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

[chrisact at qwickconnect.net]

Warning: Much snippage will occur. ;-)


Britt wrote:
[Basil wrote:]
[Dafydd wrote:]
>>> 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.
>   

When did I become a programming language?

just kidding.  ;-D

>> 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...  :)
>
> {snip}
>   
> ... 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]
>   

I didn't know this! OK, that's a check I didn't make.

> [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]
>   

OK, branches are trees. ;-)

Another check I didn't know to make.

{snip}

> 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.
>   

This brings up a question I have. That section of the RfS (X.4.a) 
applies to the field. Does a change in the line of "partition" of 
ordinaries count as a CD? The RfS doesn't mention the subject, and I 
can't find any precedent (though I only used the database program). I 
ask because of:

# Ysmay du Parc
    * The following device associated with this name was registered in 
March of 1997 (via Caid):
      Argent, a tree proper on a chief embattled sable three 
fleurs-de-lys argent.

Now, there's a CD for the change to the field (X.4.a.i), and one CD for 
the tertiary charge group (X.4.j.ii, as it qualifies). Now, it's my 
impression the change from embattled to plain line *for an ordinary* is 
worth a CD, but I can't find it in the RfS or precedents. Help, please?

> 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).  

# Esteban Castore
    * Either the name or the following device associated it (or both) 
were registered in August of 1979:
      Vert, a beaver sejant erect gnawing on a silver birch tree proper 
[Castor fiber, Betula alba].
Mind you, a silver birch is rather pale,...

Also:
Sita of Oudh
    * The following badge associated with this name was registered in 
April of 2006 (via the East):
      Vert, a great horned owl rising wings displayed proper maintaining 
in its dexter claw a quill argent and in its sinister claw a ladle Or, 
in base a tree bough fesswise proper.
Which definitely puts a branch/bough proper on a vert field.

There are also 5 logs/stumps/stocks proper on vert, but that doesn't 
really count. ;-)

{snip}

> 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.
>   

I did it slightly differently: I manually skimmed A-O and Q-Z looking 
for "chief" and if I saw that, slowing down to see how chief was used. 
"in chief" was immediately passed by, non-sable chiefs ditto. Under P I 
slowed down a bit, as the only possibly conflicted fields are there.

Later, when checking out sable chiefs, I changed this slightly, in that 
I looked for trees (and similar) only in A-O and Q-Z.

{snip}

> 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) 

But in more detail, and checking things I didn't bother (and others I 
didn't know to). :-)

> 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. :)
>   

I echo Tecaengl here, even though I have a slight bias against sejant 
erect. Definitely a nice looking device.

BTW, you might mention to your client that "contourny" is acceptable in 
place of "to sinister" --- I think I heard something about "contourny" 
being preferred. Can anyone confirm or deny?


~~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

Evil Overlord Rule #138: All midwives will be banned from the realm. All babies will be delivered at state-approved hospitals. Orphans will be placed in foster-homes, not abandoned in the woods to be raised by creatures of the wild.