ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Round Table => Topic started by: Sir Brian on 2008-08-29, 14:35:45
-
I have been attempting to blazon my CoA...
(http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd251/Tah908/My%20Kit/Shield003.jpg)
and I have found some helpful sights for the right terminology but I'm not sure
if I'm putting it in the correct sequence...So any suggestions or verification would
be most appreciated!
This is what I've come up with so far:
Quarterly Vert and Sable counterchanged, a griffin segreant to sinister Or,
a rose to dexter Argent, a rose to sinister Argent, a griffin segreant Or.
-
i posted your question to some heralds on the AA. I'll post what they say for ya :)
-
Much obliged Sir Wolf! :)
-
I know the SCA uses "quarterly" a lot, but I'm not sure what's more historically correct. "Per Cross" is the one I've seen more frequently. I'm not sure what the name is for the counterchanged colors along the edges of the division. It's possible the SCA guys sometimes do it the way you have it for the quarterly and counterchanged.
The griffins and roses don't need to be spelled out individually, and you don't have to say "to dexter" on that one griffin either because that is assumed.
If I took a stab at it, I might try something like:
Per Cross Vert and Sable, a Griffin seargant to Sinister and a griffin seargant Or, Two Roses Argent, a Cross Counterchanged.
Probably still wrong though.
-
hmm, that appears to be much closer than my clumsy attempt!
But should the cross be mentioned twice?
Would it be more appropriate if it was like this:
Per Cross Vert and Sable Counterchanged, a Griffin segreant to Sinister and a griffin segreant Or, Two Roses Argent? :-\
(this stuff can make you dizzy real quick though!) ;)
-
i would say "hey! look at dat der greenish shield wit them funny squiggles on it"
-
Yeah, you can really go batty trying to figure this out. :)
I think technically the counterchanged cross is separate, since the "per cross" refers to the primary division only. Technically it's an overlaid counterchanged cross (as an ordinary) on top of that, and it's technically layered on after the other charges. There's also a "cross filet" diminutive that implies a thin-lined cross. Again, I could be wrong.
Here's a great primer that the SCA site has: http://heraldry.sca.org/primer/index.html (http://heraldry.sca.org/primer/index.html)
Their site actually does call the division Quarterly, though I always knew it as Per Cross before.
-
BTW, as a reference, here's how I blazoned my arms:
(http://ed.toton.org/chivalry/heraldry/ed-coa02_225px.gif)
"Per bend sinister argent and azure, a dragon couchant to sinister azure, a crux ansata argent, on a bend sinister sable a sword argent."
... and here's how the SCA heralds wanted to word it:
"Per Bend Sinister Argent and Azure, on a Bend Sinister Sable between a Dragon Couchant Contourny Azure and a Crux Ansata, a Sword Argent"
I don't think mine was technically wrong, but that's how they altered it.
-
:) i got several answers for ya here. but a lot of people 1 think the inner cross is too thin 2: the color on color touching issue wouldn't fly. but that just might be SCA rules or something I don't know, and 3 the charges are reversed or something. here's what they say: http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=85479&highlight=
Quarterly vert and sable, cotised & counter-changed, 1 and 4, a griffin rampant Or, 2 and 3 a rose slipped and leaved Argent
Quarterly, Vert and Sable, 1 and 4, a griffin rampant Or, 2 and 3, a rose slipped and leaved Argent, overall a cross quarterly Sable and Vert
Quarterly vert and sable, a cross counterchanged between in bend a griffin rampant contourny and a griffin rampant Or and in bend sinister two roses slipped and leaved Or.
Quarterly 1st: Vert, a gryphon rampant to sinister or; 2nd & 4th: Sable, a damask rose stalked and leaved argent; 3rd: Vert a gryphon rampant or; overall a cross counterchanged.
http://forums.armourarchive.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=85479&highlight=
-
I haven't gone and read the thread over there yet. But I'm assuming the numbering of the quadrants to be an SCA convention. I don't think that was done historically, since the order they're specified, as well as the colors, determines where they are in the overall design.
But I agree that defining a "cross" to cover the counterchanged portion would imply much thicker lines, so I think it's really more of the "cross filet" diminutive, which implies very thin lines. But I don't know if ordinaries and diminutives can be counterchanged internally like that, so there might be a completely different name for that component.
-
You might even try going through the SCA College of Heralds registry and see what they suggest.
BTW, they are both awesome in person! :D
-
Thanks! Glad you like them :)
Yes, that's a good idea. The SCA heralds have some very good knowledge of this stuff, but I think they do have a few internal conventions that aren't 100% historical.
In the example I gave with my arms above, they used the word "contourny"... I don't know for sure, but I'm under the impression that was really meant to indicate that the head is facing the other way, not the whole beast. The other heraldry tutorials I've looked at have always said "to sinister" if the beast faces to the viewer's right.
Haha, I was badly misspelling "segreant" earlier. :)
-
Oh, another thought-- I think the "stalked and leaved" wording was pretty good. I think "rose" usually means just the flower itself, so you may have to specify that it is indeed "stalked and leaved". I just don't think "to sinister" or "to dexter" applies in this case, unless you had it angled in some direction other than upright.
-
I have always used "sinister" and "dexter" myself Sir Edward. Being placed upright is usually referred to as being, say, a rose "proper" would it not? I agree on the SCA herald issue of being questionable in some regards, just thought it might be a good starting point. :)
-
Thank you Sir Wolf for posting the question on the AA board and relaying the responses. :)
I must say I was a little disappointed with some of them…I just can’t seem to get away from
those fastidious SCA specific interpretations. I had hoped you would’ve received more replies
from true students of heraldry and not just from those focused on the SCA acceptable standards.
But after considerable reflection I can at least be assured that my CoA would not be hijacked by
anyone in the SCA! - ;)
I had originally intended on and have called the cross a "quartered cross" but it isn’t a true
quartered cross because it obviously does not occupy ¼ of the shield as it is suppose to.
– I had to narrow the cross down a bit when after I found the stencils for my charges were a
bit bigger than I had room for. :(
I do prefer Sir Ed’s methodology I think. It at least sounds more historically accurate to mine
ignorant ears, not to mention deaf as Dragonlover can attest to! ;)
-
I have always used "sinister" and "dexter" myself Sir Edward. Being placed upright is usually referred to as being, say, a rose "proper" would it not? I agree on the SCA herald issue of being questionable in some regards, just thought it might be a good starting point. :)
Actually, "proper" refers primarily to the color (and also orientation if not specified), so a "rose proper" would be a rose flower (without stem), colored red. If you specify the stem and leaves, then those parts would be green. A "proper" charge is the only time you're allowed to violate the rules of tincture with a color on color. For instance, you could have a red field with a "tree proper" on it that would have green leaves and a brown trunk. That's my understanding anyway. I'm not sure how much of that came from the SCA though. :)