SCA heraldry conflict check

Bentz · Post by **Bentz** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:00 pm

I'm just trying to get my head around conflict checking. I'll bug a local herald soon, but I thought I would try this one out here first to be sure.

I was considering registering:

Sable three pallets argent, and on a chief gules a lion passant argent.

I checked the SCA Ordinary and Armorial and came across this:

Argent, a blackletter initial 'B' between two birch leaves sable, on a chief gules a lion passant guardant argent.

Am I understanding the rules correctly that they wouldn't conflict, because the field is different, and the second has different charges ('B' and birch leaves)?

Thanks!

Donal Mac Ruiseart · Post by **Donal Mac Ruiseart** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:43 pm

Bentz wrote:Sable three pallets argent, and on a chief gules a lion passant argent.

You've got a problem with the chief gules on the sable shield, though.

A chief is a charge, not a field division; so it's colour on colour.

If you swap the tinctures of the lion and the chief it would work:

Sable three pallets and on a chief argent a lion passant gules.

Bentz · Post by **Bentz** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:56 pm

Donal Mac Ruiseart wrote:
Bentz wrote:Sable three pallets argent, and on a chief gules a lion passant argent.

You've got a problem with the chief gules on the sable shield, though.

A chief is a charge, not a field division; so it's colour on colour.

If you swap the tinctures of the lion and the chief it would work:

Sable three pallets and on a chief argent a lion passant gules.

Thanks for responding.

Couldn't it just be blazoned differently, like:

Argent four pallets sable and on a chief gules a lion passant argent

or

Paly argent and sable and on a chief gules a lion passant argent

?

Eamonn MacCampbell · Post by **Eamonn MacCampbell** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:52 pm

No matter how you emblazon it , you still have a color on color, with the charge..You have to have a color on metal or vice versa...

brewer · Post by **brewer** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:21 pm

Well, the 'different' blazon:

Argent four pallets sable and on a chief gules a lion passant argent

doesn't violate the RoT, the field being Argent and the chief being Gules.

This should be clear from:

Argent, a blackletter initial 'B' between two birch leaves sable, on a chief gules a lion passant guardant argent.

One CD for the difference in amount in secondary charges (four vs three).
One CD for the orientation of the secondary charges.

No CD for 'passant guardant' vs 'passant'.

Actually, this is too close for me to call. :lol:

I could be skipping something in the CDs. I'm not the most knowledgeable book herald on life.

Bob

Bentz · Post by **Bentz** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 3:22 pm

I'm a little confused. I've seen some registered devices that seem to violate this rule. For instance:

Per pale argent and sable, a boar's head erased gules.

(Half of the boar's head is color on color, right?)

What am I missing?

Blackstone · Post by **Blackstone** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:03 pm

Overall charges can skip by, though I have seen issues of identifiability cause bounces. Over half the charge is on the appropriate field, so it's OK.

Yours, however, is a coloured charge on a coloured field and will bounce UNLESS you can provide period examples of this.

Also, note that for conflict checking purposes that 3 pallets will count as paly, so you need to check against that.

Bentz · Post by **Bentz** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:16 pm

Blackstone wrote:
UNLESS you can provide period examples of this.

I can provide a few examples from armorials. Is there a hard and fast rule for how many would need to be included in a submission to pass? Or is this left to the discretion of the reviewer?

I'm not trying to be dense, so please bear with me, but with my proposal:

Argent three pallets sable, on a chief gules a lion passant argent

Isn't the chief, as a colored charge overall, on half metal and half color (like the colored boar's head on half metal/half color)?

I just found these registered devices:

Paly sable and argent, a horse's head contourny erased Or collared gules.

Paly gules and argent, a bear's head cabossed sable.

Paly sable and argent, a bear rampant contourny and a chief Or.

Cian of Storvik · Post by **Cian of Storvik** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:41 pm

What you're missing is that per Pale is a field division. A Chief is a charge ON the field. You can break the rule of color on metal for field divisions, but not with charges. (Not that your blazon is asking to do this but you still can't put the same color charge on the field; e.g. a white horse on a white and green paly field. just saying that even that rule has a rule of exclusion.)

Your alternate suggestion of "Paly argent & sable on a chief gules a lion passant guardant argent" sounds okay. not sure of conflicts though. As Blackstone mentions you have to check against paly field as well, as they are the same visually.

Effingham · Post by **Effingham** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:48 am

Quick note: those images are reversed. Top image goes with bottom title, and vice versa.

Cian of Storvik · Post by **Cian of Storvik** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:51 am

I was wondering if someone would catch that.

*edit* fixed. Thanks Eff.
I also wasn't sure how many stripes a "paly" field gets in default. Bendy fields get only 3 by default as I've seen them drawn. (actually, with a name like Bentz, I'm surprised you didn't want some bends).

-Cian

Bentz · Post by **Bentz** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:46 am

Cian of Storvik wrote:I was wondering if someone would catch that.

*edit* fixed. Thanks Eff.
I also wasn't sure how many stripes a "paly" field gets in default. Bendy fields get only 3 by default as I've seen them drawn. (actually, with a name like Bentz, I'm surprised you didn't want some bends).

-Cian

Ha!

Thanks for the responses everyone. I appreciate your help.

Effingham · Post by **Effingham** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:08 am

Cian of Storvik wrote:I was wondering if someone would catch that.

*edit* fixed. Thanks Eff.
I also wasn't sure how many stripes a "paly" field gets in default. Bendy fields get only 3 by default as I've seen them drawn. (actually, with a name like Bentz, I'm surprised you didn't want some bends).

No charge, mi hermano.

Usually it's six (three of each color) or eight (four of each).

Effingham

Cian of Storvik · Post by **Cian of Storvik** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:35 am

When you've decided on you arms, Bentz, click on Effingham's second link his his signature block for examples of people's arms he's done (for a very tiny fee).
He does avatars and larger images of your arms that you can use on your web site or email sig line, or even have made into letter head or business cards.
The ones I did in paintshop are roughly drawn (the pallets aren't even), but Eff knows the proper rules of heraldry and it may not seem very important, but things like how tall the chief is or how wide a pale is; relative to the whole escutcheon. It's a bit of artistry there, but there's also set rules of armigering (is that a word?) that need to be followed.

He does excellent work on illustrating the charges himself, as well. Some of the versions that are available from clip-art look a bit crappy, especially if you try to blow them up to put on a T-shirt. He also makes them pop a little bit by adding shading and light reflection if you want that.

So when you're set on what you are going to submit, see Eff and you can get a cool avatar like those you see above. (If you ask him nicely, I think he still might do coffee mugs and T-shirts too).
-Cian
P.S. You can also use his artwork as a guide to paint your combat shield properly, then you won't get heralds walkiing up to you going "You know...that shield breaks a couple of armigers rules."

Effingham · Post by **Effingham** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:02 am

Thank you, good sir.

Effingham

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:18 pm

Donal and Eamonn say the chief would be improperly color-on-color with the sable pales on the field. But what rescues the situation is both the very good contrast anyway (conf., the U.S. flag and the U.S. arms) and the argent element, particularly as the field. It skirts a rigid interpretation of the Rule of Tincture but doesn't altogether break it.

And is not paly considered an even division of the field anyway, if Bentz goes with that? Though I imagine the finer striping of palletty might not be.

Bentz · Post by **Bentz** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:54 pm

Konstantin the Red wrote:Donal and Eamonn say the chief would be improperly color-on-color with the sable pales on the field. But what rescues the situation is both the very good contrast anyway (conf., the U.S. flag and the U.S. arms) and the argent element, particularly as the field. It skirts a rigid interpretation of the Rule of Tincture but doesn't altogether break it.

And is not paly considered an even division of the field anyway, if Bentz goes with that? Though I imagine the finer striping of palletty might not be.

Thanks for replying Konstantin. So, are you suggesting that

Argent, four pallets sable and on a chief gules a lion passant argent

would be ok then?

Either way, I'm still trying to comprehend how to count CDs.

For instance, not related to this above design, but between these two:

Argent, a fess sable, two falcons and a lion rampant vert

and

Argent, a fess sable, three roundels vert

Some obvious similarities, but are there 2 CDs, since there are three roundels versus two of one charge (falcons) and one other additional charge (lion), or would that just be counted as 1 CD and result in conflict, since the field, tincuture and arrangement are identical?

(Sorry if this is a Blazonry 101 question, but I'm persuing primers and articles about heraldry and just want to make sure I'm "getting it")

Donal Mac Ruiseart · Post by **Donal Mac Ruiseart** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:19 pm

Bentz wrote:I'm a little confused. I've seen some registered devices that seem to violate this rule. For instance:

Per pale argent and sable, a boar's head erased gules.

(Half of the boar's head is color on color, right?)

What am I missing?

The operative term is "half." A charge on a "complex" field composed of a colour and a metal can be either a colour or a metal provided it has sufficient contrast to be recognizable. Red on black is, in fact, one colour-on-colour combination that sometimes gets through.

Cian of Storvik · Post by **Cian of Storvik** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 2:42 pm

Since the fess is the primary charge and the animals are lesser charges (pushed out of the center of the shield ), you need to change over half of them for a single difference. And that's just what I've been able to glean from discussions.

If in your example you changed the falcons to rondels (and left the lion), you'd get 1 CD (still conflicts). If you only changed the 1 lion, you would NOT even get 1 CD, because you didn't change atleast half of the secondary charge group. Now, by changing all three animals to rondels, you still get only 1 CD, because you're still only altering that same secondary charge group in TYPE.

There needs to be another major charge type change, addition or deletion or color change for there to be a second CD. Like altering the fess by making it cotised, or embattled, or wavy, or changing one of the colors.
-Cian

Bentz · Post by **Bentz** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:56 pm

Thanks for clearing that up, Cian.

Bentz · Post by **Bentz** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:58 am

This is tangentially related, so rather than clutter the page with another post, I'll just tack on to this one.

Regarding contrast, if I understand right, something like this would be allowed:

Gules, a fess checky sable and argent.

Given that the fess has half color/half metal, right? Or am I back to being confused again?

Blackstone · Post by **Blackstone** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:07 am

No, I believe you are right and that's allowable. I THINK. :)

Donal Mac Ruiseart · Post by **Donal Mac Ruiseart** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:56 am

The one thing you cannot have with that sort of thing is: One of the tinctures of the checky cannot be the same as the field tincture(s)

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:58 am

So that's WHY that works. Okay.

Bentz, as Donal set forth, in the same colors you're looking at, yes, I think that might be okay.

If you want to be rigidly, Tincturally virtuous, you might consider making your argent field an ermine one -- ermine-spots down your white stripes. Furs go on Tinctures or Metals.

Doodle up a picture and see if you like it. Use a simple pattern of ermine spot.

A variation on this scheme is to have your field Argent, ermined Gules, that is, white with red ermine spots on it, and you've already got the red chief with a white lion. For this I would go with three pallets, not four, the better to show the snappy bright red spots and also because four pallets is likely to get you blazoned palletty; up to three they'll happily specify, but four or more just becomes "many."

Technically, "argent ermined gules" is not itself a fur, but its high contrast with everything else mixed in with it makes it act a little furry. In this context. About which blazon giveth not a damn.

Bentz · Post by **Bentz** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:12 pm

Konstantin the Red wrote:.

Thanks for the suggestion, Konstantin. However, while less tinctually virtuous, I think if I went for this device, I would opt for no ermine. For whatever reason, I'm just not a big fan. I'm debating between this design and another one.

But assuming I went with this, I want to touch on my original question again:

Is there a conflict between:

Argent, four pallets sable, and on a chief gules a lion passant argent

and

Argent, a blackletter initial 'B' between two birch leaves sable, on a chief gules a lion passant guardant argent

If I understand the rules of submission (and the magic eight ball is out on this one), it *should* clear because the primary charge groups are different (pallets vs. initial and birch leaves), right? Or would my proposed design not be considered simple, and so RfsX.1 wouldn't apply (?)

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:30 am

Different charges AND different number of charges. I think that makes it.

As a Plan B, consider a gold lion on the chief for an additional difference, vice the silver one you have now.

Or even two lions passant.

brewer · Post by **brewer** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:42 am

Yes, if "argent, four pallets sable" is clear of "paly argent and sable".

Here's the kicker: Even if technically under the RfS the number of lines is distinctive, it still has to pass 'The Dart-Board Test', where the really, really close armory is drawn in color on a standard submission form, pinned to a wall and stared at from regulation darts-throwing distance (or thereabouts). If it's not visually distinctive, it still bounces.

"Argent, four pallets sable" is indeed clear of "Argent, a blackletter initial 'B' between two birch leaves sable" for the reasons Konstantin wrote.

There is no difference for the chief. The position of a lion's head in a passant posture is immaterial; it's the posture that gives difference (unless I'm horribly lost in the RfS and Precedents). Thus, "passant guardant" is NOT different from "passant" IS different from "rampant" and IS different from "sejant".

I think. This is why I do courts. :lol:

Bob

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:00 pm

Yeah, it's that the head position isn't by itself a big enough difference. Change of posture, yes.

But an extra head or two, or an extra tail, might be.

Passant upon roller skates -- as said elsewhere "no can do." Sustaining something in its upraised paw, possibly, but I don't think its a CD unless it's a very large object indeed.

Giving your kitty purty blue eyes, with tongue and claws to match, would not. But it does lend some pizzazz to the kitty.

(Anyway, you're seeing rather a surfeit of heraldic "maybes" thrown out for possible Plans B. This goes on all the time with live heralds.)

We haven't addressed any variations on the line flection of the chief, Bentz -- is there a line other than straight that you like? I think that's a CD also.

Bentz · Post by **Bentz** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:08 pm

Brewer and Konstantin,

I appreciate the input and suggestions. Even if some of it confuses me even more

How about:

"Vairy argent and sable, and on a chief gules a lion passant argent."

That would keep the color scheme I like, it's still simple looking, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't conflict.

Or I could go with "Lozengy argent and sable, on a chief gules a lion passant argent"

Or, "Ermine, on a chief gules a lion passant argent"

Assuming no conflicts, of course.

Failing that, I could just jump sideways and go with the second idea for a device I'm playing around with.

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:47 am

All of 'em good, handsome design... you're developing a knack for this stuff!

For conflict-checking with the OandA, determine what the principal charge is. This will be either the largest charge or the most central one, or any charge that crosses the middle of the field somehow, such as an Ordinary (used in a different sense from the Ordinary-and-Armorial) like a fess, a pale, or a bend. Having done this, you go from there.

Your largest charge would be that red Chief. That it happens to be charged with a lion passant is merely helpful at this stage. Chiefwise, you'd be looking at anything blazoned "...on a chief gules, a (whatever)..."

That and look at fields of your several ideas -- to see what else out there has a black-and-white field cut up like those. You only have to get concerned with chiefs, then chiefs with charges on them, then red chiefs charged with somethings.

Bother us with any confusions and say-whats and we'll explain. Publicly or PM, either is totally okay.

Donal Mac Ruiseart · Post by **Donal Mac Ruiseart** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:50 am

Aye, we heralds are generally more eager to answer questions - and come up with more on our own - than many clients are to ask them.

And I agree with Konstantin - you have a knack. You've picked up on the Language of Blazon a lot faster than many. If you enjoy that sort of thing you might consider becoming one of us.

It won't keep you from doing other things. You CAN dabble in heraldry; it doesn't HAVE to be an all-consuming passion like it is for some of us.

Really.

I promise.

Bentz · Post by **Bentz** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:55 am

Thanks for the encouragement, and for the tips on conflict checking.

I'll probably switch to PMs after this, as I imagine there aren't too many other folks waiting with baited breath for me to determine my device

But before I do, I wanted to share my alternate design (and alternate alternate) for any feedback.

Thinking about:

"Argent, two chevrons (or would they be called chevronels) sable, in chief two lions rampant gules" and "Gules, a fess ermine(d) between three lions rampant argent" (I'm guessing I wouldn't need to add the "two and one" for the arrangement of the lions, since it's implied?)

My goal is to create something simple that passes and that could ahve been found in period armorials. I've been browsing this site a lot lately for inspiration:

http://perso.numericable.fr/~briantimms ... 20arms.htm

Konstantin the Red · Post by **Konstantin the Red** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:20 am

"Two and one" is implied, yeah. SCA-style heraldry makes that assumption, so the modern-Brit-style usage there isn't bothered with. It's implied even more strongly with a chevron, or a per-chevron division. A whole pridelet of lioncels in some particular distinctive arrangement, say in a solid triangular shape such as a pile, or other triangle -- these might call for a series of numbers then. But too, a large enough number of lioncels would just be blazoned semÃ©. Seeded with lions, that is, like so many dragon's teeth.

Donal, should we now reveal that our secret plan (for World Domination, where everyone wears herald Or-and-vert on alternate Sundays, ehem

) is to get Bentz good enough with heraldry to become his small Shire's Herald Pursuivant?

Ermined with a final -D would be an ermine pattern of any colors other than the four named variants of ermine: Ermine, ermines*, erminois, and pean. Any good-contrast Rule of Tincture combo is good -- azure ermined Or, vert ermined argent, argent ermined purpure, etcetera.

You've noticed Or for "gold" gets -- rather redundantly -- capitalized, to avoid any confusion with "or" as a conjunction. It's redundant because blazon just about never should use that word anyway; blazon is to declare what something is, not a wobbler choice between two or more alternatives, even if something has two widely known names. So there's practically no cause for the conjunction ever to appear.

Three chevrons would definitely be chevronels. Two, I'm not sure off the top of my balding head.

*a/k/a counter-ermine

Effingham · Post by **Effingham** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:29 am

I like both designs.

I'd recommend the fess, though, as any design with chevron/els tends to make the charges in the top a bit smaller and harder to see unless very carefully done.

Bentz · Post by **Bentz** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:30 am

Konstantin the Red wrote:
Ermined with a final -D would be an ermine pattern of any colors other than the four named variants of ermine: Ermine, ermines, erminois, and pean. Any good-contrast Rule of Tincture combo is good -- azure ermined Or, vert ermined argent, argent ermined purpure, etcetera.

Gotcha. I was just thinking of plain ol' vanilla ermine then.