[ANSTHRLD] (Fieldless) A demi-eagle issuant from a sword fesswise argent

[Tim McDaniel]

Please put an indication of the blazon (for armory) or name (for
names) in the subject line, to distinguish this "badge check" from any
other that might be on the list.

Goldweard / 
Brett Chandler-Finch <naturemakeswell at gmail.com>
> http://alturl.com/bdwdt
>
> Fieldless a demi-eagle issuant from a sword fesswise agent.

Thank you for the picture as well as the proposed blazon!
The standard SCA blazon would be
(Fieldless) A demi-eagle issuant from a sword fesswise argent

> Will this fly ;)

I See What You Did There.

On Fri, 7 Jun 2013, Bob Wade <logiosophia at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Concern 1: The sword overlaps the demi-eagle. That's not trian
> aspect, but IMO blurs the distinction between an overall charge and
> an issuant charge.

I think you're being too picky on a minor detail.  However, since the
issue has been raised, the submitter (on the final forms) might as
well provide a picture without overlap.

> Concern 2: The two charges have the same tincture. IMO this
> creates a second identifiability issue due to lack of contrast..

I think this concern is false.  There is certainly sufficient contrast
by the letter of the rules -- issuant/adjacent charges do not need
good contrast.  Even in this depiction, where the background happened
to be argent, I identified the charges instantly.

I have a Concern 3: the clip art of the eagle has a delineated head,
which makes it appear to be a bald eagle.  You'd have to document that
it was known to period Europeans, though likely they did, as it's
native to the SE USA.  But the tincture means it doesn't HAVE to be a
BALD eagle in particular.  I suggest that, on the final submission
form, there be no line delineating the head, so it can be a generic
eagle.

> Daniel-Type Question: Why does orientation make sense in a fieldless
> badge when the ordinaries/subordinaries they are based on don't?
> (i.e. You can register a "closed book fesswise" but not "a fess")

It has nothing to do with orientation.

For one thing, as you know orientation of the ordinaries/subordinaries
DOES matter, so great that there's an SC (substantial change) which
clears conflict entirely for a primary charge.

You can't have "a fess" because SENA A.3.A.2 says "no charges may be
used that are defined in terms of the field or its outline, such as a
bordure, chief, or an ordinary that isn't couped."  A number of
fieldless badges have been registered with ordinaries couped -- 11
just in names that start with A.

The old objection to granting a difference for orientation on a
fieldless badge was due to the notion that they might be cast out of
metal (c.f. the folk explanation for the "connected charge(s)" rule),
and a badge pinned to clothing might easily rotate.  I don't know that
a counter-argument was made to that per se, but as you know, Bob (hey,
you really ARE Bob! so much for cliches), the rules for fieldless have
been almost identical to any other armory since 1990, and certainly
have been identical in the conflict field other than the fieldless
bribe.  I can only speculate that it's due to the 25? possible levels
of conflict in the pre-1990 rules (different levels of difference were
needed versus SCA device, SCA non-device, I think non-SCA device, I
think non-SCA badge, ...)  That Way Lies Madness so let's just be
simple about it.

Danihel de Lindocolina
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com