[antir-heralds] Various field divisions (was: photo/style check please\\)

[chrisact at qwickconnect.net]

Britt wrote:
> On 11/6/07, chrisact at qwickconnect.net <chrisact at qwickconnect.net> wrote:
>   
>> Britt wrote:
>>
>> {much snippage}
>>
>>     
>>> <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.
>>>
>>>       
>> Hmm.... I'm not sure that applies. "A implies B" does not necessarily
>> mean "B implies A." IOW, the fact that two tinctures must have good
>> contrast does not mean you can't have three tinctures. Gyronny of 6, for
>> example, could be gules, azure, and argent.
>>
>> Of course, that's assuming "evenly divided" means (as per usual usage)
>> divided more-or-less equally. If it is held to mean "divided into an
>> even (divisible by two) number of pieces" then you would be correct. :-)
>>     
>
> Well, then of course you'd have to document that particular use of
> gyronny to period use, of course.
>
> We have been unable to find any period precedent for such a multiply
> tinctured chequy [of three tinctures]. If such could be found, we
> would entertain an appeal; otherwise, we feel that this is an
> innovation that we would rather not make in Society heraldry. (LoAR 28
> Feb 87, p. 17)
>
> Tec note: You can find it in Siebmacher and I think it's called
> wogenfeh, but it's not been registered in the SCA yet that I can find.
>   

Does "wogenfeh" refer to three-tincture checky or three-tincture gyronny?

> But that does indicate that if you're going to go that far afield, you
> need to document it.
>
>   
>> I stand corrected.
>>     
>
> You type standing up?  How uncomfortable!  :)
>   

:-P pbtpbtpbtpbt!


;-D

>> BTW, am I alone in thinking those look like (more-or-less) Arabic-style
>> swords? /Eaters of the Dead/, anyone?
>>     
>
> They're a bit more curved than the depiction of the shamshir in the
> Pictorial Dictionary, but not so much that they can't be blazoned as
> shamshirs.  I'd hate to try to do anything useful with one, though.
>
>
>   
>> BTW, Arquai, "pily" is not the same thing as "piles in point"; for
>> examples of pily, you can go to:
>> http://badger.cx/heraldry/roll/search.php?data=pily&type=blazon
>>     
>
> Speculation I've heard from students of period real world armory is
> that pily started life as really, really intense versions of field
> divisions indented. 

Or perhaps Dancetty Per Lunatique?

};-D

> Speculation has also been put forth (but untested
> thus far) that a field pily bendy and a field per bend sinister
> indented might not get difference.  At this point in time Laurel has
> had no need to rule on that possibility.  Pily fields are found in the
> Ordinary (http://oanda.sca.org/ordinary/index.html) under Field
> division - Other.
>
> - Teceangl
>   


~~Basil Dragonstrike

-- 
Check out my Squidoo page---- http://www.squidoo.com/HEROSystem

Check out my friend's e-shop: t-shirts, books, and more fun stuff!----
http://www.cafepress.com/rowanchisholm

Hero’s Rule #67: I will not make my Sidekick wait somewhere while I go on ahead by myself. He'll only get in worse trouble than he otherwise would.