[antir-heralds] Update: Conflict Check - Azure, an English sea-panther...

[Britt]

> >     Okay, hopefully Teceangl will double check this for me but I'll
> >     see how well I can imitate her :-)...

Was that imitate, or intimidate?

> >     Checking "Azure, an English sea-panther erect argent spotted of
> >     various tinctures, tailed and finned Or, incensed proper within a
> >     bordure argent."

> >     Checking Style first:

Yay!

> >     RfS VIII.2 Armorial Contrast - argent charges on azure - okay

And flames proper are half gules and half Or, so acceptable on an
azure field.  Although maintained charges may break the Rule of
Tincture, and flames issuant are considered maintained, they may not
match the field.

> >     RfS VIII.3 Armorial Indentifiability - as long as it's drawn
> >     clearly, should be okay.

More spots, less black around them.  In fact, no black around them in
the color emblazon and only a pencil-width line for any line drawings.
 These are thick enough to look like fimbriation.
Also, flames proper are alternating licks of red and yellow.  This is
red fimbriated yellow and fimbriated flame is grounds for return.  So
let the red touch the field, it's okay, really.  You need to get rid
of the appearance of fimbriation to avoid a potential return for style
issues, on both the spots and the flames.

> Azure, an English sea-panther erect argent, spotted of various
> tinctures, tailed and finned Or, incensed proper, within a bordure argent.

It's just finned Or, actually.  The tail is everything from the waist
down, which is why Alicia took such care to check Or charges.  The
posted image clears up that problem nicely.  The wavy thing at the far
end counts as a fin. :)

A precedents search also led me to the Glossary of Terms Table 4 -
Default Postures, which says that a panther is "Guardant; body posture
must be specified".  This, then, is a panther facing dexter. The Table
also says  that a sea-monster defaults to erect. I'd reblazon it
thusly:

Azure, an English sea-panther facing dexter argent, spotted of various
tinctures, incensed proper finned Or within a bordure argent.

(Look, Teceangl used COMMAS in a blazon!)

> >     Beast - Panther refers you to Beast - Cat in the Ordinary.
> >     Lots of listings.  But I think the only ones you need to check are
> >     those that are one cat that's argent, Or or multicolor and rampant
> >     as any other tincture would give a CD by X.4.d, more than one
> >     gives a CD by X.4. f, and any other posture would give one by
> >     X.4.h.  (checking all three tincture options might not be
> >     necessary but I'd rather not take chances in missing something).

Or would be a CD away and so would parti-tinctured, as this
sea-panther is argent with only Or detailing.  However never
underestimate the ability of older armory to surprise you, and do not
forget that tincture is but one CD.  So check all tinctures on azure
fields, and argent on all fields.

> >     We should be able to go through the listings fairly fast.  We only
> >     need to check Azure fields as any other field will give that
> >     second CD by X.4.a.  Anything without an argent bordure is clear
> >     by X.4.b.

You mean gets a CD, right?  Thought so. :)
Just a point, I'd have started this under Monster then moved on to
Beast - Cat, but so long as all possibilities are covered, there's no
required order in which to check the categories.  Every conflict
checker will develop their individual style, whatever works for them,
and all complete checks are valid.

> >     Looking under Argent, Rampant:
> >     Mieczyslaw Tomeknowicz - July of 2005: Azure, a leopard sejant
> >     erect affronty, forelegs displayed, in base a mullet of sixteen
> >     points pierced, all within a bordure engrailed argent.
> >     - The field is the same and it has a bordure however there is
> >     another secondary charge (the mullet) which gives a second CD by
> >     X.4.b.for removing it and a third CD by X.4.e for changing from
> >     engrailed bordure to a plain one.  Clear.  We don't even need to
> >     worry about how close the posture is or that yours is divided into
> >     two tinctures..

Affronty will always get a CD from rampant/erect on felines since it's
a full 90-degree turn of the beast.  Don't forget the CD for the fish
tail under X.4.e. for changing type from land to sea critter.

     [wolves vs. seawolves] There is a ... CD for changing the type of
secondary charges. Most
     (albeit not all) "sea-beast" monsters are constructed as
fish-tailed demi-beasts (the top half of
     the beast conjoined to a fish's tail). A sea-wolf follows this
general practice: it is a fish-tailed
     demi-wolf, just as a a sea-griffin is a fish tailed demi-griffin.
As a general rule, there is a CD
     between a quadruped (or quadrupedal monster) and a fish-tailed
demi-quadruped. While there
     are not many explicit precedents on this topic, one such
precedent is found in the LoAR of
     January 1992, p. 6: "There is a CD... for the difference between
a sea-griffin and a griffin."
     [Daniel of Whitby, 11/03, A-Ealdormere]

> >     Looking under Or, Rampant:
> >     Connor Buchanan - September of 1995: Azure, a bicorporate lion
> >     within a bordure dovetailed Or.
> >     - Looks like several CDs here with the most obvious being the
> >     change in both bordure tincture and division (X.4.d & X.4.e).
> >     Plus probably one for it being bicorporate as well as the one vs
> >     two tinctures.  Clear.

Bicorporate = two bodies = a CD for number, I believe.
And, well, it's Or and has no fish tail. :)  CDs by X.4.d. and X.4.e.

> >     Siobhán inghean uí Liatháin - October of 2002: Azure, a demi-lion
> >     erect Or maintaining a harp all within a bordure argent.
> >     - Field and bordure are the same.  We can't get off easy as the
> >     harp doesn't count for a CD "Since the July 1992 LoAR, the term
> >     maintaining has been used for grasped or held items which are too
> >     small to be worth difference." So we have to look closer.
> >     - As the main difference between a demi-cat and a sea-cat is the
> >     tail, I think you may still only get the one CD but not more. "We
> >     in fact give a CD between an animal and the same animal when it is
> >     a demi-animal. This change is a type change, not a posture
> >     change." (precedents of Jaelle of Armida) .  I didn't find any
> >     other relevant precendence but perhaps someone else can.
> >     - So that leaves tincture.  We are comparing a completely Or beast
> >     against one that is part argent and part Or.  X.4.d. gives a CD
> >     for changing the tincture of half the primary charge so as long as
> >     the argent part makes up at least half of the sea-panther, this
> >     should give you the second CD.
> >     NOTE: I think this is probably clear but I'm a bit unsure of
> >     whether I've checked this one correctly so I'm hoping Teceangl or
> >     someone double checks it.

There is also a CD between a demi-beast and its whole counterpart,
also being a change of type.  So this is clear by X.4.d. for tincture
change and X.4.e. type change and it was a good find.

> >     On to Monsters - Sea:  Several categories here for different types
> >     of sea monsters.  I wonder what we might conflict with.  Based on
> >     the precedent quoted earlier regarding sea-tygers and
> >     sea-panthers, I suspect you would not get a difference from any
> >     sea-monster of the cat family.  However, I think there would be a
> >     CD from most other sea-animals based on this precedent of Elsbeth
> >     Anne Roth " [a sealion vs. a seabull] There is a CD between the
> >     two charges, but while there is substantial difference between a
> >     bull and a lion, there is not a substantial difference between the
> >     two sea-beasts as the sea tails sharply reduces the difference
> >     between the two."

Yup.  The cognate is you don't get a CD between types of cats on a
whole beast, so you cannot expect difference.  Note that a natural
tiger is a cat and a heraldic tyger is a monster, so that's not an
example of difference between felines, and the same goes for heraldic
panthers, which are also classified as monsters.  A CD exists between
a natural beast and a monster, none between two species of natural
beasts.

> >     Colin de Wyndmere - August of 1978: Azure, a sea lion erect and a
> >     chief nebuly argent.
> >     - One CD for adding the bordure and one for removing the chief
> >     (both X.4.b).  Clear without worrying about divided tincture.

Oop, nope.
You're not removing and adding secondaries, you're changing the type
of secondary. This is one CD for changing the type of secondary from a
chief nebuly to a plain bordure.
Ouch.  All right, here are precedents I found:

     [a lion vs. a continental panther] There is one CD, but not
substantial difference, between a
     heraldic (as opposed to natural) panther and a lion, just as
there is only one CD between a
     heraldic tyger and a lion per RfS X.4.e. [Jane Atwell, 02/03, R-Æthelmearc]

No help, as a Continental panther isn't really a cat.,

     There is no difference for adding spots to a panther: "The spots
of panther are part of its tincture,
     so there is only a CD for [a different change to the armory]"
(LoAR of October 1999). [Grecia de
     Caunteton, 04/02, R-Middle]

     [a lion vs. a continental panther] There is one CD, but not
substantial difference, between a
     heraldic (as opposed to natural) panther and a lion, just as
there is only one CD between a
     heraldic tyger and a lion per RfS X.4.e. [Jane Atwell, 02/03, R-Æthelmearc]

     This charge was originally blazoned as a panther, but it is
neither a heraldic panther (as it lacks
     the appropriate incensing) nor a natural panther (as it has the
elaborately tufted tail and legs of
     a heraldic lion, which would never be found on a natural
panther). It is an appropriately stylized
     lion for much of the heraldry in the last two centuries of our
period. While it has either a minimal
     or nonexistent mane, this lack of mane is common with heraldic
lions in our period. [Racheel
     Dominique de Brienne, 03/04, A-Middle]

This is promising, actually. A trait of the heraldic panther is the
incensing, which only happens on the upper half of the beast, and
apparently is required to make the beast a heraldic panther, therefore
it might be argued that since this sea-panther has incensing it is
obviously such and should get a CD from a natural lion.  Back to
precedents to see if anyone ever ruled specifically on half a panther.

     [returning a cat spotted of various tinctures] The use of multi
colored spots appear to be unique
     to the heraldic panther in period. Just as we do no longer allow
the use of unicorn horns on
     random animals, neither do we allow the use of variously
tinctured spots. (Caintigern of Ainsley,
     3/98 p. 19)

Another good sign.  That's two specifically heraldic panther traits we
can rely upon.
Bingo!  Never overturned:

     "The weight of the commentary was clearly in favor of granting a
CVD between an heraldic
     panther's head and a lion's head." (LoAR 4/91 p.10).

It's old, but it's Da'ud and Da'ud was usually known for being cautious.
I call this clear with one CD for changing the type of the secondary
charge and one for the difference between a sea-lion and a sea-panther
and would gladly support that with arguments in commentary as needed.

> >     Anne of Ockham - April of 1982: Azure, a sea lion passant, its
> >     tail reflexed over its head, within a tressure argent.
> >     - CD for posture, one for removing tressure, one for adding
> >     bordure.  Clear without worrying about divided tincture.

Again the second CD is for changing type of the secondary by X.4.e. as
nothing's being removed, just mutated.

> >     Atlantia, Kingdom of - September of 1992: Azure, a sea-lion Or, a
> >     bordure embattled Or semy-de-lys azure.
> >     - CD for  bordure tincture, CD for bordure line of division and a
> >     CD for charges on the bordure (X.4.i). Clear

Multiple CDs from secondaries and tertiaries are like sweetmeats, so
nice to acquire.  :)  (That's a CD for removal of charges lying
entirely on other charges.)


> >     Aithne Lassarina Anderson of Shadowskeep - April of 1987: Azure,
> >     in saltire two sealions rampant addorsed within a bordure
> >     engrailed Or.
> >     - CDs for number (X.4.f), border tincture and border division.  Clear.

Partition, line of.  Nothing's divided.

> >     Checking Sea - Monster - Other.
> >     Tristan Alexander - November of 2001: Azure, a mertyger erect to
> >     sinister and a bordure argent.
> >     - This one may be close.  There is one CD for orientation
> >     (X.4.h).  I'm not sure if there's a CD for type as a mertyger
> >     sounds like a sea-tyger to me, putting it into the cat family, but
> >     I may be wrong.  So here again, you may be looking at tincture to
> >     give you a second CD.  As long as the argent and Or are equal, you
> >     can get the CD by X.4.d.

An heraldic tyger has a wolf-like body, but when you attach it to a
fish tail all bets are off.  Since the proposal is all argent there's
no tincture CD, so we're back to wrangling one for type.  Back to
precedents.

     [a lion vs. a continental panther] There is one CD, but not
substantial difference, between a
     heraldic (as opposed to natural) panther and a lion, just as
there is only one CD between a
     heraldic tyger and a lion per RfS X.4.e. [Jane Atwell, 02/03, R-Æthelmearc]

- - - - -
     The question of difference between a sea-lion and a sea-tyger is
a difficult one. In the case of
     this submission, one CD is needed to clear conflict with any of
the armory cited by the College.
     Rule X.4.e states in part that

         Types of charges considered to be separate in period, for
example a lion and an heraldic
          tyger, will be considered different. A charge not used in
period armory will be considered
          different in type if its shape in normal depiction is
significantly different.

     Neither the commentary nor any research by the armory sovereign's
staff provided a real-world
     example of a sea-tyger, so it is difficult to discuss period
difference between these charges.

     Without evidence that the sea-tyger existed in period, and was
given difference from a sea-lion
     in period, it does not appear appropriate to grant difference
between these charges on purely
     visual grounds. [Mora of Lincolnshire and Robert of Caithness,
08/01, R-An Tir]

Not good.  Again this is going to hinge on whether a Continental
panther's upper half is different enough from a tyger's upper half to
get a CD.

     [A tyger's head erased] Possible conflict was cited against [A
wolf's head erased within a
     bordure rayonny]. There's a CD for the bordure; the question was
raised on any difference
     between a wolf's head and a tyger's head. Rule X.4.e specifically
grants a difference between a
     lion and a [heraldic] tyger; but even assuming the same between a
wolf and a tyger, that doesn't
     necessarily require difference between their heads. (By analogy,
we grant difference between a
     dragon and an eagle -- but none between a dragon's foot and an
eagle's foot.) The heraldic
     tyger is described as "having ...the maned neck of a horse, and
the head of a wolf, but the upper
     jaw develops into a frontal horn" (Franklyn & Tanner 334);
there's no way that the heads could
     be deemed Substantially Different, but I can see granting a CD
for the frontal horn and the
     mane. (Laeghaire O Laverty, August, 1993, pg. 5)

It's an old precedent, but does outline some traits of an heraldic
tyger which an heraldic panther does not have, and we still have the
incensing to go on.

I'd base difference here on the same criteria between a panther and a
lion's head with the incensing being a very prominent feature specific
to the former.

HOWEVER, this is Teceangl speculation, nothing is guaranteed, and the
client needs to be informed in boring detail why there might be a
problem.

> >     Olena Ksen'ia Barsova - April of 1995: Azure, on a bend between
> >     two whelks argent a continental sea-panther reguardant azure.
> >     - This is actually quite clear as the sea-panther is a tertiary
> >     charge and therefore this clears by X.1.

Yay, Alicia!  Perfect.

> >     Whew! That was a workout.  (How did I do, Teceangl?)
> >     I hope I didn't finish overloading your brain, Ragnhildr, on top
> >     of Teceangl's post.

No, I did.  :)

You teach conflict checking very well, Alicia, and Ragnhildr seems to
be an extremely apt pupil.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I
had fun with this. And perhaps we'll be lucky and Owen or someone will
chime in with supporting or counterpoint opinions about my
speculations on difference above.

Ragnhildr, you can always indent the bordure.  It'd clear all those
things Alicia and I found and is a common period treatment for
bordures.

- Teceangl