[antir-heralds] photo/style check please.

[Britt]

> RfS, VIII.4.a:
> "Pictorial Design - Overly pictorial designs may not be registered.
> "Design elements should not be combined to create a picture of a scene
> or landscape. For example, combining a field divided per fess wavy azure
> and Or with a sun and three triangles Or, as well as a camel and two
> palm trees proper to depict the Nile Valley would not be acceptable."

I wrote this longish treatise as to why I thought it wouldn't be an
issue, then I went to look up some registered examples to back my
point up.
Three times has a field per fess plain and gyronny been registered.
1980, 1981 and 1996. No comment on the LoAR in 1996. That registration
had a charge in the center of the field.

No field per pale half gyronny has been registered (would have been
called for marshalling since the gyronny would make the field look
like independent arms).  Ditto quarterly and part gyronny.

[Sionan Padraig Caimbeul, Per pale gyronny sable and Or, and gyronny
Or and sable, on a chief triangular argent <charge>] The device does
not appear to be correct medieval style. The use of the two gyronny
divisions is visually confusing here, with the sinister division being
the counterchange of the dexter division.

Moreover, the only examples we've seen of multiple gyronny divisions
in one device involved marshalling. Were this considered a marshalled
coat --- and the fact that the Campbell (Caimbeul) arms are Gyronny
sable and Or suggests this was the submitter's intent --- it would be
returnable on those grounds alone. It's true that a charged chief may,
in most cases, remove the appearance of impalement; but
simultaneously, the use of Campbell armory with the name Caimbeul
reinforces that appearance. For either reason, this must be returned.
(Sionan Padraig Caimbeul, July, 1993, pg. 12)


Nothing per saltire and part gyronny.  Nothing per bend.  Per bend
sinister plain and gyronny, 1985 and 1987.

In other words, it simply looks bad for a field divided and half
gyronny.  Non-period style, perhaps?

In referring to an "off-center" gyronny in [a] return ... in February,
1982, Master Wilhelm noted "this sort of division is not heraldic".
Whilst this referred to a gyronny of two colours, the general
principle holds true. It was the consensus of the meeting that the
unequal division of the tinctures on the [primary charge] taken
together with the low contrast between the [metal portions of the
primary charge] and the [metal] of the field and the [tertiary charge]
creates too great a complexity for a badge. (LoAR 26 Oct 86, pp. 9-10)

Gyronny from any point other than the center of a field or charge is
definitely an anomaly, that is the reason that the visual complexity
added by the use of colours has been limited (nowhere was it ever
claimed that gyronny from the edge per se is "banned").... We are
still of the opinion that the use of gyronny from the edge on charges
is extremely poor style. (LoAR 29 Mar 87, p. 3)

[returning Per fess gyronny gules and Or issuant from the line of
division and Or]  The use of a gyronny half of a field which shares a
tincture with the other half of the field, so that in this case an Or
gyron is next to the Or half of the field, makes creates a severe
identifiability problem; it is extremely difficult to figure out just
what the field division/s is/are.  RfS VII.7.a. requires that
"Elements must be recognizable solely from their appearance."  To do
so here requires more time and effort than is consistent with the
general principles of armorial identifiability.  (Stefan Remnaia
Palatka, 4/96 p. 19)

So it has not specifically been ruled a no-no, but it hasn't been
registered, either.

I went looking for demi-suns issuant from the line of division with
overall charges.  Nada.
It does not look good for the motif at all.


<snippage of excellent analysis of why this depiction is not gyronny>

> The only way around this I can think of is gyronny of 3 tinctures, and
> I'm not sure if the SCA allows that---other than the four items that are
> gyronny of three
> (http://oanda.sca.org/cgi-bin/oanda_bp.cgi?p=gyronny+of+three), I can
> find no examples of gyronny in three tinctures.

RfS VIII.iv. Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of two
different tinctures must have good contrast between their parts.

Pretty clear.  Multiple parts = two tinctures.

> Oh, and regarding sable on a gyronny containing gules? This precedent
> applies:
> [/Gyronny sable and argent, a wolf statant purpure.../] Even though the
> field is evenly divided of a color and metal, most of the identifying
> parts of the wolf are on sable areas of the field, making the wolf
> unidentifiable. [*Wulfgar Neumann*, 01/01, R-Outlands]
> LoAR Date: January 1, 2001

However, of all the colors, gules has the most contract with the other
colors.  There would be no problem placing a complex charge on a field
gyronny Or and gules provided it were drawn sufficiently identifiable.

Rasmus Ravnssen - April of 2006 (via An Tir): Gyronny gules and Or, a
raven contourny reguardant and an orle sable.

Earik MacSkellie - August of 2006 (via the Middle): Gyronny gules and
Or, an escarbuncle and on a chief sable three bezants.

I think the big issue would be pictorial depiction with the ship over
the sun.  That a field per fess half gyronny from the line of division
hasn't been registered in over a decade would also turn this into a
test case at Laurel over the suitability of the design.

I'd discuss some redesign options.  Per fess Or and argent, a drakkar
and two swords in saltire sable and issuant from chief a demi-sun
gules, perhaps.

Regarding Arquai's piles suggestion, that would put a sable charge on
a gules field.  Overall charges must have good contrast with the
field, not the charges they overlie.  RfS VIII.2.b.i.  However, gules
piles in point on an Or field section might be acceptable.

- Teceangl

- Teceangl