[antir-heralds] CC: Per pale argent and azure...

[Britt]

> > Per pale argent and azure, an oak tree proper and on a chief sable three bears sejant erect to sinister argent.

> I find no conflicting device. :-)

I'll check in a minute, but first a caveat about conflict checking.

> BTW, although Ursula is correct, and the proposed device qualifies under
> X.2, I found it simpler to check against "oak trees proper"* and then
> against chiefs sable.
>
> A few moments' thought will make clear that any existent device that
> conflicts with the proposal must show up under either the primary charge
> group (the oak) or the secondary (the chief), in this case at least
> (because there's only one of each). There is no way to avoid it. Thus,
> two checks are enough. Also, this means there's no need to go looking
> for the tertiary charge group (the bears). Also note that this is two
> checks, rather than the nine for checking each tincture.
>
> *NB: While looking for oak trees, the Ordinary redirected me to "Tree -
> Rounded Shape" which, in turn, did not have a sub-division for Proper,
> leading me to Vert.

And this, friends, is why you use the index to the Ordinary.  As Basic
just demonstrated, it leads you where you need to go.

> OOPS! OK, late thought: there *could* be a conflict with an existent
> device with more than one "Tree - Rounded Shape". However, it would have
> to have the same field, since there's one CD for changing the number in
> the primary charge group. That is easy enough to check, and I just did.
> So, I had to make *3* checks. However, the same check would have to be
> made if you were looking through all the "Tree - Rounded Shape" 's. So
> it's still simpler. ;-)
>
> Please, don't misunderstand me; I'm not trying to dictate "the one
> correct way" to conflict check. I'm just explaining how I did it, in the
> hopes others will find something useful. Use whatever you find works,
> and you are comfortable with, and take what I say with a grain of salt. :-)

Time for a Teceangl Lesson.  Everyone get a nice cup of tea and a
comfy chair...  :)

Things that cannot conflict with the proposal of 'Per pale argent and
azure, an oak tree proper and on a chief sable three bears sejant
erect to sinister argent.':

Anything with no trees, bushes, tree branches, or sprigs in the
primary charge group.
Why?

RfS X.2. Substantially Different Charges - Simple armory does not
conflict with other simple armory if the type of every primary charge
is substantially changed.
These types of changes were normally seen between complete strangers
in blood, and were not usually used to indicate any form of cadency.
For purposes of this rule, simple armory is defined as armory that has
no more than two types of charge directly on the field and has no
overall charges.

Also, if the primary charge(s) in the registered armory are stumps,
not other tree parts, there is no conflict.
Why?

There is substantial difference between a tree and a tree stump.
[Forgotten Sea, Barony of, 07/01, A-Calontir]


Things that can conflict with the proposal:

Any armory with a tree, bush, tree branch or sprig in the primary
charge group, even with other types of charge in the group.
Why?

X.2. states that the type of EVERY primary charge must be changed to
clear the armory.

And Laurel has ruled about other tree-like and tree-part charges:

... no difference between a tree and a tree blasted: "There is no CD
between a tree eradicated and a tree blasted and eradicated, as noted
in the August 1994 LoAR... This is because there are period depictions
of trees with only a few leaves." (LoAR July 2000) [Kenric of Rohan,
03/02, R-Meridies]

[A tree within and conjoined to an annulet Or] This is clear of
conflict with al-Barran, Barony of, (Fieldless) A Russian thistle
(tumbleweed) bush within an annulet Or. There is one CD for
fieldlessness, and another for the difference between the tumbleweed
bush and the tree. The bush has no discernable trunk and most closely
resembles a slightly shaggy bezant. [Gyldenholt, Barony of, 01/02,
A-Caid]
(Tec note: only one CD between a tree and a 'treelike' bush.)

[Per pale vert and argent, a weeping willow counterchanged] This does
not conflict with Wolfgang von Valkonberg, Per pale vert and argent, a
blasted tree atop a mount counterchanged. There is one CD for removing
the mount. There is a CD between a willow tree and a standard round
shaped tree, just as there is a type CD between a pine tree and a
standard round shaped tree. Wolfgang's blasted tree is drawn in the
standard shape for a blasted tree. [Aleyn More, 09/02, A-Caid]
(Tec note: Only one CD between tree types, not the substantial
difference required for X.2.)

[Per pale argent and azure, an oak branch fructed counterchanged]
Conflict with Daniel of Glenmor, Per pale argent and azure, a pine
tree counterchanged. Precedent indicates that a tree branch is not
significantly different from a tree of the same type: "Conflict with
... Argent, an oak branch eradicated gules, with one CD for the
addition of the flaunches, but by prior precedent nothing for the
difference between a branch and a tree" (LoAR of March 1994, p. 17).
In this emblazon, it is certainly apparent that the branch
approximates a tree in shape. Because the oak branch in this
submission is effectively an oak tree, the comparison between Johan's
and Daniel's devices is effectively a comparison between an oak tree
and a pine tree. As a result, there is one CD for significant change
in type of tree between oak and pine, but not substantial difference
under X.2. [Johan de Foderingeye, 06/03, R-Ealdormere]

[Gules, on a bend sinister between six spearheads argent a sagebrush
branch proper] Conflict with the arms of Lebanon, Gules, on a bend
sinister argent a cedar tree palewise proper. There is a CD for adding
the secondary charges, but by current precedent, a branch is not
substantially different from a tree. [Gilliam van Taetsrade, 09/00,
R-Drachenwald]


So to conflict check 'Per pale argent and azure, an oak tree proper
and on a chief sable three bears sejant erect to sinister argent.'
I'll be looking in the following categories:
Tree - Blasted
Tree - Elongated shape
Tree - Multiple
Tree - Rounded shape - 1 - Argent
Tree - Rounded shape - 1 - Azure
Tree - Rounded shape - 1 - Fur
Tree - Rounded shape - 1 - Gules
Tree - Rounded shape - 1 - Multicolor
Tree - Rounded shape - 1 - Or
Tree - Rounded shape - 1 - Purpure
Tree - Rounded shape - 1 - Sable
Tree - Rounded shape - 1 - Vert
Tree - Rounded shape - 2 or more
Tree - Willow
Tree branch
Plant - Fern
Plant - Heather
Plant - Herb
Plant - Holly
Plant - Sprig
Plant - Strawberry
Plant - Thorn
Plant - Other

I would expect substantial difference between a tree and the Plant
subcategories of Cactus, Onion, Reed, Vine, Wheat and consider it safe
to omit checking them.  Me being who and what I am (kind of, well,
thorough) I will probably check them anyway.
Since we know there is a CD between a Tree- Rounded shape and other
shapes of trees, also between trees and other plants, for many of the
above categories I shall only be looking at matching fields (per pale
argent and azure).  I shall look at matching fields also for non-very
rounded-shaped trees.  I shall check all fields in the categories Tree
- Blasted, Tree - Rounded shape - 1 - Vert, Tree branch, and Plant -
Other (the last because as a catch-all category who knows what might
be lurking in there).

Changing the tincture, division, number of pieces or style of
partition lines is one CD under X.4.a. which is why it's safe to avoid
non-matching fields when you're guaranteed a CD under another section
of the RfS.

Adding or removing a secondary charge group (the chief is the
secondary charge group here) is one CD, so is changing its type or
tincture, so looking for plain sable chiefs will help streamline the
conflict check.

Adding or removing a group of charges lying entirely on other charges
(tertiaries) is a CD under X.4.i., changing two or more aspects of a
group of tertiaries is a CD under X.4.j., so if we do see a plain
sable chief we can resort to those rules for help in clearing
conflict.


All right, everyone got their seatbelts on and the lids down tight on
their sippy cups?  Good, let's conflict check. :)

I keep repeating the blazon so I don't have to scroll back up for it.
Per pale argent and azure, an oak tree proper and on a chief sable
three bears sejant erect to sinister argent.

Checking every Plant category (yes, I did check 'em all) takes about
three or four minutes, because in each I went straight down to 'Per
pale argent and azure'.  I didn't find that field anywhere.
WARNING: Do not rely on a search function to find matching fields.
Typos and non-standard blazons exist and you might miss "Per pale,
argent and azure" or "Per pale argent, and azure" or other anomalies.
Just scroll down, it's safer to take the extra few seconds and not
miss something.
(There are people throughout the Known World who might just curse my
name because I've found the conflict everyone else missed because of
my extreme thoroughness. I'm simply upholding the pledge made to
everyone to whom armory is registered - to protect it from conflict.
With lots of heralds employing thorough methods, that protection
promise is upheld by all, problems are caught before armory gets to
Laurel, and each submitter can be assured that once their armory has
been registered the same care will be taken to protect them as is
being given those already listed in the O&A.)

On to Trees.

Daniel of Glenmor - August of 1979: Per pale argent and azure, a pine
tree counterchanged.
One CD under X.4.b. for adding a group of charges (the chief).
One CD under X.4.d. for changing the tree from plain tincture to
divided tincture.
One CD under X.4.e. for changing the type of tree.
One CD under X.4.i. for adding a group of tertiary charges (the bears
- yes, really).
[a tree vs a cedar tree][There is a CD] for the type of tree, since a
Cedar tree is a fir tree, which is pointed, and in heraldry a generic
tree is an oak tree, which is rounded. (Melisande de Frayne, 11/97 p.
6)
Totally clear, but a nice example of how I count CDs.

Another caveat - don't assume that registered armory obeys the rule of
tincture.  At all.  There's a black cat registered on a black field
(Trude Lacklandia), a couple of argent bends sinister on argent
fields, and I think a tree proper on a vert field (if I find it I'll
cite it).  Between the bad old days of allowing fimbriation on
anything, and chasing, and protected non-SCA
armory, all bets are off.

I'm down to the 'dangerous' categories (I conflict check backward,
least likely to most likely categories, so I can catch everything) of
Tree - Blasted, Tree - Rounded shape - 1 - Vert, and Tree branch.  On
these, every field needs to be looked at.  It doesn't need to take
forever, though.
Why?
Any field other than one per pale argent and azure is one CD.
Any armory that does NOT have a plain line charged sable chief on it is one CD.

I skim, never trusting that a string search will catch everything, but
here we're lucky.  Checking matching fields is easy.  Then we can
actually trust that 'chief' is not going to be misspelled (and I'll
look for 'cheif' as well because that's the kind of herald I am).  So
first pass, scroll straight down to "Per pale argent and azure'.
Second pass, you can plug 'chief' into your find function and look at
them, seeking sable ones, charged.

Tree - Blasted has no fields per pale argent and azure.  That's one
CD.  There are two charged chiefs sable.  One has a sable tree - one
CD by X.4.d - on an argent field - one CD by X.4.a. - and is clear.
The other has three trees - one CD by X.4.f. - which are sable - one
CD by X.4.d. - so it's clear as well.

Tree branch has no fields per pale argent and azure.  That's one CD.
There is one charged chief, on armory with no primary charge.  That's
clear by X.1. Addition of Primary Charges. - Armory does not conflict
with any protected armory that adds or removes the primary charge
group.  X.1. and X.2. are true/false results, clear or not, no CDs to
count.  Clear is clear, and that's that.

Tree - Rounded shape - 1 - Vert has one matching field piece of armory:
Aelfwine daes Sudgemaeres - March of 1978: Per pale argent and azure,
a bend cotised counterchanged, overall an elm tree eradicated proper.
There is an overall charge, therefore X.2. cannot apply.  The CD
count, however, is massive.
One CD under X.4.e. for changing the type of the primary charge group
from bend to tree.
One CD under X.4.e. for changing the type of the secondary charge
group from cotises to chief.
One CD under X.4.d. for changing the tincture of the primary charge
group from per pale azure and argent to vert.
One CD under X.4.d. for changing the tincture of the secondary charge
group from per pale azure and argent to sable.
One CD under X.4.i. for adding a tertiary charge group.
One CD under X.4.c. for removing an overall charge group.

Now we look for plain line charged sable chiefs.

Damiana de Granada - December of 2006 (via the East): Or, a tree
issuant from base proper and on a chief sable three estoiles Or.
One CD under X.4.a. for changes to the field. (Never more than one CD
when there are primary charges - X.4.a.i.)
One CD under X.4.j. for changing the type+tincture of the tertiary charges.
Clear.

And that's it.  Without both a matching field AND a plain line sable
charged chief there's at least a CD from the proposal.  By checking
for those important elements (I believe I'm simply repeating what
Basil said here, sorry) we can eliminate everything else.
This conflict check, on a very popular charge, took me 14 minutes.  It
took me about 20 to type all this stuff out.  :)  Don't be afraid of
conflict checking, it really is easier than it seems; easy to be
thorough and quick.

Oh, by the way Dafydd, other than the contourny bears your client has
selected a nice piece of armory.  Don't mention my bias against
contourny and tell 'em another herald thinks it's good. :)

- Teceangl