[ANSTHRLD] curiousity... question

[Tim McDaniel]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008, ld_tadhg at sbcglobal.net <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org> wrote:
> Childers, Jeff <Jeff.Childers at ttuhsc.edu> wrote:
> > Lets say...
> >
> > Ex 1
> > sable, a bend sinister argent
> > Ex 2
> > sable, a bend inverted argent
> >
> > are these 2 blazons considered the same?
> >
> > Visually they are the same but are "technically"
> > different.... right?

I'm thoroughly confused by all this.

(1) What exactly do you mean by "a bend inverted"?  I've never seen
     the term "inverted" applied to a bend, or to any ordinary other
     than "a chevron inverted" (except as a joke).

If a "bend inverted" is a "bend sinister": there's an old SCA CoA
principle that "you can't blazon your way out of a conflict".  See
<http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2005/06/05-06lar.html#179>, Margarita de
la Carrera, for some discussion of that phrase versus "it is possible
to blazon your way out of a style problem".

Since they are visually identical and the change in terminology
doesn't clear up any style problems (unlike, say, changing "a fess" to
"a chief and a base"), the change in terms would have no effect on a
style problem either -- it would simply be reblazoned "a bend
sinister".

> Actually, the "bend inverted" should be a "bend sinister"...and they
> are visually different. Changing from one to the other would give
> you a CD.

(2) If a "bend inverted" is a "bend sinister", how can a bend
     sinister be "visually different" from a bend sinister?

Danielis Lindum Colonia
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com