[ANSTHRLD] fimbriated edges and field divisions

[Crandall]

My apologies on item one, I misread the question. 

Crandall, Olde Olde Olde 

"In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong." -John Kenneth Galbraith


--- On Thu, 4/2/09, Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:

> From: Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] fimbriated edges and field divisions
> To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
> Date: Thursday, April 2, 2009, 4:23 PM
> I've given my answers directly in another message.
> 
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009, Crandall
> <crandalltwo-scalists at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 1. Wavy and fimbriated are line treatments, combining
> them does not
> > work.
> 
> Fimbriation is equivalent to a charge on a charge.  I am
> *fairly*
> confident that it does work in this case.
> 
> > 2. Per pale sable and azure bendy argent (or argent
> bendy azure
> > depending on the size of the bendy)
> 
> If the stripes are of equal width, which I assumed,
> it's "bendy azure
> and argent" or the reverse.
> 
> If the stripes are uneven, then there are bends (charges)
> on there.
> Immediate return for appearance of marshalling (RfS XI.3,
> <http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/rfs.html#11.3>):
> "No section
> of the field may contain an ordinary that terminates at the
> edge of
> that section, or more than one charge unless those charges
> are part of
> a group over the whole field."  Also return for being
> almost
> unblazonable (except as marshalled arms).
> 
> > overall a (charge) Or.
> 
> I think the specification was that the charge was on the
> dexter side
> only; to get that, that arrangement would have to be
> specified.  The
> SCA uses "overall" only for a charge partially
> overlying another
> charge, so it can't be used here regardless of where it
> was placed.
> 
> > Complexity of seven, four tinctures, one field
> treatment, one
> > division, one charge.
> 
> RfS VIII.1, Armorial Simplicity,
> <http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/rfs.html#8.1>:
> 
>     As a rule of thumb, the total of the number of
> tinctures plus the
>     number of types of charges in a design should not
> exceed eight.
> 
> Note that "field treatment" and
> "division" are not in there.  The
> field has three tinctures == complexity 3.  Add a charge
> and that's at
> most four tinctures and one change == complexity 5.
> 
> > I would suggest just the field without the charge to
> check
> > first. Simplicity is good.
> 
> I agree entirely.
> 
> > The charge would lose clarity if the tincture were the
> same.
> 
> It wouldn't "lose clarity": I opine that it
> would lose all
> recognizability and would be returned.
> 
> > If a charge is only on one side, then those that
> twitch at the
> > slightest possibility of marshalling would jump on it.
> 
> No, those who apply the rules and precedents exactly as
> written would
> jump on it.
> 
> > It would appear to be two devices combined.
> 
> You are entirely correct.  I forgot about that aspect.  A
> part of a
> field division that was used in marshalling (here,
> "per pale") that is
> itself parted is considered to be an appearance of armory. 
> The other
> half having a charge would indeed cause a return.
> 
> I was wrong before: you could not just say "in dexter
> a left-handed
> yadda yadda".  My apologies.
> 
> You could put it in the center of the field.
> 
> It doesn't look all that medieval in style, but the
> question didn't
> ask about good period style.
> 
> Daniel Lindum
> -- Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org