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

Joshua Brandl norfildur at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 31 21:26:43 PDT 2010


i do like the original, but am always open to ideas, i do like the idea of gules... i could even go in and turn the cross quarterly gules and argent.

> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:21:58 -0500
> From: tmcd at panix.com
> To: heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] "Busy" WAS {TH}orkell {o, }lf_ss - another device attempt
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
 		 	   		  


More information about the Heralds mailing list