[ANSTHRLD] fess urdy, Thor's hammers (was: Device attempt. . .)

[Tim McDaniel]

Coblaith wrote:
> It's possible that you could end up with three Thor's hammers voided
> sable if you made the black line much, much thicker.  On the other
> hand, a Thor's hammer could be ruled too complex to void, based on
> the guidelines in the cover letter to the November, 1992 LoAR
> <http:// heraldry.sca.org/loar/1992/11/cvr.html>.  I took an image
> of one I had handy and subjected it to the photoreduction test (as
> described in the June, 2004 LoAR <http://heraldry.sca.org/loar/
> 2004/06/04-06lar.html#57>), and the results were not favorable.

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Joshua Brandl <norfildur at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I was under the impression that if the interior outline was the same
> as the outside then it was simple enough, similar to the
> delf/griffin head earlier... if not... then back to the drawing
> board

Exactly Coblaith's point and the point of the photoreduce test that
she cited above:

       The typical implementation of Bruce's test for more than a
       decade has been informally called the "photoreduction test."
       Start with a picture of the charge and make a photocopy of it at
       90% reduction. Cut the reduced copy out close to its outer edge
       all the way around. Now place it on top of the original picture.
       If the result looks like that charge voided, then that charge is
       voidable; otherwise it is not.

       A cross crosslet does not pass the "photoreduction test," so
       voiding or fimbriating one violates RfS VIII.3.

Fair dinkum Cobber, if you have your test electronically and to hand,
could you put it on a Web page?

Daniel Lindicolinum
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com