[ANSTHRLD] Anton de LaTour name & device

Bob Wade logiosophia at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 9 22:25:56 PDT 2009

Although my complexity count was 9 ( I counted only one tincture, vert, for the vine proper -- turning a blind eye to the purpure grapes like we do to the vert barbs and Or seeds of a rose proper) the emblazon probably violates RfS VIII 1a ("...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...") http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/rfs.html#8.1
In addition to the problem with armorial simplicity there may also be a problem with identifiability.
Vines are usually depicted spiraling uniformly around a palewise axis.  The depiction in the emblazon, as Daniel noted, closely resembles the orientation of a wreath.  I initially identified it as diapering in the BW version, but diapering can not be in a contrasting tincure.  If the field is white the diapering would be silver -- although Or also seems period.  
(See 'Vine' and 'Diapered' in Parker and 'From Wreath: Mailly and Other Field Treatments' in the Cover Letter to the Sep 02 LoAR) http://www.heraldsnet.org/saitou/parker/Jpglossv.htm#vine 
Like Daniel, I suggest the submittor eliminate the vine (I would suggest diapering as shown in Parker in silver or gold on his banner and shield rather than drawing it proper on the tower).  Armorial simplicity and style would also be improved if the primary tincture of the bordure was changed to match the primary charge (i.e "azure semy-de-lys argent").

--- On Fri, 10/9/09, Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:

From: Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com>
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Anton de LaTour name & device
To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>, delatour at ymail.com
Date: Friday, October 9, 2009, 6:12 PM

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Anton De Latour <delatour at ymail.com> wrote:
> I am assuming the vine is one thing too many it does have fruit
> (refer to my email with the PDF Attachment) and leaves more than a
> wavy line. Furthermore, the vine is not on the tower it is at the
> base spanning to its chief and dexter sides.

The original picture that I saw did not have the grapevine.

In this picture: the grapevine is an obvious charge, way bigger than
an artistic detail.  It would be blazoned something along the lines of
"within a wreath of grapevine proper fructed purpure" or some such.
(Maybe heraldic defaults would shorten the blazon.)  Except that a
wreath is circular and almost closed at the top.  "Within the branches
of a bifurcated grape plant etc."?  Difficulty in blazon can be an
indication of non-period style, and non-period style is cause for

If I remember aright, the original rule-of-thumb complexity count was
7, and this grapevine would indeed drive it to 10.  As the usual limit
enforced is 8, I would expect the design to be returned on those
grounds at least (and possibly for unblazonability).

Monsieur, would you be amenable to dropping the grape plant?  Or at
most making it a proportioned small artistic detail on the tower, like
a couple of vines stretching up the sides of the tower up half a story
or so?  Then it looks like period-style armory to me.

An alternative would be to revamp the bordure to hold grape-related
things instead of its current tinctures and semy-de-lys.  Most of my
immediate thoughts would move it further from period style.  But
something registerable could be done.

If a design is registerable, you can have it regardless of how close
to common period style it is, but I do like to mention period style
notes in case that influences the client's decision.

Denyel de Linccolne
-- Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org


More information about the Heralds mailing list