[antir-heralds] Device check: Argent, a coney...

[Britt]

> > Internal detailing.  The rabbit kind of looks like it belongs on the
> > mudflap of that Kenworth you get stuck behind on the way to Crown.  :)
> > Put in an eye, a little line on the ear, hips...  That will take care
> > of it.
> I decided to keep it as simple as possible at first, and thought I could
> add details in later.  (Kind of the opposite of acting - where you go as
> big as possible on the theory you can always pull it back.)  I'm glad to
> know I succeeded.  ;-)  Would this sort of detailing change the
> blazoning at all?  i.e. would I have to point out that the coney is
> order Or or any such thing?

Nope.  It's expected that a contrasting color will be used for such
things, and it's artistically up to the depictor to use whatever looks
good (the banner might be best with pure white but if you get is done
in cloisonnes you might have the option of actual gold) so we don't
blazon it anymore.

I was lax, should have cited the Laurel precedent on internal details
and other identifiability stuff.  I'm sorry.

     [concerning internal detailing] Over the last months, we have
seen an increasing number
     of submissions where a complex charge (such as an animal) is
drawn without any internal
     details. The members of the College have been quick to point out
that this can lead to
     difficulties in identifying the charge. They are, of course,
correct, and it is probably for this
     reason that most period depictions of complex charges have some
internal details. However,
     not all period heraldic art has internal details, and such
silhouette depictions are acceptable
     in the SCA as long as identifiability is preserved.

     The most identifiable postures for animals are those which are
commonly used for the animal
     being depicted, and which show the distinguishing aspects of the
animal to their best
     advantage. A rampant lion has the profile of the head, all four
limbs, and the tail all laying
     directly on the field. A displayed eagle has the profile of the
head, both wings, both legs, and
     the tail all lying directly on the field. Because we are
accustomed to seeing rampant
     quadrupeds and displayed eagles, and because almost every part of
these animals is
     outlined against the field, these animals can generally be
identified with little or no internal
     details.

     Any posture that obscures some limbs (such as sejant), or which
does not show the profile of
     the head (such as guardant) should generally be drawn with some
internal details. So should
     any charge in an uncommon or confusing posture, like a lion
sejant erect affronty, or an
     escallop fesswise. Any charge whose outline identifiability is
compromised by some other
     portion of the design, such as a partially low-contrast field or
an overall charge, will benefit
     from some internal details.

     While on this topic, I would also like to remind people that a
charge can also suffer from too
     many internal details. In some cases, we receive artwork that is
based on a photo-
     enlargement of a heavily shaded or cross-hatched black and white
original. In these cases,
     the black details can almost overpower the real tincture of the
charge. In other cases, we
     have a charge with a complicated tincture (such as ermine or
checky), or which is charged
     with a tertiary charge. In these cases, the internal details can
interfere with the identifiability
     of the complicated tincture or tertiary, and should be used with
restraint. [08/01, CL]

I was there when this one was written.  Those woodcut-style clip art
images are the worst culprits.  They can turn an argent charge into
mostly black.  Laurel/Wreath have preferred a shaky tracing with
appropriate detailing to computer-perfect clip art that's got so much
shading it's returnable for being more sable than the intended
tincture.
(Just a style note, having nothing to do with this proposal.)

> > Between you and Dafydd you've got the blazon down. I'm going to use
> > contourny in my version because the whole 'coney courant contourny' is
> > <ahem> cool :
> > Argent, a coney courant contourny and on a chief azure two crescents Or.
> lol...it is cool.  The "to sinister", though, appealed to me as a subtle
> in-joke-y nod to my nickname "Devil Bunny".  But maybe I'm just a dork.  <g>

You're a herald!  It makes perfect sense to me.  :)

> > (Grab your RfS and follow along - this is an easy one and good practice.)
> I'll be saving this to go over in more detail.  Looks like a great
> tutorial.  Thank you!

Remember that any time I post a conflict check I'm _inviting_
questions.  On the list or in private, if something needs
clarification or you just want to know why, I'm here to answer.
(That goes for you silent list-lurkers, as well.  You know who you are.)

> > Lianor, you ask all the right questions.  Can we keep you?  :)
> Awww....thanks.  *blush*  I recently got suckered in (oops...I meant
> humbly accepted) the role of Baronial Web Minister here in Montengarde,
> so I'm unlikely to be going anywhere any time soon.  You may rue those
> words.  <g>

Never!

> > The style is excellent, those crescents are terrific.  The style of
> > the rabbit did have me lloking up logos, but there's no problem there.
> lol...I hadn't even thought of that.  I just wanted a more sleek rabbit
> than the big, puffy tailed vision we have now, since in my place/period
> (Castile, early 13th) rabbits were pretty much exclusively wild.  I
> think monks in France were domesticating them by then (to eat their
> unborn rabbity babies during lent, if what I read can be believed), but
> that's about it.

I called in the husband.  He pointed to the head.  "It's a hare."  I
think you've achieved your goal.

- Teceangl