[ANSTHRLD] fimbriated edges and field divisions
tierna.britt at gmail.com
Thu Apr 2 16:10:35 PDT 2009
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:
> Fimbriation is equivalent to a charge on a charge. I am *fairly*
> confident that it does work in this case.
As per the François precedent I cited, yep.
> 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.
Size doesn't matter in this case, number do. Argent, azure, argent,
azure, argent, azure. Starts with one, ends with the other, bendy.
Argent, azure, argent, azure, argent, azure, argent. Starts with and
ends with the same tincture, bendlets azure on an argent field.
The other measure of charges versus a divided field is whether there's
something bracketing them. While 'azure, three bendlets argent' is
heraldically identical to 'bendy azure and argent' (see precedents
below), 'Argent, three bendlets between two mullets azure' is
definitely intended to be bendlets, not a divided field. Read the
precedent below carefully, space doesn't define bendlets, bracketing
charge on both sides would.
[Paly sable and Or] Conflict with Aragon (important non-SCA arms) Or,
four palets gules. These arms are equivalent to Paly gules and Or (as
well as Paly Or and gules). "It was not unusual for barry or paly
fields in period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd
blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton
(Multon, Moleton) found both as Barry argent and gules and Argent,
three bars gules. (Dictionary of British Arms, Volume 1, pp 59, 88;
Foster, p.145) and the arms of von Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has
in base either three bends or bendy depending upon the artist's whim
(Siebmacher, p. 8; Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the
distinction is worth blazoning, it's worth no difference" (LoAR
December 1997 p.8). Therefore there is only one CD for changing the
tincture of half the field. [Aethelwine Aethelredson, 02/02,
> 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).
Only if the SCA protects the uncharged sections.
When considering armory using a field division commonly used for
marshalling, if every uncharged portion of the field is a plain
tincture that the SCA protects as "important non-SCA arms", then those
uncharged portions of the field will appear to be displays of
independent coats of arms, and the armory will appear to be
Quarterly azure and ermine, in bend two mullets Or has the appearance
of marshalling Azure, a mullet Or with Ermine, the protected
"important non-SCA arms" of Brittany. In this case, every uncharged
portion of the field appears to be a display of the arms of Brittany.
Quarterly azure and ermine, in dexter chief a mullet Or does not have
the appearance of marshalling, because not every uncharged portion of
the field appears to be a display of arms. This armory includes an
uncharged quarter of azure, which is not protected in the SCA as
"important non-SCA arms." This armory simply appears to be arms using
a quarterly field with a single charge in dexter chief.
Quarterly azure and vert, in bend two mullets Or does not have the
appearance of marshalling. The flag of Libya, Vert, is a plain
tincture protected as an "important non-SCA flag". Only arms would be
used in marshalling in the real world, not flags or badges. There is
only an appearance of marshalling when the protected plain tincture
represents "important non-SCA arms". [Murdoch Bayne, 08/02,
>> Complexity of seven, four tinctures, one field treatment, one
>> division, one charge.
Daniel neglected to mention that in addition to lines of division not
being counted in the complexity rule of thumb, there's no field
treatment anywhere in this armory. Field treatments are defined in
the cover letter of September 2002 as (allowed) masoned,
papellony/scaly, disporé, and (disallowed) mailly and honeycombed. The
CL is a good read: http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2002/09/02-09cl.html
> 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.
A single charge smack in the middle of a field divided of a single
tincture and a multiply-parted section (depending on the type of
charge) smacks of late-period German or possibly Italian armory. I've
seen the odd example of same in period. I've also seen a field per
pale plain and checky with an eacle counterchanged across it. Late
Head returns off at the pass -
More information about the Heralds