[ANSTHRLD] Cross quarterly, overall a mullet of eight points pierced

[tmcd at panix.com]

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010, Joshua Brandl <norfildur at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> First off... If there is a better title... lets use it..
> now for the meat and taters of the email
>
> http://oanda.sca.org/
>
> since you all were so kind to help me with my device..
> figured i would attempt to do my own badge
> now.. this is the badge i am attempting to conflict check
>
> Blazon:
> Fieldless, a cross quarterly argent and gules, surmounted by a
> mullet of eight points pierced sable
>
> Emblazon:
> http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll227/aednial/badgecolored.gif

(Irre[lv]e[ve][ae]nt comment: "Onward, Christian ninjas ...")

Blazon fu: SCA blazons use "(Fieldless)", and then capitalize the
first word of the blazon, so
    (Fieldless) A cross quarterly argent and gules, overall a mullet
    of eight points pierced sable.

I'm afraid there's an instaboing cause for return.  An example is in
the 3/02 LoAR:

    Argus Caradoc. Name and badge. (Fieldless) A reremouse displayed
    sable conjoined in chief to a compass star pierced Or.

    [name returned]

    The compass star was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as pierced
    sable, but the piercing on the colored emblazon is not black but
    white. A compass star Or pierced argent would have inadequate
    contrast, as the piercing is equivalent to a tertiary roundel. A
    compass star pierced Or (which is to say, a compass star Or with
    an untinctured hole in the center, through which the field shows)
    is not acceptable on a fieldless badge per the LoAR of January
    2000:

         Current precedent is that we only allow the piercing of
         charges on fieldless badges when those charges were found
         pierced in period armory (thus disallowing omni-tinctured
         tertiary charges). While a compass star is closely related to
         a mullet, it is nevertheless a different charge, one not
         found in period armory. Therefore we are not inclined to give
         it the benefit of the doubt and allow it to be pierced as we
         would a mullet or spur rowel.

    [another cause for return] ...

(That's one of the easiest precedents to find with a text search:
omni-tinctured or omnitinctured.)

I don't know of a way to get anything of this form.  If you just say
it's "overall" and draw it with the center piercing entirely on the
cross, there's no way to constrain that exact placement.  If you make
it "on", then all eight points have to be entirely contained within
the cross, leading to a really small compass star.  You could take
away the piercing, but I don't know that the old Bruce precedent
interpretation, forbidding overall charges on fieldless badges unless
the area of intersection is small, has fallen yet.

Have you considered just the cross?

Danielis Lindocolina
-- 
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To: tmcd at panix.com