[antir-heralds] need advice

[Britt]

> Question
> does a  (device) sable an apple argent, conflict with (a Badge) on a lozenge
> sable a apple or .
> there is also a badge that is a apple or.

All armory is the same for purposes of conflict, so whether it's a
badge or device doesn't matter.

So you're asking if 'Sable, an apple argent' conflicts with the
various other pieces of armory?

I'm confused as to what specific design you want, but I found the
following registered piece of armory: Adelicia Tagliaferro - May of
1980 (via Ansteorra): Sable, an apple argent.  And her badge:
(Fieldless) An apple Or.

The presence of these two pieces of armory mean that any combination
of '<field>, an apple Or' or '<field>, an apple argent' or any
fieldless badge of simply an apply Or or argent has conflict.  RfS
X.4.a. covers that, giving only one CD for changes to the field, or
fieldlessness.
(RfS at http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/regs.html)

Now, charging a lozenge can only be done if the lozenge is itself a
charge on a field. Here's a recent Laurel precedent that explains why:
--------------------------------------------------------
[ (Fieldless) On a billet fesswise vert, seven annulets interlaced in
fess Or.] This is returned for style problems. First, a billet is a
shape used for heraldic display. This appears to be a display of Vert,
seven annulets interlaced in fess Or. As precedent notes:
     We do not register fieldless badges which appear to be
independent forms of
     armorial display. Charges such as lozenges, billets, and roundels
are all both
     standard heraldic charges and "shield shapes" for armorial display. ...
     Therefore, a "shield shape" which is also a standard heraldic
charge will be
     acceptable as a fieldless badge in a plain tincture, as long as
the tincture is not
     one of the plain tinctures that is protected armory in the SCA.
This explicitly
     overturns the precedent "We do not normally register fieldless
badges consisting
     only of forms of armorial display, such as roundels, lozenges and
delfs in plain
     tinctures, since in use the shape does not appear to be a charge,
but rather the
     field itself" (LoAR January 1998).
Note that this does not change our long-standing policy about such
"shield shape" charges used in fieldless badges if the tincture is not
plain (thus, divided or with a field treatment), or if the charge is
itself charged. Such armory will continue to be returned for the
appearance of an independent form of armorial display.[Solveig
Throndardottir, 04/02, A-Æthelmearc]
The second problem is that while some variation in the size of charges
in the same group is natural when the charges are drawn to fill the
space, in this case there is no reason for the obvious discrepancy in
the size of the annulets. On resubmission, the seven annulets should
be drawn the same size.  [Brion Gennadyevich Gorodin, 07/05,
R-Trimaris]
-----------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, since a lozenge is a 'shield' of sorts, usually used
for a woman's arms in late period, you can't use it as a fieldless
badge with a charge on it because then it's simply '<field>, a
<charge>'.

Now, put the lozenge on a field and the lozenge is now the primary
charge and the rule X.2. applies, meaning 'Argent, on a lozenge sable
an apple argent' can in no way conflict with 'Sable, an apple argent'.
 Unfortunately, there are charged sable lozenges on argent and Or
fields, so there'd be conflict with those because charges on other
charges can never get more than one CD by RfS X.4.j.

To help you properly, blazons of what you want would be helpful so we
know precisely what designs you're wanting. Then we can assist you
with figuring out where conflict exists and how to clear it.

As for 'simple' armory rules, there's X.2. which says that armory with
no more than two types of charge on the field doesn't conflict with
other armory with no more than two types of charge on the fields if
all the primary charges are of a different type.

Then there's 'Teceangl's Collorary' which says, "It is much, much
easier to clear conflict in simple designs than complex ones".  :)
That draws on X.2. and the other 'simple' rule, X.4.j.  The less going
on, the more weight changes will have to gain you difference.

Send out some blazon ideas and let's get this thing done.

- Teceangl




> I think that it does and if i am wanting to use this i should put a border
> onto it.  to give it the 2 conflicts that i need.  But i am sorta reminded
> about a simple device rule or something but i couldn't wrap my mind about
> it.
>
> Thank you all
> Rose
> Frozen Mountain
>
> _______________________________________________
> antir-heralds mailing list
> antir-heralds at antir.sca.org
> http://missives.antir.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/antir-heralds
>