[ANSTHRLD] Masonry - clarification

[Tim McDaniel]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Vyolante Oporto <vyolante at gmail.com> wrote:
> I know you can have contrasting colors for masonry - but can you have
> color on color or metal on metal masonry?
> for example - argent masoned Or, gules masoned sable. It seems like
> the answer would be no - but I thought I'd reach out.

Huh!  That actually takes some pondering, because I don't see anything
explicit in SENA about it.  I think you have to go all the way to the
catchall of http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/sena.html#A3B3d :
A.3. Armory Style
B. Armorial Contrast
3. Contrast Requirements for Divided Fields and Charges
d. Elements Otherwise Divided: Elements not already mentioned must
have good contrast between their parts.  These include fields or
charges evenly divided into four parts other than quarterly or per
saltire, fields or charges evenly divided into more than four parts of
two different tinctures, and fields or charges unevenly divided into
multiple parts of two different tinctures must have good contrast
between adjacent parts of the field.

As I see it, "vairy" and "ermined" fall under "fields or charges
evenly divided into more than four parts of two different tinctures".

For "ermined" and "masoning", I think you have to use any of the
applicable
- fields or charges evenly divided into four parts other than
   quarterly or per saltire
- fields or charges evenly divided into more than four parts of
   two different tinctures
- fields or charges unevenly divided into multiple parts of two
   different tinctures

In any normal depiction, there will be more than four parts and they
will be very unequal areas, so falling under the third clause.

However, being in language lawyer mode, I can imagine a smart-arsed
April 1 submission carefully drawing them so the ermine spots are
large and numerous enough, or the masoning thick enough, that they are
exactly equal in area in that depiction.  In such a case, I think
Laurel would have to precedent that we are concerned about a range of
heraldically equivalent depictions, and therefore in almost any
depiction, they would be uneven.  Or the easy way would be to just
bounce it for the second clause, "evenly divided into more than four
parts".

Still in language lawyer mode, I can contemplate an "ermined" pale
with three very large ermine spots or thick masoning with three
bricks, so "more than four" can't apply.  Laurel might precedent that
three of such ermine spots are charges, but the easier way is to
bounce it for the first clause "evenly divided into four parts other
than quarterly or per saltire".

Danett de Linccolne
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com