[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lines of Division - Double Enarched) |Next Page (Lines of Division - Indented)]
A "chief indented singly" is not, to the best of our knowledge, a period charge. Nor could we, in good conscience, reblazon this "Per chevron sable and erminois:" not only does it not seem to be the submitter's intent, the point is too high and shallow to be a real per-chevron division. This is being returned for redrawing. (Gryphon ap Bedwyr, August, 1992, pg. 22)
Purpure and sable are the darkest of heraldic colors, and there's insufficient contrast between them to permit idenitification of the embattled line. Rule VIII.3 requires all elements of the design --- including complex lines of division, if any --- to be identifiable. The Rule goes on to give examples of cases that wouldn't be identifiable: "For instance, a complex line of partition could be difficult to recognize between two parts of the field that do not have good contrast if most of the line is also covered by charges." Those examples are just that: examples, not an exhaustive list. It is quite possible for a complex line of partition to be unidentifiable, even if not covered by charges; that is the case here ...An objective test for identifiability can be found by researching period armory. There are some cases of divided fields using all-colors, with no separating ordinary; sable/gules, azure/gules, and vert/gules were far and away the most common combinations. There are many cases of divided fields (color/metal) with complex lines of partition; indented and wavy were the most common, though there are examples of nearly all our permitted lines. A cursory search found a handful of period cases with a divided field, using two colors and a complex line of partition: e.g. the arms of Hugh de Neville, c.1245, Quarterly indented gules and vert, a bend Or; and of West, c.1470, Quarterly indented azure and gules, a bend argent. I found neither an example of an embattled division of any two colors, nor any field party of sable and purpure. Admittedly, my search was brief, but I suspect a longer search would still yield no period examples. If Party embattled purpure and sable was not used in period, it would be for the same lack of identifiability as with this submission.
My best advice is simply: use a color combination found in a period example ...Beyond that, neither I nor the College can say which color combinations will have sufficient identifiability, until we see them; that, after all, is the ultimate test of identifiabilty. (Landric Dægmaer, August, 1992, pp. 25-26)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lines of Division - Double Enarched) |Top of Page |Next Page (Lines of Division - Indented)]
[Chaussé raguly] If we'd permit a pile raguly or Per chevron inverted raguly, we should permit this. (Thorfinn Bjarnarbródir, September, 1992, pg. 23)
[Per bend embattled gules and sable, an Egyptian sphinx rampant to sinister] The sphinx overlies the complex division between low-contrast colors, making it even harder to identify. This must be returned, per Rule VIII.3. (Edward of Yarborough, September, 1992, pg. 49)
[Per bend embowed counter-embowed sable and gules, a horse courant contourny] Per Rule VIII.3, a two-color field with a complex line of partition should not have the partition obscured by charges. The horse does obscure the line (unlike the [submitter's] device, which uses a skinny lightning flash), and is therefore not permitted. (Dark Horde, September, 1992, pg. 50)
[Per bend wavy gules and sable, three lozenges in bend sinister within a bordure argent] The nature of the motif mandates a center lozenge small enough to leave the line of division unobscured; therefore, this does not run afoul of Rule VIII.3. (Alisaundre of Greyhame, October, 1992, pg. 12)
Tongues of flame are not period, nor is embowing to base of complex lines [device returned for these reasons]. (Shire of Crystal Moor, October, 1992, pg. 31)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lines of Division - Double Enarched) |Top of Page |Next Page (Lines of Division - Indented)]
[A chief triangular embattled] With very rare exceptions (e.g. in combination with enarched lines), the use of two or more complex lines on the same charge is confusing, and unattested in period armory. (Wavy raguly? Embattled rayonny? I think not.) In this case, the chief could be either embattled or triangular --- but not both. (Johann Götz Kauffman von Erfurt, December, 1992, pg. 20)
Pending evidence one way or the other, we will assume that flaunches are as susceptible to complex lines of division as any other ordinary or subordinary. Papworth's citation of the arms of Daniell (Sable, two flaunches indented argent) is inconclusive: he doesn't date it from 1404, but rather cites it from Harleian MS number 1404. (Foster's Dictionary of Heraldry gives the same armory as Argent, a pile indented sable, affording much food for speculation...) (Brandwyn Alston of the Rift, January, 1993, pg. 5)
The flory counter-flory line is not correctly drawn here. While the treatment was applied to ordinaries in period (e.g. the double tressures of the arms of Scotland), I've found no period instances of its use as a complex field division. The closest analogies are the trefly counter-trefly division of von Hillinger and the per fess indented, points flory division of Woodmerton. Both of these models require the flory counter-flory line to be drawn with demi-fleurs, as shown here.
As drawn in this submission, the "complex line" is actually a group of charges, counterchanged across the field division, with half of them inverted. This is not readily blazonable, and doesn't fit the period pattern for complex lines of division. (The illustration from Fox-Davies' Complete Guide to Heraldry, from which the submitter's emblazon is taken, is cited in no dated armory.) (Miriam de Xaintrailles, January, 1993, pg. 24)
The chevron écimé [with a blunted top] does not appear to be a period charge. The single registration in the SCA of the term was in 1973 (Eiolf Eriksson); and that wasn't even a correct blazon for the device (which has been reblazoned elsewhere in this LoAR). The current submission would thus be the defining instance of the charge, and we need to see evidence of its use in period before allowing its registration. We will defer any discussion of its difference versus an ordinary chevron until its validity as a period charge has been demonstrated. (Vladimir Heraldsson, October, 1993, pg. 15)
[Table of Contents |Previous Page (Lines of Division - Double Enarched) |Top of Page |Next Page (Lines of Division - Indented)]