[ANSTHRLD] "Busy" WAS {TH}orkell {o, }lf_ss - another device attempt

[Tim McDaniel]

Jbrandl10 wrote:
> Third Device Blazon:
> Quarterly sable and argent between four mullets of eight points
> pierced a cross counterchanged
>
> Third Device Image:
> http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll227/aednial/Quarterly.gif

The SCA blazons the central charge first, so we'd blazon it as
"Quarterly sable and argent, a cross between four mullets of eight
points pierced counterchanged".

> This was actually the first one i have done, i do like it.. however
> i was told it was. "too busy".

Some heralds have incorrect notions -- I've found far too many
of my own errors recently when I did dives for precedents.
Some heralds disagree.

Also, some heralds (like me) give mere opinions that don't affect
registerability.  I might say that one design is "stunningly Tudor"
but another is "bleah", but unless there's a cause for return, they're
both registerable.  I'm just spouting off on style, which you might or
might not care about.

So you might want to give the list your ideas and people now can give
opinions about whether there are problems, rather than filter out
ideas based on what someone told you some time ago.

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Bob Wade <logiosophia at yahoo.com> wrote:
> IMO there is nothing "busy" in the third emblazon (Quarterly, ...).
> It has only two tinctures, two charge groups.  Each charge group
> contains a single charge type.  The field division and charge
> classes were frequently found in period heraldry.  The charges
> groups are in a common arrangement for the field division.  The
> cross shown is rendered in its standard form (although drawn about
> half the width of what would be most identfiable).  The mullet shown
> is a variant of the most common type (five points), but the
> eight-point variation used was common enough to be known throughout
> Europe.

Hear, hear!

I think you should draw the cross wider.  The two mullets in base (or
maybe all four) would have to shrink substantially, and should not
touch the shield side or the cross.  In a quarterly division on a
shield shape, they each have different-shaped areas to fill, so size
variations to fill the space properly are expected.

In terms of period style, this is by far the best of show of all the
designs so far.


I often like to suggest variations that the submitter might like.
It might make it closer to period style, or might be just as period
but the submitter might like it better.  But often enough, the
submitter says "naw, I like the original better".

  From a style point of view, it is rather monochrome and ... well,
I don't know that "busy" is an accurate term, but it's rather
counterchanged (though not to the point of op art).  I saw that you
liked red in other designs.  The cross could be gules -- I suspect
that would be really striking and symmetric, and would really cut down
on the counterchanging effect (though I suspect you WANT the "very
counterchangied" effect).  Or the black mullets could be red, but
that's not as symmetric.  There are other possibilities, of course.

In period, five- and six-pointed mullets were more common -- but there
were certainly examples of eight-pointed mullets, so choose among them
as you like.

If you prefer, the piercings could also be drawn smaller, which would
make them decorations that are worth no difference.  But I'm 95% sure
that the large piercings as shown in your original design count for
difference in conflict checking.

I've not conflict checked any of these, so any suggestions might bring
the design into conflict with something.  Again, I'm just throwing out
ideas that you might like or that might spark other ideas.

Danielis Lindocollinum
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com