[ANSTHRLD] Question about per chevron rayonee sable and gules.

[Alasdair MacEogan]

Greetings.  I have been precedent diving and I find I am in need of help.  I am looking to see if it is possible to have per chevron rayonee sable and gules.  And before Daniel asks what specifically is bringing up the question, here is a proposed emblazon that has sparked the research.  

http://sca.bmhanson.net/images/Damon_Xanthus_C.gif

I will go through what I have found and hopefully y'all can double check my logic and tell me if I have missed anything.

The earliest (and most descriptive) I found was from the tenure of Alisoun :

---
PRECEDENT AND DEFINITION: For the purposes of AR2c, where it is stated that "in simple cases only, a party field tinctured either all dark or all light may use a complex line of partition", a simple case shall be defined as follows:

1. No charge shall significantly obscure the line of division.

2. The line of division shall be one of those specified in AR2a, i.e., shall divide the field into no more than four parts.

3. Where two colours are involved, they must be of sufficient contrast, i.e., must be a combination of gules with sable, vert or azure. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, pp. 2, 10-11) (See also: LoAR 28 Jun 87, p. 2; LoAR 28 Nov 87, p. 6)
---

The proposed device would seem to meet all three criteria. Though I do admit to not knowing what AR2a means.  Is it a precursor to the RFS?  My concen is that this was too old and has since been overridden.

I have found precedents in Da'ud's first tenure stating that purpure and sable lose identifiability with compex lines of division.  Bruce also returned a field divided purpure and sable but said 

---
An objective test for identifiability can be found by researching period armory. There are some cases of divided fields using all-colors, with no separating ordinary; sable/gules, azure/gules, and vert/gules were far and away the most common combinations. There are many cases of divided fields (color/metal) with complex lines of partition; indented and wavy were the most common, though there are examples of nearly all our permitted lines. A cursory search found a handful of period cases with a divided field, using two colors and a complex line of partition: e.g. the arms of Hugh de Neville, c.1245, Quarterly indented gules and vert, a bend Or; and of West, c.1470, Quarterly indented azure and gules, a bend argent. I found neither an example of an embattled division of any two colors, nor any field party of sable and purpure.

...


My best advice is simply: use a color combination found in a period example ...Beyond that, neither I nor the College can say which color combinations will have sufficient identifiability, until we see them; that, after all, is the ultimate test of identifiabilty.
--- 

Again, not saying that sable and gules is allowed, but not saying it isn't.  He states he would have to see it.

Now I have found other miscellaneous rulings that do not seem to have any real direct bearing on my question.  So given all this (sorry, I am being longwinded in an attempt at being complete)  I would say that there is not a problem per chevron rayonee sable and gules.  Even looking at the proposed device I see no real identifiability issues with the field.

Any comments?  Am I way off base?

Alasdair