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

[doug bell]

On the mullet of 8 points pierced:
Pierced means that part of the charge that is pierced shows the tincture of
the field but you selected a fieldless badge so there is no field or field tincture
for the pierced area to use.  You have created a nonsense paradox so it isn't
registerable.

Many period badges were (Fieldless) "A single charge tincture."
The only SCA issue with that is frequent conflicts with registered items.
Fieldless badges do have their own peculiar rules.

Surmount is often carelessly used to refer to overall charges in SCA blazon.

It's an 8 pointed mullet.  Just ignore the compass star business.

SCA heraldry covers Europe before 1600.  Real world heraldry books have
no such goals.  It takes an experienced eye to spot SCA time period heraldry
and ignore the Victorian era junk in such books.  Many of the medieval rolls
of arms are now online but that is a rather advanced study.

Your badge has the misfortune of running into several rules that new heralds
usually don't encounter for a while.

Magnus


> From: norfildur at hotmail.com
> To: heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:53:24 -0500
> Subject: Re: [ANSTHRLD] Cross quarterly, overall a mullet of eight points pierced
> 
> 
> 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.. ( with the compass rose being an additional 4 in tertiary directions )  instead i am looking for even tines, the term mullet of eight being used so that an unfamiliar herald will always draw it so, rather than the four greater-four lesser style mentioned earlier...
> 
> 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. i am unsure how a compass star could be pierced argent as a Or charge should not be placed on an argent background...  i am not entirely able to visualize what is meant by "omni-tinctured" 
> 
> also... we dont surmount... where is this posted for beginners? i will not go so far as to say it is NOT posted... just that i dont know where it is... perhaps it would be good to gather this things into a sort of continuity folder... for those of us newbs who are interested in studying SCA heraldry...  i say SCA heraldry because a majority of the things practiced in period heraldry seem to be disallowed in the SCA... making most mundane heraldic references (at least that i have been able to get my grubby paws on) nigh-unto useless
> 
> Being that badges were used more to designate property rather than presence, i cannot seem to find a good reference of sca-period badges... my persona time period is in the early simple beginning times of mundane heraldry, and i cannot seem to find a single badge from MY period at all...
> 
> Jbrandl10
> 
>  
> 
> > Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 23:31:24 -0500
> > From: tmcd at panix.com
> > To: heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> > Subject: [ANSTHRLD] Cross quarterly, overall a mullet of eight points pierced
> > 
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > Heralds mailing list
> > Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> > http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org
>  		 	   		  
> _______________________________________________
> Heralds mailing list
> Heralds at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/heralds-ansteorra.org