[ANSTHRLD] a proposed device

[Tim McDaniel]

I am greatly in favor of trimming, but please keep the original
subject of the question.

     Gules, a phoenix rising from flames argent and a chief rayonny
     sable.


On Tue, 15 May 2007, Serpentine Pursuivant <lochherald at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alden wrote:
>> Color on color problem - a gules field with a chief sable won't
>> fly.

Head, desk, BANG.

> Hmmmm...and one cannot fimbriate a rayonny ordinary,can one?

The way to answer is to check the rule.  In this case, RfS VIII.3
(<http://sca.org/heraldry/laurel/rfs.html#8.3>) -- I found the exact
rule by searching for "fimb":

     3. Armorial Identifiability. - Elements must be used in a design
        so as to preserve their individual identifiability.

        Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by
        significant reduction in size, marginal contrast, excessive
        counterchanging, voiding, or fimbriation, or by being obscured
        by other elements of the design. For instance, a complex line
        of partition could be difficult to recognize between two parts
        of the field that do not have good contrast if most of the line
        is also covered by charges. A complex divided field could
        obscure the identity of charges counterchanged. Voiding and
        fimbriation may only be used with simple geometric charges
        placed in the center of the design.

Note the two requirements in the last line:
- simple geometric
- center of the design

There's a precedent from Bruce's time defining what "simple geometric"
meant: more or less, if you photocopy the charge on 90% zoom and
center it on the original, do you get the same outline?  Plain
roundel, certainly.  Mullet, yes.  Rayonny ... I checked precedents,
and found
<http://sca.org/heraldry/laurel/precedents/francois/wreath.html#FIMBRIATE>,
with

     [Gules, on a pile rayonny argent a standing balance sable]
     Discussion on this submission asked whether a pile rayonny could
     be considered "simple enough in outline to be voided", and thus
     "suitable" under RfS X.4.j.ii. The pertinent clause of X.4.j.ii
     states "Armory that has a group of identical charges on an
     ordinary or other suitable charge alone on the field is a simple
     case." A pile rayonny is an ordinary, and is eligible for this
     clause whether or not it is otherwise a "suitable" charge.

     A pile rayonny is a voidable charge. Most ordinaries with complex
     lines are considered to be voidable charges. At this time we hold
     that ordinaries with the following complex lines are voidable
     charges when drawn correctly: engrailed, invected, indented,
     dancetty, embattled, raguly, dovetailed, urdy, wavy, nebuly, and
     rayonnny. The College may consider the question of the voidability
     of ordinaries with some of the more complex lines, such as flory
     counter-flory, on a case by case basis. [Augusto Giuseppe da San
     Donato, 10/03, A-{AE}thelmearc]

But "center of the design" is the problem.
     Chiefs may not be fimbriated. Voiding and fimbriation may only be
     used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the
     design, by RfS VIII.3. [Gerard du Quartier, 11/01, R-Ansteorra]
There's all too many returns for that one.

So the answer to
> Hmmmm...and one cannot fimbriate a rayonny ordinary,can one?

is "Yes, but that doesn't help with a chief".

Danihel Lindecolina
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com