[ANSTHRLD] More commentary on the October 2011 ILoI

[Tim McDaniel]

2. Erich Johann Alberichssohn
Device.

I concur with Tostig's suggested blazon, for his reason.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

4. {TH}orkell {o,}lf{u'}ss

I disagree with Tostig's reblazon "(Fieldless) On a mullet of eight
points sable a mullet of eight points quarterly argent and gules
pierced sable".  It's longer.  Any notion of sword/dagger should
collapse immediately upon reflection that a rowel IS a mullet.
And since piercing is equivalent to another charge on top (q.v.),
you'd first think too many layers (field(less), sable mullet,
quarterly mullet, piercing).

{TH}orkell wrote, "as to voiding i was not aware i could void the
mullet... being that i thought it became the color of the field in
this case omni-tincture."  You can void the quarterly mullet because
the background for it is the underlying sable mullet, so there's no
omni-tincturing showing thru.

As for piercing the underlying sable mullet, I'm not sure.  This is in
Francois I's draft precedents:

"[returning (Fieldless) A reremouse displayed sable conjoined in chief
to a compass star pierced Or] 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.

[Argus Caradoc, 03/02, R-Meridies]"

The Pic Dic says

      A mullet may be "pierced", with a circular hole in its center.
      If the mullet is of six points, this variant may also be called a
      "spur rowel" [515].

If they were mullets of six points, it would be unambiguous: you could
pierce it (barring conflict).  Mullets of eight points may be period
-- I suspect they are.  But the Pic Dic doesn't say that PIERCED
mullets of anything but six points are known from period.  So if
you're just as happy to have your current submission, you might not
want to push the point and risk a return.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

6. Uillecc Dubh mac Uillicc

I agree with Star.  It looks a bit cartoony, but it's clearly a bear.
And like the submitter, I think Braun's looks too rodent-like, even
thogh it did pass.  But Bordure might want to address the issue on the
LoI to try to head off any complaints.

Danyell de Lincoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com