[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