[ANSTHRLD] Help with conflict check and blazoning

[Bob Wade]

The prior commentary for "Per pale argent and gules, a cross fourchy between the tines of each fork a roundel sable." (Zygmunt Nadratowski. Device, Jan 04 via the Middle) reads:
"This was blazoned in the Letter of Intent (and by the submitter) as a cross Osmorog. The submitter provided some documentation which the submitting herald provided, at least in part, to the College on-line. The Letter of Intent says that the documentation has associated dates in period, but the on-line versions of the documentation did not provide any dates or any associated explanatory text. The provided documentation only showed the emblazon and fringes of the surrounding text, which were cut off when the documentation was originally reproduced or scanned. No other documentation was provided to Wreath from the submitting kingdom.
"The College's research noted that the charges surrounding the cross Osmorog (roundels in this emblazon) are not integral parts of the cross Osmorog but need to be blazoned separately. The College's research also resulted ...."
 
Given those comments on the roundels, I would suggest sticking with Laurels blazoning format.  The field division, as you suspected, is actually per saltire argent and gules rather than gules and argent.  The result is "Per saltire argent and gules, a a cross fourchy between the tines of each fork a roundel counterchanged."
 
Also seems clear versus the four charges in cross of "Per saltire argent and gules, in pale two pheons and in fess two quivers, each holding two arrow, counterchanged." (Hal the Archer, Device, May 92) with changes to type of cross and addition of secondaries.
 
Tostig

--- On Sat, 1/10/09, Joe McGrew <oscagne at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Joe McGrew <oscagne at gmail.com>
Subject: [ANSTHRLD] Help with conflict check and blazoning
To: heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 6:14 PM

I'm helping a gentle who is getting his device together for
submission, and as this is my first time doing any consulting, I was
hoping I could get some confirmation or education from you good folk.

The device we've settled on is:
Per saltire gules and argent, a cross fourchy between the tines of
each fork a roundel counterchanged.

Emblazoned thusly:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60082910@N00/3185535705/

Particularly, should it be blazoned "argent and gules" and is
"between
the tines of each fork" proper description or should the roundels'
pattern be described?

Also, we found some things that were close to this device, but we
think we've got at least two CDs for any of those, and I would love
some double-checking.

Regarding the formatting of the cross - the submitter wants a cross
Osmorog, so a "forchy" or "forchee" cross isn't exactly
what is
depicted in this device, but we are going with that descriptor because
he found this:  http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/2004/01/04-01lar.html

Part of which states, "The College's research also resulted in
significant doubt about whether the cross in this submission is a
correct depiction of a period cross Osmorog. We have thus chosen to
blazon this device using standard Western terms.

We considered blazoning this either as a variant of a cross moline or
of a cross fourchy. Because the ends of a cross moline are pointed and
deeply curved, and the ends of this cross are couped flat and only
slightly curved, we have reblazoned these as crosses fourchy."

BTW, that device was, "Per pale argent and gules, a cross fourchy
between the tines of each fork a roundel sable."  But we figure we
have one CD for per saltire vs. per pale and one CD for counterchanged
charges vs. sable charges.

Thanks in advance,
Gregor Mac Beathain
Herald, Gate's Edge
_______________________________________________
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org