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

[Britt]

On 6/27/07, Alasdair MacEogan <alasdair at bmhanson.net> wrote:
> Britt <tierna.britt at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  > >  >  No conflicts, either.  Not even Chabi of Burkhan Khaldun - October of
> >  > >  >  1995 (via Atlantia): Per bend sinister sable and vert, a reremouse
> >  > >  >  argent.
> >  > >  >  Anyone care to tell us why there's no conflict?
> >  > >
> >  > >  hmm.
> >  > >
> >  > >  1 cd for partition line changing and one cd for the tincture changes of the field?
> >
> >  Sort of.  Both armories have argent charges.  But one CD does come
> >  from the field.
>
> Alright, then I give.  Why do they not conflict?

[Per fess rayonny gules and azure, in chief a Oriental dragon passant
Or.] This device is clear of the device of Joseph the Good, Gules, a
Japanese dragon passant Or. There is a CD for changes to the field and
another for the unforced moved of the dragon. Tatsukawa's dragon could
overlie the line of division; the fact that we would most likely
return such a submission for obscuring a low-contrast, complex line of
division does not mean that the dragon is forced to chief. If the
field were per fess rayonny gules and Or or per bend gules and Or, the
dragon would be forced to chief due to the lack of contrast with part
of the field. There is no such contrast problem with the submitted
field division. [Tatsukawa Morihide. 01/07, A-Atlantia]

- Teceangl