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

[Dafydd Caerfyrddin]

Teceangl.

Has anyone mentioned that you are a goddess?  Thank you so much!!  I will 
pass on your words.  By the way, my client is my lady and she's just really 
excited about getting this done!!  I'll be putting up a question about her 
name, very soon.  I'm pretty sure it's clear, too, but I always like to 
check.

Thank you all, once again!!

Dafydd
(in awe)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Britt" <tierna.britt at gmail.com>
Cc: "Heralds" <antir-heralds at antir.sca.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: [antir-heralds] CC: Per pale argent and azure...


>> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> antir-heralds mailing list
> antir-heralds at antir.sca.org
> http://missives.antir.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/antir-heralds