[ANSTHRLD] Heraldic design question

[Teceangl]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Pat Mullins <paedrics at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Or could I call it a gore issuant from chief? How about "per chevron inverted ploye'?" I know that would drop it down a little farther on the shield...
> Paedric
>
> --- On Mon, 9/22/08, Pat Mullins <paedrics at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm confused. If I call it a chief triangular enarched does it work?
> Paedric

You're unlikely to win this one, Paedric.  Barring period evidence,
and chiefs triangular might not even be period at all actually, doing
anything but making it plain line straight is going to be
unregisterable.  If the client wishes something other than a straight
line chief triangular, he'll have to produce documentation for it
under the requirements of the Administrative Handbook section IV.C.II.
Documentation Requirements.

Enarched is a complex line, like ploye. Back to the double complex line again.

Gores are defined by issuing from the side of the shield only. You
can't have a chief issuant from dexter and you can't have a gore
issuant from chief.

Per chevron divides the field into two equal (as close as possible)
sections. A per chevron inverted ploye division is quite registerable
but _must_ begin no less than a third of the way down the field and
the point must be the same distance, one third of the field, from the
base point of the shield. If your client will settle for that, go for
it. It might be your only way to save the design.

Good luck. Armory design problems coming from people who haven't a
clue about period heraldic style can be very tricky.

- Teceangl
-- 
Head returns off at the pass -
http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/boing.html