[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:
> Daniel de Lincoln / 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
...
> > 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.)

...
> now piercing is cutting out a circular area from within the star,
> such that the background is seen through it, in this case the
> intersection of the cross.

That is not the case.  What can be seen in your depiction is the
intersection of the cross *as well as the background around that
intersection*.  The background is the problem.

> i am not entirely able to visualize what is meant by
> "omni-tinctured"

Omni- (?). [L. omnis all.] A combining form denoting all, every,
everywhere; as in omnipotent, all-powerful; omnipresent.
(1913 Webster's)

A fieldless badge can be displayed on any background, and a piercing
lets that abckground shine through, so the piercing can be of every /
all tinctures.  Hence "omni".  A circular piercing can also be
considered a roundel that's a tertiary (a charge on a charge), and
sometimes that's done to do a conflict check.  Letting the background
show thru is like charging it with an all-tinctured = omni-tinctured
roundel.

> Compass star... i keep seeing this term tossed out, from what i
> understand it to be, and have seen it drawn, a compass star is not
> what i am looking for. a compass star is essentially 4 long points
> in cardinal directions, and then 4 more in secondary directions..

As you noted, it could also be blazoned in the SCA as "a mullet of
four greater and four lesser points".

> instead i am looking for even tines ...

That wasn't my point.  I wasn't saying that a mullet of eight point is
a compass star.  I was saying that piercing is only allowed on
specific types of charges, ones that are known to have been pierced in
period, and I had no evidence that a mullet of eight points would be
considered one of the acceptable cases.

To go back to precedents, this is in the 1/96 LoAR

    Anlon MacMatha.  Badge.  [Fieldless] An equal-armed Celtic cross
    vert pierced of a mullet.

    The "piercing" of the cross here is essentially an attempt to use
    a tinctureless (or rather, omni-tinctured) tertiary charge.  Such
    have been disallowed for some time.  "It is not possible to
    eclipse something `of the field' on a fieldless badge."  (Da'ud
    ibn Auda, LoAR February 1991, p. 18)

    It is true that we have registered fieldless badges consisting of
    a charge which has been pierced, but in these cases the piercing
    was part of the definition of the charge (e.g., a mascle, a
    rustre) and can hardly be considered as being in the same category
    as a "cross pierced of an (omni-tinctured) mullet".

and from the 1/00 LoAR, quoted above:

    Eridana Ambra Dragotta. Badge. (Fieldless) A compass star
    elongated to base pierced quarterly Or and argent.

    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).  ...

and from 7/99, "Aneala, Barony of. Badge. (Fieldless) A bezant voided
of a two headed swan displayed heads respectant." was returned for
"The voiding here is essentially an attempt to use a tinctureless (or
rather, omni-tinctured) tertiary charge. Such have been disallowed for
some time."

That is, a mascle = a lozenge pierced of a lozenge, a rustre = a
lozenge pierced of a roundel.  Foils (meaning stylized heraldic
flowers, like quatrefoils and cinqfoils) were also sometimes pierced
in period.  [1] Most closely related, a spur-rowel = a mullet pierced
of a roundel, and that's a period depiction.

But I've only seen a spur-rowel of five points or six points, not of
eight points.

However, prompted by your note, I did some searching -- looking for
everything registered with the regular expression
/fieldless.*mullet.*pierce/i, and also /rowel of/.

12/03 LoAR:

    Jean de Leedes. Badge. (Fieldless) Two wolves combattant azure
    maintaining between them in chief a mullet of eight points pierced
    gules.

Nobody raised the issue in commentary, and that's the entire LoAR
entry.

And 11/01:

    Jared Alexandre Blaydeaux. Badge. (Fieldless) A raven striking
    sustaining a spur rowel of eight points sable.

Same thing: nobody mentioned it in commentary, that's the complete
ruling.

The 12/08 LoAR has "It has long been policy that prior registration is
no guarantee of future registerability and that registrations without
comment do not set precedent."  So it might have been two cases of
overlooking the possible issue.  But *two* oversights is less likely
than one.

So I retract my categorical statement.  I don't think this is an
instaboing; I suspect that it is more likely than not that it would be
registered.  However, I wouldn't put a LOT of money on either result.
I would hope that Bordure would note the possible issue on the LoI for
the College of Arms, citing these registrations and asking Laurel for
an explicit ruling.

But another of my comments stands: "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."
There have been a couple of recent registrations of this sort of
thing, but I don't think the precedent has been overturned or modified
explicitly.  (I could be wrong.)

Denyel de Linccolne

[1] So Eloise of Coulter was able to register "(Fieldless) A
quatrefoil pierced argent ermined azure." in 4/06.  More interesting,
in 4/06, "Tatiana Pavlovna Sokolova. Badge. (Fieldless) A cinquefoil
pierced purpure. ... We have blazoned the cinquefoil as pierced
because we believe that it is standard SCA practice to blazon this
detail. Piercing of cinquefoils was likely due to artistic license in
some portions of our period, and is not worth difference."

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