflict".  In this case, it's pretty
straightforward, because vetu looks exactly like a lozenge throughout.
Without this principle, then I could submit "Argent, a chief gules and
a base azure" and claim that it's clear by X.1 (or by 4 CDs) from the
flag of the Netherlands, "Per fess gules and azure, a fess argent",
even though they're absolutely identical.

It's like another principle: if there's some way to get from one
design to another in fewer than two CDs (and neither X.2 nor X.1 save
your butt), then there's a conflict.  Without this principle, I can
add a griffin proper to a design and then remove it for two CDs and
clear any two conflicts, or claim a less obvious around-Robin-Hood's-
barn set of changes to "clear" close neighbors.

Danet de Linccolne
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com