[ANSTHRLD] Asterisk moving this weekend!
tmcd at panix.com
tmcd at panix.com
Wed Aug 22 23:01:15 PDT 2007
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, radei at moscowmail.com wrote:
> Finally, barring evidence that a field may be vetu quarterly, we
> must interpret this as a sable lozenge on a quarterly gules and
> argent field, and not as "Sable vetu quarterly gules and argent..."
> and thus the aforementioned rules would apply.
I'm afriad that what Magnus Orle wrote about it is true.
"There is no heraldic difference between vetu and a lozenge or
lozenge throughout." (LoAR 2/91 p.17).
is still the controlling precedent.
I don't see any way to argue around this. It's a long-standing
precedent, upheld as late as April 2003 (William Gordon; in that case,
as here, the submission had the v{e^}tu/lozenge and the registered
item did not). V{e^}tu and a lozenge throughout are visually
identical, so you don't even have the wiggle-room you might use to
argue for the similar precedents equating per chevron and a pile
inverted.
You *can* appeal, certainly, but I'd be gobsmacked if it worked, and
waiting for the ruling would delay your next design by 10 months or
so. I suggest not sending it up (or telling Asterisk that you're
withdrawing it) and instead redesigning now.
Daniel Lindicolinum
--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com
More information about the Heralds
mailing list