[ANSTHRLD] Conflict Check: Per pale, sable and gules within an annulet counterchanged a wolf sejant gaurdant to sinister counterchanged

Tim McDaniel tmcd at panix.com
Mon Apr 23 14:45:04 PDT 2012


On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Darnell Daniels wrote:
> Subject: [ANSTHRLD] Conflict Check: Per pale,
>     sable and gules within an annulet counterchanged a wolf sejant gaurdant to
>      sinister counterchanged
> 
> This one is for a submitter that originally wanted something that
> was an optical illusion. Keeping with the wolf theme I came up with
> this compromise.
> The link is below:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=3022208406886&set=a.1471610042896.59331.1612997228&type=3

I wonder if, while I'm typing this message, someone will beat me to
point out that it's an immediate return due to "color on color".

> Per pale, sable and gules within an annulet counterchanged a wolf
> sejant gaurdant to sinister counterchanged

Blazon fu.

We generally don't put a comma between a field division and its
tinctures.  We generally DO put a comma after the field specification
(and strewn charges).

We generally blazon the primary charge first.  That's the wolf here.

"to sinister" is ambiguous in its location: I first read it as
applying to the head position.  If moved, it's OK, but "contourny"
also works and may be more common in the SCA.  "Gardant" means that
it's facing outward; the term for the head pointing over the back is
"regardant".

If two or more tincture specifications in a row are identical (here,
"counterchanged"), you can omit all but the last.

Result:

Per pale sable and gules, a wolf contourny regardant within an annulet
counterchanged.

If it has to be redrawn, then the wolf should be drawn larger and the
annulet should be much thicker.

Daniel de Lindonio
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com



More information about the Heralds mailing list