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

[Britt]

> > 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

:-P

> > ... 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.

Casual reading of precedents leaves all sorts of random memories in
your head. (Well, so does 10 years of conflict checking...)  The only
thing is to not trust your memory. You'll remember there's 'something'
about trees versus trees blasted in precedents, but perhaps not what.
Particularly since that precedent was the exact opposite a tenure or
two before the final ruling.  So always, double-check.

> OK, branches are trees. ;-)
>
> Another check I didn't know to make.

More precedents diving.

> 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).

X.4.e., as Alicia's already presented.
And notice that X.4.d, covers changing "tinctures or division of any
group of charges placed directly on the field, including strewn
charges or charges overall", as well.  A lion per pale gules and Or is
one CD from a lion per pale indented gules and Or.


> # 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?

Now you know.  Third CD for changing type of secondary charge group.

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

You're right.  The Glossary of Terms Table 3, Conventional "Proper"
colorings (http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/coagloss.html) says
Wood/wooden items proper are brown. :)  So they break the rule of
tincture but don't match the field.

> > 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.

Newer conflict checkers take note - two different paths to the same
result.  Conflict checking is a personal task.  So long as you hit all
the possibilities, how you do it doesn't matter. Like I said, I check
backward.  Some people prefer to go to most likely conflicts then work
their way out. There's no right or wrong method so long as you assure
you've checked everything that needed to be checked.
Stopping at the first conflict found is dangerous - you can lead a
client to redesign smack into a second conflict you hadn't found the
first time.  It's easier to know all the possible problems at once so
as to avoid frustration on everyone's part.  Lots of people have
stories of multiple redesigns because each new attempt hit another
conflict. That's why I advocate a thorough check the first time -
nobody likes endless redesign and return problems.

> > 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). :-)

It's a continuous learning process.  Every time I conflict check I
pull up the RfS for reference and the Laurel precedents to check for
specifics.  And every month Laurel releases more precedents, and every
so often we discover something we didn't know before. I've only just
grasped all the nuances of getting difference for the bottommost of
three charges in default two-and-one arrangement, and double-check
that every time I apply the precedents.

Also, note that one entire Laurel tenure and two and a half years of
another are NOT online in compiled precedents. Francois' second tenure
is not even in draft, so far as I know. I'm working frantically to
have a useable version of the current tenure available ASAP, though an
in-process draft needs to be approved by all three Sovereigns before
it can be set out for general access.

In the meantime, I highly suggest that heralds get on the LoAR archive
(http://heraldry.sca.org/heraldry/loar/) and read all the LoARs and
cover letters (some of the most involved and important precedents are
in the cover letters) from the beginning of Francois' second tenure to
current, and then keep up on them as they're released. Take personal
notes on where to find stuff you think you might need, even.  After
all, the compilations aren't even the official documents, and they say
that.  Only the complete precedent text in the LoAR or cover letter
constitutes official Laurel ruling.

> > 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.

I believe the arms of Warwick, '(Fieldless) A bear statant erect
argent muzzled and chained gules supporting a ragged staff argent.',
have been rendered with the bear sejant erect, so there's precedent
for non-SCA armory with bears sejant erect.  I think it's just bears,
though. My knowledge is hardly all-encompassing, but I can't remember
any other critter in period heraldry being in that posture.

> 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?

Deny, I think.  I believe Laurel has said both are equally acceptable.
 Let me run a fast check...  Not finding anything so either it's
recent or I'm misremembering. I note that there's no tendency to
reblazon from 'to sinister' if that's the submitted blazon.

What I do remember is that 'contourny' is an animate charge term.  A
lion is 'to sinister' or 'statant countourny', a ship is 'reversed' or
'to sinister', never contourny.

- Teceangl