[ANSTHRLD] fimbriated edges and field divisions

Teceangl tierna.britt at gmail.com
Thu Apr 2 15:41:10 PDT 2009

> Question 1:
> I know the general rule of thumb for fimbriation is "regular" edges only.

No, the rule of fimbriation is, "Voiding and fimbriation may only be
used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the
design."  RfS VIII.3.

> Wavy is an enhanced type of edge, but far more regular in shape than many of the other types.  Can a wavy pile be fimbriated?  I could not find any in the OandA database, so I assume the answer is no, but I wanted to be sure.

Yes, a pile wavy may be fimbriated. You were looking too specifically,
what you want to look for is all complex edges, particularly complex
lines which are even more complex than the one you want to fimbriate.
Better than looking to see if something has been registered, though,
since standards change and just because we did register a motif once
doesn't mean we'll do it now, is to find Laurel rulings on the
subject.  Once upon a time we registered fimbriated eagles, but we'd
not do that now unless the motif were grandfathered to the submitter.
Laurel precedents is your resource here:
Look for Pile and Fimbriated in the contents listings, start with most
recent and work your way back until you find the answer.

Something else to remember is that 'fimbriate' and 'void' are
interchangeable for purposes of determining if a charge is
fimbriatable or voidable. If it is voidable, it may be fimbriated and
if it may be fimbriated, it is voidable.  This Laurel precedent
explains that:
... the three following very dissimilar-sounding blazons can all be
drawn identically, and thus should be considered heraldically
equivalent: A lozenge Or charged with a lozenge gules, A lozenge Or
voided gules, and A lozenge gules fimbriated Or. This heraldic
equivalence will apply for any charge "simple enough to void" by the
criteria stated in the Cover Letter for the November 1992 LoAR. When
checking for conflict with armory using fimbriation or voiding, all
these interpretations should be considered when checking for conflict,
and if one of the interpretations conflicts, the two pieces of armory
conflict. This does not seem overly restrictive when one considers the
rarity of armory in period featuring voided or fimbriated charges, or
arms with the design of A "charge" charged with "the same type of
charge". These are very uncommon designs in period. Period viewers
probably had the same sorts of problems that we have when interpreting
such designs.

Note that charges which are voided by definition are generally given
one CD from their solid equivalents: mascles are given a CD from
lozenges, and annulets are given a CD from roundels. If one
interpreted these charges as voided, fimbriated, or charged charges,
the guidelines above would also give exactly one CD between them.
Comparing Azure, a lozenge Or vs. Azure, a lozenge Or charged with a
lozenge azure: one CD, for adding a tertiary charge. Azure, a lozenge
Or vs. Azure, a lozenge Or voided azure: equivalent to the previous
case of adding a tertiary charge. Azure, a lozenge Or vs. Azure, a
lozenge azure fimbriated Or: one CD for changing the tincture of the
lozenge from Or to azure, and no additional difference for removing
the fimbriation. [Cecily of Whitehaven, 06/02, R-Æthelmearc]

So this other precedent gives us the guidelines on fimbriating a pile wavy:
[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-Æthelmearc]

"A pile rayonny is a voidable charge. Most ordinaries with complex
lines are considered to be voidable charges." And then it goes on to
specifically list wavy. As anything that may be voided may be
fimbriated, an ordinary wavy (and by the very reason for this
precedent a pile is defined as an ordinary) may be fimbriated..

> Question 2: (unrelated to question 1)
> Can a field be divided "per pale" with one half of the field being a solid color and the other being bendy of a color and a metal?  If so how would this be blazoned?  In mundane terms, this client is seeking a device divided vertically (per pale) with black on the left and blue and white bendiness on the right, although I do not think he is particular about which side is which.

Yes, and it's a period motif, at least using per fess.
Per pale sable and bendy argent and azure.
Per pale bendy argent and azure and sable.

> Extension to Question 2: Assuming the option described in question 2 is allowable, can only the black part of the field carry a charge?

Nope. Either side can, or the charge can be smack in the middle over
the field division line.

Two considerations: RfS XI.3. define marshaled armory. Make sure that
'bendy argent and azure' (or azure and argent) is not protected by the
SCA as field-only armory.
Use the Index to the Ordinary, never string search. There's at least
one registered 'agent' as a tincture, and string searching won't find
typos. Go to http://oanda.sca.org/ordinary/index.html then to 'Field
only' in the necessary tinctures. You only need to look for field only
here since you're looking for exactly the same field, uncharged, to
determine if the SCA protects it. Add any charges and it isn't
protected against being an uncharged section of a per pale or
quarterly field.
Use the Index when checking the charge types,, too.

Second consideration is a mostly color field. Charge it with a metal
charge.  There's a long ruling on medium contrast fields on the
October 2000 Cover Letter, called 'Medium Contrast Fields'
(http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2000/10/00-10cl.html). It's also
compiled in the precedents of Elsbeth Ann Roth under Contrast.
Necessary reading for armory such as this.

- Teceangl
Head returns off at the pass -

More information about the Heralds mailing list