I personally like the per chevron version. It doesn’t crowd the tree as much.
and for the Blazon:
per chevron gules and argent, dexter a mullet of 6 Or, in base an apple tree eradicated Gules fructed of 3 apples one and two Or.
(it’s correct to specify "in base" when there’s no sinister charge, correct?)
Mekerios,
I would suggest, "Per chevron, the chief Gules in the canton a mullet of six points Or, the base Argent an apple tree eradicated Gules fructed of three apples, one and two, Or."
Joseph McMillan;101928 wrote:
Mekerios,
I would suggest, "Per chevron, the chief Gules in the canton a mullet of six points Or, the base Argent an apple tree eradicated Gules fructed of three apples, one and two, Or."
I’m not very good at blazons, but why not:
"Per chevron Gules and Argent in canton a mullet of six points Or in base an apple tree eradicated Gules fructed one and two Or."
Or perhaps:
"Per chevron Gules, in canton a mullet of six points Or, and Argent, an apple tree eradicated Gules fructed, one and two, Or."
Coming in late as well.
With the symbolism behind it, I like the dancetty version. But, I feel that whichever way you go—dancetty or chevron—you have a solid design.
I like the idea of describing the mullet as being “in canton”.
Given some examples from our Canadian friends (ref: 1, 2, 3), I might be inclined to blazon the field as “Per chevron enhanced”.
Thus giving: Per chevron enhanced Gules and Agent, an apple tree eradicated Gules fructed one and two Or, in the canton a mullet of six points Or.
One question – since these will be the arms for a woman, how would this “per chevron” partition look on a lozenge??
Thanks for the various approaches to the Blazoning.
Steven, the title is quite old.
These will likely be made in the name of her brother Hansl instead, as the only descendent on that side is his grandson. Hansl just passed, but approved a recent version (and his kids like it as well.)
We may also do it in their father’s name so my mother can use them, but not sure yet. He didn’t exactly deserve any honorifics.
But, on a lozenge.. better than the previous versions, actually:
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h161/blackgas/ScreenShot2014-04-25at74545PM.jpg?t=1398480495
Andemicael;101951 wrote:
We may also do it in their father’s name so my mother can use them, but not sure yet. He didn’t exactly deserve any honorifics.
http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h161/blackgas/ScreenShot2014-04-25at74545PM.jpg?t=1398480495
As someone with, er, salty ancestors I am thankful that the passing of time and mortality gentles all men….
My only suggestion is to move the per chevron division down just a bit on the lozenge, thus making the tree a bit smaller. I think it would look a little more balanced.
Artistic considerations aside (i.e. in this case, secondary) the version already approved by the deceased Hansel - whichever version that was! - IMO is much preferable simply because of that approval.
The primary goal of any new arms for a family is to signify and memorialize the shared descent of the family; and any of the variants discussed so far are quite adequate for that purpose, and all IMO are nice enough artistically.
My views of course, others may differ.