[ANSTHRLD] Quarterly, a cross between four mullets ... pierced

[Bob Wade]

I agree with the argument Daniel made that piercing should clear the potential conflict versus Sibyl,
 
He and I seemed to be writing our responses to Herr Wilhelm at about the same time.  As usual, Daniel's knowledge of Precedents provided a more detailed and appropriate response.
 
Tostig
 
Post Scriptum: When I mentioned following Daniel's suggestion of using gules on the cross I was unclear.  I meant the entire cross rather than just 1/2 of it.  Quarterly is considered a "neutral" field per the Rules for Submission, so having half the gules cross on half the sable portion of the field does not violate the maxim "no color on color".
 
a. Contrasting Tinctures - Good contrast exists between:

ii. An element equally divided of a color and a metal, and any other element as long as identifiability is maintained
RfS VIII.2a(ii) http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/rfs.html#8.2
 
Tostig

--- On Wed, 9/1/10, Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com> wrote:


From: Tim McDaniel <tmcd at panix.com>
Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Quarterly, a cross between four mullets ... pierced
To: "Heralds List, Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <heralds at lists.ansteorra.org>
Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 11:50 PM


On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Joshua Brandl <norfildur at hotmail.com> wrote:
> New Blazon attempt:
> Quarterly sable and argent, a cross quarterly argent and gules between
> four mullets of eight points pierced counterchanged
>
> New Emblazon:
> http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll227/aednial/Quartly2.gif

A tangent for blazon education that IS NOT RELEVANT to the current
idea: if it were only the field and the cross, you could alternately
blazon it as "Quarterly sable and argent, a cross counterchanged
argent and gules".  However, I don't recommend that alternate blazon
with the version that has mullets, because then there's a second
"counterchanged" that doesn't mean the same thing as the first
"counterchanged".

> If i am correct, then the First CD would be the mullets, and the
> second would be changing the cross from counterchanged to quarterly
> argent and gules

and the third CD is the piercing on your mullets, as I was apparently
not clear enough in explaining earlier.  You don't have to change the
cross, because Will's possible conflict (Sibyl O'Dowd, Quarterly sable
and argent, a cross between four lozenges counterchanged) is not a
conflict and Tostig was incorrect.  I said it should be mentioned on
the ILoI and the LoI only to keep other people from calling it a
conflict.

If you WANT to make such a change, that's a different thing, but you
don't have to change it to clear it from Sibyl.

I looked at the emblazon -- thank you so much for providing them.
In my opinion -- which might not be shared by anyone else -- the cross
being divided, and of different tinctures from the field and the
charges, makes it harder to blazon it.  I had to look at it a bit to
realize that what's going on in the center was probably a cross and
then a bit more to realize that it's quarterly.

I think this is harder to blazon than the original version.  I still
would suggest a plain cross gules (or some other solid tincture that's
not argent or sable).  You're obviously fond of counterchanging, which
is a known period thing, but the more there is, the harder it is to
figure out what's going on.

Daniel de Lindicolino
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com
_______________________________________________
Heralds mailing list
Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org